The chief prosecutor of Fairfax County is letting some killers escape a conviction by accepting insanity pleas that would almost certainly be rejected by a jury. The insanity defense is used in less than 1% of criminal cases and is successful only about 25% of the time, making it a rare and difficult defense to employ. Defendants typically have to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they were unable to distinguish right from wrong due to severe mental disease or defect at the time of the crime. Merely having a mental disorder is not enough to establish an insanity defense. It is the defendant who has the burden of proving insanity.

But Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano (D) has let 11 killers avoid conviction by accepting their plea of “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” That’s about a fifth of the killers recently arrested in Fairfax County. So killers are 100 times more likely to avoid a conviction by claiming to be insane in Fairfax County than they would be in the rest of America. Even though there is no reason to think insanity is more common in Fairfax County than in the rest of the country, much less 100 times more common.

As Mary Katharine Hamm notes, “A man murdered Gret Glyer execution style, shot him” ten times “as he slept next to his wife.” The killing was premeditated, and the killer “even wrote it down in ‘The Plan.’” Yet Descano’s office has now accepted “a flimsy insanity plea” to send the killer to a “mental health facility, where he will be evaluated and eligible for release soon and over and over, each time potentially free and dangerous again.”

“Joshua Danehower, who was charged with murder and use of a firearm in commission of a murder, was able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity,” reported Channel 9 on February 19:

A Fairfax County judge on Thursday accepted a plea agreement finding a man not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2022 shooting death of a charitable organization CEO, a decision that sparked immediate outrage from the victim’s family.

Joshua Danehower, 37, who was charged with the murder of Gret Glyer, will move from a jail cell to a mental health facility rather than facing a criminal trial or prison time. The ruling followed a plea agreement reached between defense attorneys and prosecutors….Danehower told Judge Stephen Shannon he “didn’t possess the right mindset” due to his mental health when Glyer was killed in bed. Glyer…was shot 10 times while he slept in bed next to his wife on June 24, 2022…

“Justice is not served today,” Silvia Glyer, the victim’s mother, said…”An evil man took his life in the middle of the night….Somebody who planned step by step a murder.”…

Danehower reportedly became obsessed with Glyer’s wife after seeing her at a church function. Family members noted the two had gone on a date a decade earlier….The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office said that Danehower had authored a murder plot titled “The Plan” before carrying out the shooting….This premeditation was a focal point for the Glyer family, who argued the Commonwealth’s Attorney failed to pursue a conviction despite the evidence….Danehower will be committed to a psychiatric hospital. His status will be evaluated annually for the next five years, and every two years thereafter. Each evaluation presents a legal opportunity for his release….

Ten other killers also escaped being convicted after Steve Descano’s office accepted their pleas of “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity”. Less than “50 cases for 1st & 2nd degree murder have been disposed in the last 3 years” by Descano’s office. So Descano is letting a significant proportion of Fairfax’s killers escape conviction by raising insanity defenses.
 
Killers can kill again after their insanity plea is accepted. Peter Bryan, a cannibalistic killer who had been treated in a psychiatric facility, killed again after being released. DC resident Javed Bhutto was killed in 2019 by a neighbor who had previously been declared not guilty by reason of insanity in a 1998 murder case. Mark Peterson was committed to a Connecticut psychiatric facility after a 1980s killing. After being released on a day pass in 1989, he stabbed 9-year-old Jessica Short over 34 times, killing her.

Descano, a progressive Democrat, was elected Fairfax County’s Commonwealth’s Attorney after spending nearly a million dollars to unseat a moderate Democrat in a very close primary election. “The lion’s share ($601,369)” of Descano’s campaign funds “came from the Justice and Public Safety PAC, whose sole donor was George Soros, the liberal billionaire who finances progressive causes,” noted Jason Johnson in The Fairfax Times.

Fairfax County is Virginia’s most populous County, with over a million people. Democrats hold 9 of 10 seats on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

By Harold Hutchison

U.S. Secret Service agents shot and killed an unidentified man attempting to force his way into President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida early Sunday morning.

The two agents and a deputy from the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office confronted the individual, who was in his early 20s, armed with a shotgun, and carrying a gas can, according to a press conference held by federal and local law enforcement officials following a statement from the U.S. Secret Service.

An armed man was shot & killed by U.S. Secret Service agents & @PBCountySheriff after unlawfully entering the secure perimeter at Mar-a-Lago early this morning. A press briefing with additional details will be held at 9:00 a.m with @FBI and Palm Beach County. pic.twitter.com/jAXhdb1xEL

— Anthony Guglielmi (@AJGuglielmi) February 22, 2026

“An armed man was shot & killed by U.S. Secret Service agents & @PBCountySheriff after unlawfully entering the secure perimeter at Mar-a-Lago early this morning. A press briefing with additional details will be held at 9:00 a.m with @FBI and Palm Beach County,” Secret Service Chief of Communications Anthony Gugliemi wrote.

