Proud Boys members call for Pam Bondi's resignation for seeking to dismiss their $100 million lawsuit
Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department are facing blowback over their effort to block a lawsuit from members of the far-right Proud Boys, who are seeking financial reimbursement for their criminal cases and imprisonment for offenses stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
The Proud Boys Jan. 6 rioters, who met in a social media "X spaces" gathering last month, are calling for Bondi's resignation, after the Justice Department filed a motion in federal court in Florida last week, asking a judge to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by Enrique Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Domenic Pezzola and other Proud Boys. All the men were imprisoned for their roles in the riot before President Trump pardoned them on the day he was inaugurated for his second term.
The Proud Boys' lawsuit seeks more than $100 million in damages and alleges the men suffered "A parade of horribles: egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal."
"Through the use of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, violations of attorney-client privilege, and placing spies to report on trial strategy, the government got its fondest wish of imprisoning the J6 Defendants," the lawsuit claims.
In a filing on Aug. 25, the Justice Department responded that the Jan. 6 defendants had not yet exhausted administrative remedies before they filed suit and also argued the U.S. enjoys sovereign immunity from such claims.
An attorney for Jan. 6 defendants sent a statement to CBS News, saying, "Motions to dismiss are a common reaction to a civil complaint, and we anticipated that the attorney the government assigned to the case would make such a motion. We are confident that the Court will see that the Federal government's outrageous treatment of my clients justifies allowing the suit to continue. "
In their publicly posted X spaces meeting video, Jan. 6 defendants and supporters blistered the Justice Department for opposing the Proud Boys' civil challenge.
Isaac Thomas, a pardoned Jan. 6 defendant from Michigan who participated in the meeting, said, "Unfortunately, Pam Bondi's DOJ seems to be advocating for the same things that the Biden regime was advocating for. A long time ago, I joined the call of Trump supporters saying that Pam Bondi needs to step down." Thomas said the Jan. 6 defendants "have been dumped out."
Mark McCloskey, an attorney who said he is seeking financial payments for Capitol riot defendants, said in the video he was "very disappointed" in the Justice Department's challenge to the Proud Boys lawsuit. He said if the Justice Department opposes other legal challenges seeking restitution or financial awards for Jan. 6 defendants, "It's going to make our lives very difficult."
He predicted more legal challenges would be coming, as some of the more than 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants pursue financial compensation, and he referenced "hundreds" of people who could be impacted.
The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment to the recent Jan. 6 defendants' online meeting.
The civil lawsuit filed by Proud Boys members also alleges malicious prosecution and violation of Fourth Amendment protections, claims that the Justice Department rebutted in its response to the suit.
In their Aug. 25 filing, the Justice Department argued the Proud Boys defendants failed to sufficiently demonstrate the case was "malicious" and that their constitutional rights had been violated. The 17-page filing from the department did not address whether the men had been rightfully or wrongfully convicted by a jury.
The Proud Boys also allege harsh conditions in jail in their lawsuit, and it referenced the language used in President Trump's pardon order for Capitol insurrection defendants, which said, "This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and is a process of national reconciliation."
An attorney who filed the suit did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CBS News.
A Justice Department attorney who filed the motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 defendants' lawsuit has been harshly criticized by name on social media. In one instance, the attorney was referred to as being one of the "swamp rats." News of the Justice Department court filing also triggered a wave of critical comments about the department in a weekend social media post by a media outlet aligned with Trump supporter Mike Lindell, who made baseless claims about the 2020 election.
Graham says he would support third Trump term in 2028 Alexander Bolton Wed, September 24, 2025 at 8:07 AM EDT
Graham says he would support third Trump term in 2028
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he would like to see President Trump run for a third term in 2028, even though the 22nd Amendment limits a president to serving two terms.
“Trump 2028. I hope this never ends,” Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity late Tuesday.
Graham made the comment in response to Hannity’s questions about Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine and recent Russian incursions into the airspace of NATO allies, including Estonia and Poland.
The South Carolina senator said Trump doesn’t want to provoke a war with Moscow but is doing everything he can to deter Russian aggression in Europe.
