A federal judge is demanding to know why Lindsey Halligan still thinks she’s U.S. attorney.

U.S. District Judge David Novak of Richmond—who was appointed by Donald Trump in 2019—filed an order late Tuesday, giving Halligan seven days to explain why she is lying about overseeing the legal matters of the Eastern District of Virginia.

“For these reasons, the Court hereby DIRECTS Ms. Halligan to file, within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order, a pleading explaining the basis for Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding [U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan] Currie’s contrary ruling,” Novak wrote, referring to Currie’s November ruling that found that the Justice Department had violated the Constitution by appointing Halligan.

“She shall also set forth the reasons why this Court should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in this matter,” Novak continued. “Ms. Halligan shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement.”

Trump handpicked Halligan—a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience—to replace the last attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert. Siebert was forced out when he refused to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after he couldn’t find incriminating evidence against the pair.

Halligan was sworn into the powerful position in September. Ignoring protocol, the Trump loyalist moved full steam ahead on prosecutions under the banner of Trump’s approval for months, despite the fact that she was never confirmed by the Senate.

But Currie’s decision didn’t seem to matter one iota to Justice Department officials, who continued to sign Halligan’s name on criminal indictments even after she ruled that Halligan was unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney.

In his own order, Novak suggested that Halligan could face disciplinary consequences for blatantly ignoring the law.

Donald Trump just can’t seem to wrap his head around why Representative Henry Cuellar isn’t backing off his reelection bid after being pardoned by the president last month.

Writing on Truth Social Tuesday night, Trump unloaded two lengthy screeds targeting the Texas Democrat, whom he’d pardoned from charges of bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering.

The president gushed about Webb County Judge Tano Tijerina, his pick to win in November, before turning his attention to Cuellar’s “great act of disloyalty” of running again as a Democrat.

“The Democrats wanted to put him ‘away’ for the rest of his life and, likewise, the life of his wife,” Trump wrote. He claimed that if given the chance, he would save Cuellar from “Political Persecution” again, but said the Democrat was “not smart in what he did, not respected by his Party” and was “a person who truly deserves to be beaten badly in the upcoming Election.”

“Henry should not be allowed to serve in Congress again,” the president wrote.

In a second post, Trump revealed exactly why he’d pardoned Cuellar: The embattled Texas Democrat reminded the president of himself.

“Nobody knows Henry Cuellar better than Donald J. Trump,” the president wrote, noting: “He was a weak and incompetent version of me.” He explained that they were in agreement about bolstering border security and had both suffered “Political Weaponization” at the hands of the Democrats.

Trump included a letter from Cuellar’s two daughters Catherine and Christina, who speculated that their father’s disagreements with his party “may have contributed to how this case began.”

“I never assumed he would be running for Office again, and certainly not as a Democrat, who essentially destroyed his life even with the Pardon given,” Trump wrote, adding that “despite doing him by far the greatest favor of his life,” the president now had to challenge his bid for his seat.

The Wyoming state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to protect access to abortion—hilariously using a state law originally passed to undermine Obamacare.

The justices ruled 4-1 that two laws banning abortion, including the country’s first ban on abortion pills, violated the state Constitution—specifically an amendment ensuring that “each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”

That amendment was originally introduced in 2010 by Republican state Senator Leslie Nutting in order to resist adopting the Affordable Care Act. The bill was backed by Wyoming’s GOP-led legislature before being signed into law in 2011.

Attorneys for the state attempted to argue that abortion was not health care—and failed.

While the justices conceded that the amendment hadn’t been intended to apply to abortion, they determined that it was not their job to “add words” to the state Constitution.

It’s been five years since Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. To celebrate, the White House erected a new website Tuesday detailing the events of the day—though it has published a wildly inventive interpretation of the insurrection.

At the top of the black-and-white site: an enlarged portrait of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Below her are smaller, glitching images of several prominent Democrats that led the two impeachment proceedings against Trump during his first term, including Representative Jamie Raskin and Senator Adam Schiff.

The first paragraph on the page makes mention of the sweeping pardon Trump signed during the initial hours of his second term, exonerating some 1,600 January 6 defendants. Below that, a chronological history that would challenge even the most forgiving recollection of the day.

The first slide of the timeline, labelled “Call to Action,” claims that prior to the day, Trump invited “patriotic Americans to Washington, DC on January 6 for a peaceful and historic protest.” It also states that Trump’s call was met by “hundreds of thousands” of his supporters. First fact check: that was not the case. It’s estimated that approximately 53,000 people attended his speech at the Ellipse that day. (Trump has previously claimed that attendance at his “Stop the Steal” rally rivaled Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 march on Washington, which drew roughly 250,000 attendees.)

The White House’s retelling goes on to purport that, after Trump delivered his speech, the “massive crowd peacefully” marched toward the Capitol building. The site refers to their demeanor as “orderly and spirited,” emphasizing their devotion to the 45th president.

Not mentioned on the website: the repeated lies and violent rhetoric that Trump espoused to hype his supporters up while at the Ellipse, which included Trump encouraging the crowd to “fight like hell” or else they wouldn’t “have a country anymore.” Also not mentioned: when Trump promised to join the march but immediately ditched them instead, hopping into his SUV for a lift to the White House where he chose to watch the bedlam from afar. (Years after the riot, it would become clear that even Trump’s supporters believed the president had incited their violence.)

The website then claims that the violence began after Capitol Police “aggressively fired tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions into crowds of peaceful protesters.” But video evidence and extensive investigations into the proceedings of the day tell the story the other way around: shortly after 1:00 p.m., Trump’s supporters burst through the barriers around the Capitol, running toward the building as Congress voted to certify the election results. They were practically unimpeded by security forces.

Instead, the webpage suggests that Trump’s supporters breezed into the building, practically admitted by Capitol Police who “inexplicably removed barricades, opened Capitol doors, and even waved attendees inside the building,” all while insisting that some portions of the crowd were unfairly targeted by “violent force.”

Trump’s timeline ignores when Capitol Police discovered two bombs on the premises of the Capitol grounds, or when his supporters........

© New Republic