“At 1:30 this morning the security detail detected an individual had made his way into the inner perimeter of Mar-a-Lago. A deputy and two Secret Service agents on the detail went to that area to investigate,” Palm Beach County Sheriff Rick Bradshaw told reporters at the Sunday morning press conference. “They confronted a white male that was carrying a gas can and a shotgun. He was ordered to drop those two pieces of equipment that he had with him and, at which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position, and at that point in time the deputy and the two Secret Service agents fired their weapons and neutralized the threat. He is deceased at the scene.”

Trump was not at the Florida residence at the time. He and first lady Melania Trump hosted the nation’s governors at the White House for a dinner event Saturday night.

Trump survived two assassination attempts during the 2024 campaign. A Sept. 15, 2024 assassination attempt by Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, was thwarted by Secret Service agents at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

During a July 13, 2024 campaign rally in Butler County, Penn., Trump was wounded when a bullet fired by Thomas Crooks grazed his ear.

By Katelynn Richardson

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not allow President Donald Trump to impose tariffs.

The phrase “regulate importation” in IEEPA does not include the power to tariff, the 6-3 majority held, finding Congress would have included an explicit authorization in the statute if it “intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs.”

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Trump cited the fentanyl crisis for a first set of tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico in February. He pointed to a growing trade deficit for his second set of “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, which imposed a baseline 10% tariff on imports, with increasing rates depending on the country.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, finding “tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”

“Properly read, IEEPA does not draw such an odd distinction between quotas and embargoes on the one hand and tariffs on the other,” Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent. “Rather, it empowers the President to regulate imports during national emergencies with the tools Presidents have traditionally and commonly used, including quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.”

Kavanaugh noted the majority’s ruling is likely to spark “serious practical consequences in the near term.”

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”

BREAKING: The Supreme Court holds that the president cannot impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. pic.twitter.com/sevstUO4m2

— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) February 20, 2026

While agreeing Trump’s tariffs are illegal under IEEPA, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not join part of Robert’s opinion invoking the “major questions doctrine,” concluding “the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation amply support today’s result.”

“The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone, and the major questions doctrine safeguards that assignment against executive encroachment,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “Under the doctrine’s terms, the President must identify clear statutory authority for the extraordinary delegated power he claims.”

The justices heard oral arguments in November. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court decision blocking Trump’s tariffs.

By Hudson Crozier

The transgender gunman who killed his ex-wife and son at a Rhode Island hockey game on Monday left behind social media posts warning that gender-confused people like him could one day go “berserk.”

Police identified Robert Dorgan, who they say went by “Roberta,” as the man who opened fire at the Pawtucket high school game before killing himself, according to multiple reports. Dorgan’s online posts as “Roberta Dorgano” reveal his apparent interests in racist ideology, pornography and grievances about society’s treatment of transgender people, the Daily Caller News Foundation found.

Dorgan’s household endured multiple disputes over his self-declared gender, including his ex-wife’s 2021 divorce, which she described as being for “gender reassignment surgery, narcissistic + personality disorder traits,” WPRI reported. (RELATED: Catholic School Shooting Suspect Reportedly Identified, Manifestos Found)

“Keep bashing us,” Dorgan wrote on X a day before the shooting, responding to someone who called transgender Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware a man. “but do not wonder why we Go BERSERK.”

Police reportedly said Dorgan’s gunfire injured three others besides the deceased.

Dorgan expressed support for anti-Semitic provocateur Nick Fuentes in the months leading up to the shooting, even calling him “super hot.” He also commented “WP,” a slogan typically meaning “white power,” in response to a video of people making Nazi salutes.

However, Dorgan insisted that transgender people believed in protecting children in an August 2025 post responding to news of a transgender mass shooter at a Minnesota church.

“some trans [people] would defend kids with their last breath,” he wrote.

Robert Dorgan claims some transgender people would protect children “with their last breath” in response to news of another transgender mass shooter in an Aug. 29, 2025, X post. (Screenshot/Daily Caller News Foundation)

By Derek Vanbuskirk

While hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage accumulated in its pipes, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority was focused on diversity, equity and other left-wing priorities — setting the stage for what may be the largest sewage spill in American history.