“He tried to go out of his way to get Putin to the table. We don’t want to humiliate Russia, we just want to end the war, and to our friends in Russia, here’s what Trump did today. He told NATO, ‘I’ll sell you all the weapons you want to, you can provide them to Ukraine, and as to Ukraine, you can use them anyway you want,’” Graham said.
Trump earlier this year did not rule out running for a third term, telling NBC News: “A lot of people want me to do it.”
“But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration,” he said.
When asked if he would want to serve a third term, Trump said, “I like working.”
Graham says he would support third Trump term in 2028 Alexander Bolton Wed, September 24, 2025 at 8:07 AM EDT
Graham says he would support third Trump term in 2028
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he would like to see President Trump run for a third term in 2028, even though the 22nd Amendment limits a president to serving two terms.
“Trump 2028. I hope this never ends,” Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity late Tuesday.
Graham made the comment in response to Hannity’s questions about Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine and recent Russian incursions into the airspace of NATO allies, including Estonia and Poland.
The South Carolina senator said Trump doesn’t want to provoke a war with Moscow but is doing everything he can to deter Russian aggression in Europe.
“He tried to go out of his way to get Putin to the table. We don’t want to humiliate Russia, we just want to end the war, and to our friends in Russia, here’s what Trump did today. He told NATO, ‘I’ll sell you all the weapons you want to, you can provide them to Ukraine, and as to Ukraine, you can use them anyway you want,’” Graham said.
Trump earlier this year did not rule out running for a third term, telling NBC News: “A lot of people want me to do it.”
“But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration,” he said.
When asked if he would want to serve a third term, Trump said, “I like working.”
I know you don't like facts and history getting in the way of things, but here goes...
1. The 22nd amendment was passed AFTER FDR's death. The 2-term thing was an informal precedent set by Washington, but there were no laws in place to prevent it (several had tried but weren't as popular as FDR).
2. There was a World War going on that was preceded by the Great Depression. It's easy to see the argument for established leadership during a time like that.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Graham says he would support third Trump term in 2028 Alexander Bolton Wed, September 24, 2025 at 8:07 AM EDT
Graham says he would support third Trump term in 2028
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he would like to see President Trump run for a third term in 2028, even though the 22nd Amendment limits a president to serving two terms.
“Trump 2028. I hope this never ends,” Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity late Tuesday.
Graham made the comment in response to Hannity’s questions about Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine and recent Russian incursions into the airspace of NATO allies, including Estonia and Poland.
The South Carolina senator said Trump doesn’t want to provoke a war with Moscow but is doing everything he can to deter Russian aggression in Europe.
“He tried to go out of his way to get Putin to the table. We don’t want to humiliate Russia, we just want to end the war, and to our friends in Russia, here’s what Trump did today. He told NATO, ‘I’ll sell you all the weapons you want to, you can provide them to Ukraine, and as to Ukraine, you can use them anyway you want,’” Graham said.
Trump earlier this year did not rule out running for a third term, telling NBC News: “A lot of people want me to do it.”
“But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration,” he said.
When asked if he would want to serve a third term, Trump said, “I like working.”
I wasn't alive when the Dems did that to everyone with FDR but I would be aligned.
Exactly what did Dems do? I mean, there wasn't a law or rule against electing FDR to 4 terms. so what it came down to is, the american people loved FDR and wanted him to stay in office.
Today we have a law/rule/amendment against that and to prevent that from happening again.
So tell me again what did Dems do and exactly what would you be aligned with?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I know you don't like facts and history getting in the way of things, but here goes...
1. The 22nd amendment was passed AFTER FDR's death. The 2-term thing was an informal precedent set by Washington, but there were no laws in place to prevent it (several had tried but weren't as popular as FDR).
2. There was a World War going on that was preceded by the Great Depression. It's easy to see the argument for established leadership during a time like that.
Exactly.
I like President Trump but talk about him running is moot. I think most of that talk is on agitate a Dem day.
If it actually stated to gain traction, I would actively be against it. Not because it was President Trump. It would simply be that I don't ever want to see any President gain 3 terms.
The only exception would be is if a VP took office mid term because the President died or whatever. Then the former VP should be allowed to run for their 2 elected terms, as is currently the case.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I think most of that talk is on agitate a Dem day.
This got me to chuckle. To your point, if we're going to get riled up about this I think it'd be more about what a stooge Graham is vs anything else.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Even Graham knows it won't happen. He was asked about it and said he would be for it...kind of goes back to agitate a Dem.
If the question was "would he vote to change the law of the land" I think his answer would be much different...it might not be a no, but more in the lines of word salad with nothing being said to avoid being on record of saying yes.
As you know, politicians are pretty good at doing that.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Even Graham knows it won't happen. He was asked about it and said he would be for it...kind of goes back to agitate a Dem.
If the question was "would he vote to change the law of the land" I think his answer would be much different...it might not be a no, but more in the lines of word salad with nothing being said to avoid being on record of saying yes.
As you know, politicians are pretty good at doing that.
I agree with your 'agitate a dem' point. I just think the rest is giving Graham more benefit of the doubt than he's earned.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Yet congress is investigating every democrat trump considers a political enemy and he is calling for them to be prosecuted. Yet nobody seems to know what crimes it is they committed to be charged for. That goes quite a bit further than agitate a Dem.
At some point people who think the way you do need to look around and realize the depth of what's happening.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
A SurveyUSA poll of 2,491 registered voters found that 21 percent of all respondents said Trump was eligible for a third term in the White House, while 49 percent of MAGA-identifying Republicans said the same.
Just looking at this board you have someone so twisted and f'd up they have declard they are also behind Trump running for a 3rd term ... I think dismissing this might be premature.
Last edited by mgh888; 09/25/2511:13 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Trump demands investigation into escalator 'triple sabotage' despite U.N. explanation
The United Nations said it has launched a probe into Trump's concerns, though it had already made clear that the escalator was likely halted by a White House staffer.
The escalator escalation keeps escalating.
President Donald Trump has demanded an investigation into what he called a “triple sabotage” at the United Nations General Assembly, including his allegation that an escalator was deliberately halted while he and first lady Melania Trump were riding it.
The U.N. says the escalator was likely stopped when a White House videographer accidentally triggered a safety mechanism. Nonetheless, Secretary-General António Guterres' office said late Wednesday that it had ordered a "thorough investigation" into the three incidents mentioned by Trump, and was "ready to cooperate in full transparency" to find out what caused them.
That came after Trump posted a 358-word complaint on Truth Social detailing “three very sinister events.”
Aside from the escalator issue, he saw malice in faults with his teleprompter and audio during his speech to the assembly, in which he had initially made light of the issues and told Western nations “your countries are going to hell” over immigration.
“This wasn’t a coincidence, this was triple sabotage at the UN,” Trump wrote. “They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I’m sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary General, and I demand an immediate investigation.”
In what has become a fraught back-and-forth between the White House and the General Assembly, U.N. spokesman Stéphane Dujarric detailed the sequence of events that caused the escalator to halt.
"A readout of the machine's central processing unit indicated that the escalator had stopped after a built-in safety mechanism" was "triggered at the top of the escalator," likely by the White House videographer who had boarded before the president and first lady, Dujarric said. That safety mechanism "is designed to prevent people or objects accidentally being caught and stuck in or pulled into the gearing," he said.
That did not appear to satisfy Trump, who described the escalator as coming to a “screeching halt.”
“It stopped on a dime. It’s amazing that Melania and I didn’t fall forward onto the sharp edges of these steel steps, face first,” he wrote. “It was only that we were each holding the handrail tightly or, it would have been a disaster.”
He referenced reporting in Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper that had said that U.N. staff had been overheard joking about turning off the building’s escalators and elevators to highlight a funding shortfall caused by White House cuts. This reporting has not been confirmed by NBC News.
“This was absolutely sabotage,” Trump said, adding that the Secret Service were now involved. “The people that did it should be arrested!”