DC Water CEO David L. Gadis has championed equity and diversity throughout his tenure. He was also named in a lawsuit against his former employer for allegedly withholding information about water contamination in Flint, Michigan. (RELATED: Editor Daily Rundown: Trump Deploys FEMA To Help Clean Up Poop-Filled River)

Before joining DC Water in 2018, Gadis served as executive vice president of Veolia North America and CEO of Veolia Water Indianapolis — the utility’s first black CEO and the first black executive to lead a major Indianapolis utility, according to his bio. It touts his partnership with municipal leaders and his leadership on diversity initiatives.

That reputation faced scrutiny in 2018. An amended class action lawsuit cited a Veolia statement in which Gadis promised the company would deploy its “technical expertise” to “ensure water quality for the people of the city of Flint,” touting experience with challenging water sources and contaminant management. The suit claims residents had “every reason to rely” on Veolia’s subsequent assurances of safety.

Veolia told the public that Flint’s discolored drinking water resulted from an old unlined cast iron pipe — when it actually contained dangerous levels of lead, the city’s former mayor testified in 2022, according to MLive Media Group.

Emails later revealed Veolia officials knew problems extended beyond discoloration and foul odors, noting that “lead seems to be a problem.” Those emails were exchanged a day before a private meeting where lead went unmentioned, MLive reported. Gadis was copied on emails discussing potential lead issues before attending a public meeting where Veolia officials repeatedly assured residents the water was safe.

“We had greenish and brownish water. It smelled weird. It was giving people rashes and they were losing hair. Patients were asking, ‘Was it OK to use this tap water to mix their babies’ formula?’” Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, an associate dean for public health at Michigan State University, told NPR, which reported in 2024 that many Flint residents still lack clean water a decade later.

By February 2025, Veolia had contributed $79.3 million to settlements with Michigan and roughly 26,000 individual claimants. The company maintains it “stands behind its good work in Flint,” noting that a months-long 2022 trial ended in a mistrial with no adverse finding. Gadis joined DC Water before the settlement was reached.

Before Gadis arrived, DC Water was considered a global role model, commanding one of the highest reputations in the water sector, according to World’s Leaders. Gadis sought to take the authority to “the next level” by prioritizing equity for employees, customers, communities, and contractors — an effort CIO Views recognized when it named him one of the 10 Most Influential Black Corporate Leaders of 2022. (RELATED: Goldman Sachs Reportedly Plans To Axe DEI Criteria For Board Members)

Part of that effort, ironically, includes “Lead-Free DC,” which Gadis says incorporates “community equity considerations” into its “project prioritization process.”

“I want to win for our community by extending water equity to every customer, including the eradication of lead pipes within the district,” Gadis told CIO Views.

The hydrolysis wastewater treatment center is seen at DC Water’s Blue Plains plant in Washington, DC, on November 23, 2015. (Photo credit NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

Under Gadis, DC Water also pursued “Fair Share Objectives” to boost participation from disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned business enterprises — an effort originally driven by EPA threats to pull federal funding from authorities that failed to show “good faith” compliance.

To reinforce those goals, DC Water created the Business Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Council and established bidding preferences for disadvantaged and women-owned contractors on projects over $1 million. Under its 2020 amended Business Development Plan, such contractors cannot be penalized for falling short of project goals if they demonstrate “good faith” effort.

In fiscal year 2024, disadvantaged and women-owned enterprises received 38.65% of total awards — roughly $520 million of nearly $1.33 billion, according to January 2025 board minutes.

The EPA suspended its Fair Share objectives in April following Trump administration pressure. Though no longer enforced, DC Water’s website still lists three-year goals of awarding 32% of construction contracts and 28% of architectural and engineering services to minority enterprises, with additional carve-outs for women-owned firms.

DC Water did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request to confirm whether it still pursues those goals or how many preferred contractors failed to meet project benchmarks.

CABIN JOHN, MARYLAND – FEBRUARY 16: Pumps and pipes divert raw sewage into the C&O Canal and around a broken section of the Potomac Interceptor, a six-foot-wide pipe that collapsed on January 19, in between the Clara Barton Parkway and the canal on February 16, 2026 in Cabin John, Maryland. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Gadis’s tenure is now defined not by successful equity programs, but the historic spillage of millions of gallons of sewage into the Potomac River.

President Donald Trump called the contamination “a massive ecological disaster” on Monday, blaming “the gross mismanagement of local Democrat leaders” and directing federal authorities to intervene.

“I cannot allow incompetent Local ‘Leadership’ to turn the River in the Heart of Washington into a Disaster Zone,” Trump said. “As we saw in the Palisades, the Democrat War on Merit has real consequences.”

The spill began nearly a month ago, with 300 million gallons of bacteria-laden sewage entering the river. Echoing the Flint ordeal, DC Water admitted on Feb. 9 that it made a critical error in reporting E. coli levels — minimizing contamination by more than 100 times, the Caller reported.

DC Water has not responded to the Caller’s request for comment on Gadis’s past or his handling of the spill.

About a third of all lawyers are so bad they are no better than what artificial intelligence can provide, in terms of legal advice. But one benefit of talking to even a mediocre lawyer is that you can use attorney-client privilege to conceal your conversations with your lawyer, and thus hide your guilt if you are guilty, or hide the weaknesses in your case if you are suing or being sued.

You can’t do that if you are seeking advice from an artificially intelligent robot or web site, because attorney-client privilege only applies to communications with humans, not robots, who cannot be members of the bar. If you say things to a robot or AI website that reveal your guilt, or weaknesses in your case, your opponent in a court case can force you to reveal what you said, by getting a warrant, or sending you a subpoena demanding your communications. So you can’t be candid when you seek legal advice from artificial intelligence.

That was illustrated by a judge’s ruling today, saying that attorney-client privilege doesn’t cover what is said when you seek legal advice from artificial intelligence — and neither does the attorney work-product protection.

Here is an excerpt from U.S. v. Heppner, issued by federal judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan:

At a pretrial conference in this matter held on February 10, 2026, the Court … granted from the bench the Government’s motion for a ruling that certain written exchanges that defendant Benjamin Heppner had with a generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) platform were not protected from Government inspection by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. This Memorandum sets forth the reasons for the Court’s ruling….

[T]he indictment charges that Heppner defrauded [GWG Holdings’] investors out of more than $150 million by making false representations about, and causing GWG to enter into undisclosed self-serving transactions concerning, two privately held companies that Heppner controlled, Beneficient Company Group, L.P. and Highland Consolidated L.P.

In connection with Heppner’s arrest on November 4, 2025, agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at Heppner’s home and seized numerous documents and electronic devices. Heppner’s counsel later represented to the Government that among the seized materials were approximately thirty-one documents that memorialize communications that Heppner had with the generative AI platform “Claude,” which is operated by the private company Anthropic.

According to Heppner’s counsel, the documents represent communications between Heppner and Claude that took place “in 2025, after Mr. Heppner had received a grand jury subpoena [and] after it was clear with discussions with the government that Mr. Heppner was the target of this investigation.” Without any suggestion from counsel that he do so, Heppner “prepared reports that outlined defense strategy, that outlined what he might argue with respect to the facts and the law that we anticipated that the government might be charging.” Thus, counsel asserted, Heppner “was preparing these reports in anticipation of a potential indictment.”

In exchanges with the Government, Heppner, through his counsel, asserted privilege over these documents (the “AI Documents”), arguing that (1) Heppner had inputted into Claude, among other things, information that Heppner had learned from counsel; (2) Heppner had created the AI Documents for the purpose of speaking with counsel to obtain legal advice; and (3) Heppner had subsequently shared the contents of the AI Documents with counsel. Heppner’s counsel conceded, however, that counsel “did not direct [Heppner] to run Claude searches.” …

It is well established that the attorney-client privilege attaches to, and protects from disclosure, “communications (1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.” Courts construe the attorney-client privilege narrowly because it operates as an exception to the rule that “all relevant proof is essential” for a complete record and for “confidence in the fair administration of justice.”

Applying these principles here, the AI Documents lack at least two, if not all three, elements of the attorney-client privilege. First, the AI Documents are not communications between Heppner and his counsel. Heppner does not, and indeed could not, maintain that Claude is an attorney. “In the absence of an attorney-client relationship, the discussion of legal issues between two non-attorneys is not protected by attorney-client privilege.” Because Claude is not an attorney, that alone disposes of Heppner’s claim of privilege.

The Court is aware that some commentators have argued that whether Claude is an attorney is irrelevant because a user’s AI inputs, rather than being communications, are more akin to the use of other Internet-based software, such as cloud-based word processing applications. But the use of such applications is not intrinsically privileged in any case, and the argument that Claude is like any other form of software only cuts against the invocation of privilege because all “[r]ecognized privileges” require, among other things, “a trusting human relationship,” such as, in the attorney-client context, a relationship “with a licensed professional who owes fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline.” No such relationship exists, or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude.

Second, the communications memorialized in the AI Documents were not confidential. This is not merely because Heppner communicated with a third-party AI platform but also because the written privacy policy to which users of Claude consent provides that Anthropic collects data on both users'”inputs” and Claude’s “outputs,” that it uses such data to “train” Claude, and that Anthropic reserves the right to disclose such data to a host of “third parties,” including “governmental regulatory authorities.” The policy clearly puts Claude’s users on notice that Anthropic, even in the absence of a subpoena compelling it to do so, may “disclose personal data to third parties in connection with claims, disputes[,] or litigation.” More generally, as another court in this District recently observed, AI users do not have substantial privacy interests in their “conversations with [another publicly accessible AI platform] which users voluntarily disclosed” to the platform and which the platform “retains in the normal course of its business.” For these reasons, Heppner could have had no “reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communications” with Claude. And the AI Documents are not like confidential notes that a client prepares with the intent of sharing them with an attorney because Heppner first shared the equivalent of his notes with a third-party, Claude.