The is just the latest show of hostility by Trump and his supporters toward the U.N. and other such global bodies.
During his speech Tuesday, he accused the U.N. of leading a “globalist migration agenda” and “funding an assault on Western countries and their borders,” adding that “the U.N. is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and finance them.”
I know you don't like facts and history getting in the way of things, but here goes...
1. The 22nd amendment was passed AFTER FDR's death. The 2-term thing was an informal precedent set by Washington, but there were no laws in place to prevent it (several had tried but weren't as popular as FDR).
2. There was a World War going on that was preceded by the Great Depression. It's easy to see the argument for established leadership during a time like that.
Exactly.
I like President Trump but talk about him running is moot. I think most of that talk is on agitate a Dem day.
If it actually stated to gain traction, I would actively be against it. Not because it was President Trump. It would simply be that I don't ever want to see any President gain 3 terms.
The only exception would be is if a VP took office mid term because the President died or whatever. Then the former VP should be allowed to run for their 2 elected terms, as is currently the case.
I appreciate your sentiment and agree Dem or Rep => no more than 2 elected terms
As for if the VP takes over, that has been clearly delineated. If he takes over before the mid point, then that counts as one term and he can only be elected one more time If he takes over after the mid point then he can be elected to 2 additional terms
So definitely the 25th amendment will never be invoked until 2 years and one day into a president's term That applies to trump now As well as biden and trump's 1st And for future presidents
Caveat, the 25th actually gets invoked all the time on a temporary basis If the president ever needs surgery or a colonoscopy or something where he gets sedated I am referring just to the permanent removal of a president based on the 25th
The difference between Jesus and religion Religion mocks you for having dirty feet Jesus gets down on his knees and washes them
Let the orange dick-tater try to run again. He’s lost his extra votes…. No latino, no black, and few independents would vote for him. He would have no chance without cheating…. Again.
Even Graham knows it won't happen. He was asked about it and said he would be for it...kind of goes back to agitate a Dem.
If the question was "would he vote to change the law of the land" I think his answer would be much different...it might not be a no, but more in the lines of word salad with nothing being said to avoid being on record of saying yes.
As you know, politicians are pretty good at doing that.
First, if he and MAGA are doing that to agitate Dems, then it's a waste of time and energy. It's childish and petty.
Secondly, I don't think he's kidding. I believe he wants a third term.. I believe he'll do anything Stephen Miller tells him to do to get that next term.
I'm happy you would be against it, but like a lot of things that trump does, when he talks about it, you fluff it off as not likely, then he commits and you fall in line.
I'm not at all sure what Trump has on all these Republicans... I mean Old School Republicans. But whatever it is, it's ugly.
But if Trump tries it, Maybe Obama should run again. You wanna talk about ruffling feathers,,, YIKES
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
According to the way some people post about random idiots and claiming they represent 'The Left' or 'The Libs' or all of 'The Dems' .... it must mean they think this ICE agent represents all of the ICE agents. And this happened in a Courthouse, imagine what they are doing out there in the back streets and alleys.
ICE officer disciplined after shoving woman to ground in courthouse
The Department of Homeland Security has placed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer on leave after he was filmed shoving a woman to the ground at a New York immigration court.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
According to the way some people post about random idiots and claiming they represent 'The Left' or 'The Libs' or all of 'The Dems' .... it must mean they think this ICE agent represents all of the ICE agents. And this happened in a Courthouse, imagine what they are doing out there in the back streets and alleys.
ICE officer disciplined after shoving woman to ground in courthouse
The Department of Homeland Security has placed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer on leave after he was filmed shoving a woman to the ground at a New York immigration court.
That's one, how many ICE agents are there and how many have been involved in an incident?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Has this ICE officer been identified? If not, why not? He needs to be fired. That’s a firing offense IMO.
Dont touch law enforcement
What nonsense.
Yes - don't touch law enforcement. Listen to them when they tell you to do somethig. 100%.
But where and when does a proportional response matter? There was nothing about the ICE officer's response that was controlled or proportional. Absolutely nothing. The guy is clearly not fit to be in the role he is. Period.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Has this ICE officer been identified? If not, why not? He needs to be fired. That’s a firing offense IMO.