Third, Heppner did not communicate with Claude for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. This issue perhaps presents a closer call because Heppner’s counsel asserts that Heppner communicated with Claude for the “express purpose of talking to counsel.” But, as Heppner’s counsel also conceded, Heppner did not do so at the suggestion or direction of counsel.

Had counsel directed Heppner to use Claude, Claude might arguably be said to have functioned in a manner akin to a highly trained professional who may act as a lawyer’s agent within the protection of the attorney-client privilege. But because Heppner communicated with Claude of his own volition, what matters for the attorney-client privilege is whether Heppner intended to obtain legal advice from Claude, not whether he later shared Claude’s outputs with counsel. And Claude disclaims providing legal advice. Indeed, when the Government asked Claude whether it could give legal advice, it responded that “I’m not a lawyer and can’t provide formal legal advice or recommendations” and went on to recommend that a user “should consult with a qualified attorney who can properly assess your specific circumstances.”

Thus, the communications between Heppner and Claude were not privileged at the time they took place. Moreover, even assuming that Heppner intended to share these communications with his counsel and eventually did so, it is black-letter law that non-privileged communications are not somehow alchemically changed into privileged ones upon being shared with counsel. Thus, because the AI Documents “would not be privileged if they remained in [Heppner’s] hands,” they did not “acquire protection merely because they were transferred” to counsel.

{At oral argument, Heppner’s counsel suggested in passing that the AI Documents may be privileged because they “incorporated information that we had conveyed to Mr. Heppner over the course of our representation.” Tr. at 3. But even if certain information that Heppner input into Claude was privileged, he waived the privilege by sharing that information with Claude and Anthropic, just as if he had shared it with any other third party. Further, in light of Anthropic’s privacy policy discussed above, Heppner had no reasonable expectation that the inputs would not be shared with other third parties.} …

Related to but distinct from the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, “[a]t its core[,] … shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.” The doctrine “provides qualified protection for materials prepared by or at the behest of counsel in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” …

The AI Documents do not merit protection under the work product doctrine because, even assuming, arguendo, that they were prepared “in anticipation of litigation,” they were nevertheless not “prepared by or at the behest of counsel,” nor did they reflect defense counsel’s strategy. As to the former, Heppner’s counsel confirmed that the AI Documents “were prepared by the defendant on his own volition.” That means that Heppner was not acting as his counsel’s agent when he communicated with Claude. As to the latter, counsel conceded that while the AI Documents did “affect” counsel’s strategy going forward, they did not “reflect” counsel’s strategy at the time that Heppner created them….

Heppner[ cites] Shih v. Petal Card, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021). In that case, a Magistrate Judge in this District authorized the plaintiff to withhold certain communications that she had with an individual who was then her lawyer, and later became her husband, that the plaintiff prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. The court held that the work product doctrine protected such communications, “regardless of whether [the lawyer/husband] was acting as her counsel at the time, and without showing that another attorney ‘directed the work.'”

Shih, of course, is not binding on this Court, and this Court respectfully disagrees with its holding. As relevant here, the court in Shih principally concluded that the work product doctrine is not limited to materials prepared by or at the direction of an attorney. Id. But that conclusion undermines the policy animating the work product doctrine, which, as one of the cases cited in Shih explains, is “to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy ‘with an eye toward litigation.'”While it is true that the work product doctrine may apply to materials generated by non-lawyers, the Second Circuit has repeatedly stressed that the purpose of the doctrine is to protect lawyers’ mental processes.

Here, there is no dispute that Heppner acted on his own when he created the AI Documents. Because the AI Documents were not prepared at the behest of counsel and did not disclose counsel’s strategy, they do not merit protection as work product….

Generative artificial intelligence presents a new frontier in the ongoing dialogue between technology and the law. Time will tell whether, as in the case of other technological advances, generative artificial intelligence will fulfill its promise to revolutionize the way we process information. But AI’s novelty does not mean that its use is not subject to longstanding legal principles, such as those governing the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Because Heppner’s use of Claude fails to satisfy either of these rules, the AI Documents do not merit the protections Heppner has claimed.

By Amber Duke

Who’s ready for the roving insane asylums?

New York City’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani made free buses a central part of his campaign platform — even though free buses lead to more violence on buses.

The FIFA World Cup is coming to the Big Apple for a five-week period this summer and Mamdani is pressing Governor Kathy Hochul to make buses free during the event.

Why does the mayor of the city need permission from the governor? Well, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which sets bus fares, is run by New York State. And so far Hochul has indicated she isn’t a big fan of Mamdani’s free busing push — primarily because bus and subway fares help cover a significant portion of the MTA’s $21 billion annual operating budget.

Supporters of free buses — like “Hot Girls for Zohran” — either didn’t know or didn’t care that Mamdani didn’t have unilateral authority to make the buses free when they ranked him at the top of their ballot.

But if Hochul does stand firm and stop this nonsense, they nonetheless owe her a big thank you.

Here’s why.

The typical bus fare in New York City is $3 per ride. That’s not an insurmountable amount for the vast majority of people who use the bus — although, admittedly, it does add up over the course of the year. That’s why New York already offers reduced fares to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and low-income residents.

The reason they don’t just make the buses free isn’t just to fund the MTA budget. It’s because a fare — even a small one — creates a barrier to entry.

Yes, a barrier. Even a hurdle as small as swiping a transit card or inserting a few dollars keeps public transit from becoming a public toilet on wheels.

This isn’t about inequity; it’s about safety.

Years ago when I got my first job post-college, I took a 15-minute bus ride from my home in Pentagon City to Clarendon.

The few homes closest to the bus stop were Section 8 housing and known drug dens. One morning, I arrived at the bus stop and found a man already there waiting.

His behavior was erratic and his pupils were so dilated from drugs that his eyes looked completely black. He started telling me how he was going to have sex with me unless it turned out I was younger than his daughter. I asked his daughter’s age and then lied and told him I was younger than her.

Unsurprisingly, my attempt at outwitting the junkie didn’t deter him. I had a couple of options: I could run back to my home past the Section 8 housing or go the opposite, even less densely populated, direction.

Then I saw the bus pull up.

I prayed as I ran up the bus steps and swiped my SmarTrip card that the man wouldn’t follow me. As I took my seat way in the back, I saw him arguing with the bus driver.

He didn’t have money for the fare. The driver kicked him off, and I made it to work without further incident.

That bus driver may have saved my life.

Mamdani is right about one thing: transit drivers shouldn’t have to risk being assaulted by turning away people who refuse to pay. But the answer to that is simply to enforce the law, not to waive fares, which puts other passengers at risk.

Still, left-wing defenders of Mamdani’s free bus plans have been undeterred by safety concerns.

The New York Times recently ran an op-ed from a progressive lawyer presenting the inspirational, TED Talk version of free buses.

Emily Galvin Almanza argues that free buses ease traffic and actually improve public safety. She cites a number of cities that she says have already successfully implemented fare-free transit options for residents: Boston, Chapel Hill, Richmond, Kansas City, and even New York City.

The results, she claims, have been “excellent.”

Let’s dig deeper.

New York City mostly stopped enforcing subway fare evasion in 2018. Subway crime increased by 3% that year. Felony assaults on the subway increased by more than 53% from 2019 to 2024. All the while, NYC was recording a $1 billion loss per year.

It was an unmitigated disaster, and Governor Hochul announced they would once again be cracking down on fare evasions.

Boston’s decision not to police fare evasions? That led to massive budget shortfalls and slower service — the opposite of what Almanza said would happen. And, similar to New York, there was an increase in felony assaults and rape. Boston abandoned the program in September 2025.

In 2020, Kansas City became the first major metropolitan area to get rid of fares entirely. Assaults on bus drivers increased from one or two a year to 32 in 2024. Local students reported public transit became rife with intoxicated riders and saw a massive spike in overall disturbances.

The city will reinstate a $2 bus fare by June 2026.

Keon Jordan, a Kansas City resident who rides the bus every day, said, “I’m ready because there’s just a lot going on the buses so, I’ll pay the two dollars or whatever it is so I can ride peacefully.”

Richmond similarly saw an increase in assaults on bus drivers when they implemented free fares. And instead of adding the fares back, the Greater Richmond Transit Company in 2021 suggested they just put more cameras on board.

August 2024 was a particularly bad month for bus riders in Richmond. Police say they saw three separate violent attacks: two people stabbed at one bus stop, one person stabbed at a second bus stop, and a teenager shot on a bus near VCU.

One longtime rider begged Richmond to end the program, saying, “It’s like going to an amusement park and never getting off a roller coaster.”

Did Almanza do any research before writing this glowing review of free buses? Did the New York Times do any fact-checking?

The answer is obviously no. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have had to issue a major correction.