Dont touch law enforcement
What nonsense.
Yes - don't touch law enforcement. Listen to them when they tell you to do somethig. 100%.
But where and when does a proportional response matter? There was nothing about the ICE officer's response that was controlled or proportional. Absolutely nothing. The guy is clearly not fit to be in the role he is. Period.
The officer has a right to defend himself when he is touched.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
Trump posted about a medical conspiracy theory called 'medbeds.' Here's what's going on.
On Sept. 27, President Donald Trump shared an apparently AI-generated video of himself promoting a cure-all "medbed" – a medical conspiracy theory.
The video, which has since been deleted from his Truth Social account, resembled a Fox News segment on the show hosted by the president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, but it never aired on the network.
“Every American will soon receive their own medbed card,” said the AI rendering of Trump.
But much like the mock news report, “medbeds” don’t actually exist.
The “medbed” conspiracy has roots in the QAnon movement and falsely claims that cure-all medical beds exist and are being kept from the public.
This moment is a reminder that medical misinformation can run rampant on social media, and it's important to be watchful for AI-generated content − even when posts come from prominent public figures or seemingly verified sources. It's true that recent innovations in health technology have prompted wellness and longevity movements, but “medbeds” are not one of these new treatments.
According to a 2024 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, most Americans encounter false health information online, and many are unsure whether it is accurate.
People should learn to recognize the difference between accidental misinformation and intentional disinformation, experts explained. Medical misinformation shared online has real-life consequences
Nearly 70% of doctors polled said they think patient trust declined from 2020 to 2022, but only 21% of Americans said the same, according to a 2023 poll.
"Misinformation isn't a point of view, it does actual harm," Brian Castrucci, president of the de Beaumont Foundation, the public health philanthropy that commissioned the poll, previously told USA TODAY. "It's hurting physicians. It's hurting medical practice. And it's hurting the American public."
For example, during the height of the pandemic, some people with autoimmune disease couldn't get their prescription hydroxychloroquine because so many others were misled to believe it could help fight COVID-19, Castrucci said.
While the poll focused on COVID, Castrucci said it goes well beyond the pandemic.
Most doctors and the public get their information online, but they look for somewhat different sources. The vast majority of doctors said they trust medical or scientific journals, internet searches and colleagues, while other adults mainly put their faith in internet searches. These general internet searches can pull up an array of posts and websites, not just trusted, verified sources.
Castrucci has type 2 diabetes and said he often sees ads on social media for "Diabetes Cures!" even though there aren't any.
Social media has made it easier to spread medical misinformation "not from town to town but to millions with one click," he said. Doctors left her in the dark. Online, other women stepped in.
By promoting fear or false hope, misinformation causes mental and physical fatigue, said David Novillo Ortiz, unit head on data digital health literacy for the World Health Organization.
It has a direct impact on trust in government, government response and public health messaging, which then disempowers people and risks their health, he previously told USA TODAY.
Disinformation is also a lie against which people can fight back, philosopher and author Lee McIntyre argued.
"I want people to train themselves," McIntyre suggested, to ask where the information in question is coming from, what's at stake, who's behind it and what benefit does it serve to get that information out to the public?
If several typically reliable sources agree, such as the CDC, along with experts or websites from well-known hospitals and universities, the information is more likely to be accurate, Dr. Richard Baron, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine, told USA TODAY.
"When you start to see information converging from reliable sources, that is trustworthy information," he added.
And while social media can provide insight into your own health, Dr. Franziska Haydanek, an OBGYN and online health educator, advises that new information should be discussed with your own doctor: “You might say, ‘Hey, I learned about this condition.’ I feel it might apply to me. Can we talk about if I meet the diagnosis criteria?’"
"Much lesser things... Things that take place in the home they call crime," he continued. "You know they'll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife they say 'This was a crime. See?' So now I can't claim 100% but uh... We are a safe city." - Donald Trump.
MDVGA - Make domestic Violence Great Again!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