Almanza claimed that another benefit of free bus rides is that police and riders will be safer by not having to enforce fare evasion. She cited a September 2024 incident in New York City where police drew their guns and fired on someone who jumped the turnstile at a subway station. But the article was later amended to note that this individual had pulled a knife on the cops.

Maybe Mamdani’s “warmth of collectivism” really means getting set on fire by a vagrant on the subway. After all, that’s what happened to one woman in December 2024 who dared fall asleep on her way to work.

Perhaps the offender was just worried about her freezing to death like the 20 New Yorkers who lost their lives during the city’s cold snap after Hochul refused federal assistance.

We can dismiss Mamdani’s free bus proposal as a socialist pipe dream. But no one will be laughing when raving lunatics turn the city’s public transit system into a daily cage match.

Recently, “One of the most insane verdicts ever in the Netherlands was delivered.” “Arnold O. murdered his ‘girlfriend’ — a young mother — because she focused too much on caring for her newborn and too little on him. He stabbed her 258 (!) times and filmed the mother as she lay bleeding to death. Afterwards he took selfies with the newborn in its mothers blood. The Public Prosecutor only demanded 10 years in jail for this extremely gruesome murder, but the judge halved it to only 5 years in jail because Arnold O. has ‘limited cognitive capabilities’, a politically correct way of saying he has a very low IQ.”

As Reddit adds,

“The court in The Hague sentenced 24-year-old Arnold O….to five years in prison and compulsory TBS (forensic psychiatric treatment). The man killed his 22-year-old girlfriend Jihaneve on July 18 last year by stabbing and cutting her 258 times with a knife, in her home in Zoetermeer. The couple’s two-week-old baby was also present in the house at the time. According to the court, the crime “in terms of violence and gruesomeness absolutely belongs to the exceptional category”.”

“O. filmed part of the violence with the victim’s phone. According to experts, O. was psychotic at the time he killed his girlfriend and suffers from personality disorders.”

“The court considers O. to be of diminished responsibility, although that “goes in the direction” of complete non-accountability. That was the reason for the court to halve the ten-year prison sentence demanded by the Public Prosecution Service.”

“The police were alerted by a nurse from the consultation bureau, who was going to visit the mother and child. She heard Jihaneve screaming for help and saw, when she looked through a window in the house, a bloodied leg and a bloodied foot. O. was arrested on the spot. Shortly before that, he had taken a selfie with the baby. The police found the victim on the bed in the bedroom, next to the used knife.”

“The personality investigation revealed that O. could not bear that his girlfriend had focused on the care of their child since the birth….

“Jihaneve’s mother said emotionally after the verdict that she was “very disappointed” and called the verdict “a slap in the face and a kick on my daughter’s grave”, because the prison sentence was far too low in her eyes. “In recent weeks, two more women have been murdered. What message is being sent to society by the court? This is simply not possible. Unacceptable. This does not feel like justice.”

258 stab wounds.

This cruel, impulsive, violent man is a threat to public safety, and will remain so in 5 years when he is released. He may well kill again after being released. Letting inmates out after only a few years results in more violence and crime than if they were given a longer sentence. When Italy released inmates early, that increased its crime rate a lot, according to a 2014 study in the American Economic Journal. Other studies find similar results.

Some murderers kill again and again after being released. A classic example is Kenneth McDuff. At the age of 19, after being paroled, McDuff and an accomplice kidnapped three teenagers. He shot and killed two boys, then killed a girl after raping and torturing her. Later, after being paroled yet again, he murdered as many as 15 additional women.

Arnold O. will be only 29 when he is released. He will not have aged out of crime. Criminals usually commit more crimes after being released, especially when they are released in their 20s or 30s. Nationally, 81.9% of all state prisoners released in 2008 were subsequently arrested within a decade, compared to 74.5% of those 40 or older at the time of their release. (See Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners in 24 States Released in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008-2018), pg. 4, Table 4)).

By Katelynn Richardson

Former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler turned to Jeffrey Epstein for help responding to allegations that she helped cover up an aide’s prostitution scandal, which emerged while she was under consideration to become attorney general, emails released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) reveal.

Ruemmler, who resigned from her position as Goldman Sachs’s top lawyer on Thursday over her extensive ties to Epstein, enlisted the convicted sex offender in workshopping her response to an October 2014 press inquiry.

White House aides, including Ruemmler, allegedly failed to “thoroughly” investigate or publicly acknowledge evidence that a prostitute stayed overnight in an advance team volunteer’s hotel room during a 2012 Colombia trip, The Washington Post reported on Oct. 8, 2014. Ruemmler left the White House in May 2014 and was working in private practice when the story broke. (RELATED: Epstein Helped Fund Lavish Lifestyle For Former Obama WH Counsel)

“[H]ow you doin,” Epstein emailed Ruemmler on Oct. 9, after the story dropped.

“Doing fine,” she replied. “Was talking to reporters until late in the morning last night. Trying to isolate/contain wapo.”

On Oct. 17, 2014, Ruemmler sent Epstein her draft response to an email from “Carol” — presumably then-Washington Post reporter Carol D. Leonnig, who broke the original report — about a “second phase” of her story.

Epstein questioned whether the aide still denied the incident. “[I]mportant point,” he wrote, according to emails released by the DOJ.

Ruemmler affirmed he did, noting she was “making some more tweaks.”

Ruemmler and the Obama Foundation did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

Ruemmler Oct. 17, 2014 email to Epstein. (Credit: Screenshot/DOJ)

“Hey, the lawyer letter said it was the prostitute that wrote down the room number. ? ?” Epstein followed up after Ruemmler said she was looking at his edits. “thats a totally different spin on the story, if it wasn’t the hotel clerk who wrote it, ie how often do prostitutes lie as to which room they are headed??”

Ruemmler said she didn’t know. “[C]ould have been the prostitute, could have been the hotel clerk,” she wrote.

“The whole thing is ridiculous — they had to obtain the re=ord ‘under the table’ because the last thing the Hilton wanted t= do is to voluntarily give over info implicating the privacy of their gues=s,” Ruemmler told Epstein. “The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

Later that same day, Kathy forwarded Epstein a letter the aide’s attorney sent to the Washington Post reporter, urging her not to use his name in future stories.

Then-Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan reportedly told Ruemmler on April 20, 2012 there was evidence the White House advance team member was part of the broader prostitution scandal involving Secret Service agents and military personnel. Then-White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters April 23, 2012 that a review found “no indication of any misconduct.”

“As was reported more than two years ago, the White House conducted an internal review that did not identify any inappropriate behavior on the part of the White House advance team,” then-White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in response to the Washington Post’s 2014 story.

The White House aide allegedly involved in the prostitution scandal was the son of a

By Ashley Brasfield

One Republican defection could sink President Donald Trump’s State Department nominee as the vote nears.

Republican Utah Sen. John Curtis announced Thursday he will not support Jeremy Carl, Trump’s pick for assistant secretary of state for international organizations, following a heated Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing. (RELATED: Trump Nominee Goes On Offense After Chuck Schumer Accuses Him Of ‘White Supremacy’)

“I do not believe that Jeremy Carl is the right person to represent our nation’s best interests in international forums,” Curtis said, citing “anti-Israel views and insensitive remarks about the Jewish people” as disqualifying.

Curtis’s defection could doom the nomination. If every Democrat on the committee votes against Carl, he falls short of the votes needed to advance — and Democratic opposition is assured. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has voiced opposition, and Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy called Carl a “legit white nationalist” on X after the hearing.

Murphy pressed Carl on prior statements referencing “anti-White discrimination” and the “erasure of white culture.” Carl did not define “white culture,” but said “mass immigration” erases “common American culture” and “weakens us.”

“Trump nominated a legit white nationalist to a top post at the State Department,” Murphy wrote. “I asked him some basic questions about his belief in the ‘erasure of white culture.’ Watch this embarrassing, fumbling answer.”

In September, a CNN KFILE report found Carl had deleted thousands of social media posts, including commentary on race and statements that “peaceful coexistence” with Democrats is impossible. He also wrote multiple times about the “Great Replacement,” a framework describing mass immigration as a deliberate policy to displace white populations.

At Thursday’s hearing, Democratic New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the committee’s ranking member, pressed Carl on comments from a 2024 podcast in which he reportedly said “Jews have often loved to play the victim” and that “the Holocaust dominates so much of modern Jewish history.”

Shaheen noted Carl had “tweeted more than 850 times, appeared on five podcasts and repeated this language” since his nomination.

“This is a pattern,” she said. “It’s hard to understand how we can trust you if you can’t even restrain yourself during the period in which you’ve been nominated.”

Carl acknowledged the “importance of restraint” but said he had to balance that with his current advocacy work.

“I can’t just totally put away my day job,” he said.

Under questioning from Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Carl expressed regret for “minimizing the effect of the Holocaust,” adding, “I’m not going to sit here and defend” those remarks. Asked about his statements on race, Carl said he was “echoing” Trump in arguing that “unity rather than diversity is a strength.”

If confirmed, Carl would lead the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, directing U.S. policy at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions and overseeing more than 100 diplomats stationed abroad. He served as a deputy assistant secretary at the Interior Department during Trump’s first term and is currently a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.

Curtis did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.