Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

Trump’s 4th of July fireworks display on National Mall confirmed as largest in history

Trump’s 4th of July fireworks display on National Mall confirmed as largest in history

Nearly two months after President Doanld Trump proclaimed Washington, D.C. would launch the “LARGEST FIREWORKS SHOW IN HISTORY,” Guinness World Records confirmed it this week. “The largest firework display consists of 840,537 fireworks, and was achieved by Freedom 250 and Pyrotecnico, Inc (both USA) at an event organized by Event Strategies Inc in Washington D.C., USA, on 4 July 2026,” the organization wrote on its website. Despite weather delays that involved revelers being evacuated from the National Mall, hundreds of thousands of people still watched the Washington, D.C., fireworks that began just before midnight last month. TOP HIGHLIGHTS FROM TRUMP’S LATE-NIGHT JULY 4 ADDRESS: ‘NO DREAM IN HISTORY IS BIGGER’ The president also gave an abbreviated speech beforehand as part of the “Salute to America” celebration for the 250th anniversary of the country. Once it got underway, the show lasted for about 40 minutes. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum explained in June that the fireworks would be launched from several sites because of its immense scale. “Normally the fireworks are set off right along here,” he told the Washington Reporter of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. “This year, because of the size and scale of the thing, there are so many locations where the fireworks are going to be going off, including barges,” he explained. FLASHBACK: AS AMERICAN TURNS 250, HERE’S HOW THE NATION CELEBRATED ITS BIGGEST BIRTHDAYS The White House launched Freedom 250 as a public-private partnership months ago and the president serves as chair of the initiative. The previous record holder for largest fireworks celebration was a megachurch’s 2016 New Year’s Eve show, which featured 810,904 fireworks, according to The Washington Post. “On July 4th, America came together to celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday with the largest fireworks display in history — over 850,000 fireworks lighting up the National Mall and the Potomac River, and miles around in a 40-minute spectacular,” Freedom 250 spokesperson Danielle Alvarez shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. AMERICA 250 ATTENDEES FIRE BACK AT CRITICS OF TRUMP’S JULY 4 SPEECH: ‘WHAT WE NEEDED TO HEAR’ Alvarez added, “This historic display shattered the previous global benchmark and stands as a powerful symbol of unity, resilience, and pride as we begin our nation’s next 250 years. Freedom 250 is honored to have brought this moment to millions of Americans, and we thank everyone who made it possible.” “No other president in history could have accomplished the incredible feat that President Trump did at our Nation’s historic 250th birthday celebration, which included an incredible air show, a record-breaking fireworks display, and an inspiring speech delivered before hundreds of thousands of American patriots,” the White House said in a statement, according to the Post. The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Trump’s White House ballroom foes face ‘very tough argument’ at Supreme Court, legal experts say

Trump’s White House ballroom foes face ‘very tough argument’ at Supreme Court, legal experts say

President Donald Trump could win the legal fight over his planned White House ballroom, say two legal experts who believe the U.S. the Supreme Court could end the case without weighing in on the underlying constitutional issue. In a lengthy social media post Friday, Trump vowed to take the fight over his White House ballroom to the Supreme Court after the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court order blocking above-ground construction. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court ruled that the project cannot move forward without Congressional approval. Trump pointed to the dissent written by Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Trump in his first term, as grounds for appealing the decision to Supreme Court. Rao argued that the plantiffs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, lack legal standing in the case. The National Trust for Historic Preservation built its case for legal standing around Alison Hoagland, a member who lives near the White House and regularly visits President’s Park. Hoagland said she visits the area about once a month and argued that the proposed ballroom’s size and design would diminish her enjoyment of the area by overshadowing the White House and weakening its aesthetic. TRUMP SAYS WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM RULING JEOPARDIZES LIVES OF FUTURE PRESIDENTS, VOWS SUPREME COURT APPEAL But according to Rao, the National Trust did not establish the kind of injury necessary to invoke the courts’ authority to block the project. “The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government’s security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President’s home and office,” Rao wrote. Former Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli agreed, telling Fox News Digital the National Trust could face a particularly difficult hurdle on standing at the Supreme Court. He noted that, while Congress created the National Trust, the group still must show that its lawsuit is germaine to its interests. “While they do have ownership of some properties, the President’s Park, where the White House East Ballroom is, is not one of them,” Kambli said. “And I think that’s going to be a very tough argument to sustain, especially with the Supreme Court, that’s more likely to agree with Rao than they are the [circuit court] majority, given the makeup of the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Supreme Court is very strict on standing.” OBAMA JUDGE RULES ON EFFORT TO BLOCK AMERICA 250 EVENTS AT WH AND LINCOLN MEMORIAL Kambli also suggested that the National Trust faces a strong hurdle in proving it has standing based on aesthetic injury because it would have to prove it actually uses the space where the ballroom is being built . . . “Normally, aesthetic standing requires that you intend to use it,” Kambli said. “So, for instance, if you’re planning to be visiting the East Ballroom — and even this is kind of a stretch — that’s one thing, but if you’re someone on the outside that just passes it by, that’s a little tougher.” A similar standing issue surfaced earlier in July when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama-appointed judge, rejected a lawsuit seeking to block the America 250 UFC event at the White House. He ruled that the plaintiffs had not met the standard of aesthetic harm to establish standing. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said he expects Trump to prevail on appeal as well, based on the standing issue. “Under Supreme Court precedent, you cannot bring a claim, you cannot bring a lawsuit, until and unless you can demonstrate a concrete, actual injury,” Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. “The idea that a passerby, who claims she will be aesthetically injured because of what she sees at the White House, has an actual injury is absurd, and obviously, and clearly defies that precedent.” If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could resolve it without deciding whether the administration had the legal authority to build the ballroom in the first place. TRUMP WARNS JUDGE AGAINST SACRIFICING NATIONAL SECURITY BY BLOCKING WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM, DRONE BASE “The Supreme Court won’t rule on the substantive issue if it can dismiss the case based on a lack of standing by the plaintiffs,” von Spakovsky said. “I also don’t know of anyone else who could establish standing to bring a lawsuit. Perhaps Congress could collectively, but the chances of that happening are very slim given the partisan divides in both the House and Senate.” The National Trust argued in its lawsuit that federal law requires Congress to approve new construction on federal property in Washington, D.C., while the administration says existing law already gives the president authority to make alterations and improvements to federal property, including the White House. Abhishek agreed with Rao’s reasoning that the terms “alteration” and “improvement” should be understood in their ordinary real-property sense. “For instance, if I have an extension to my house, it doesn’t become a new house,” Abhishek said. “It’s the same house, but that’s an improvement done on the house. Or if I tear down some walls and then just create an open living space in my like between my living room and my kitchen, that’s also not a new house at that point. “It’s the same house, but there was an alteration or an improvement done, so if you’re using real property terms, then it’s pretty clear how how the statutory authority would make sense,” Abhishek continued.

Fauci in the congressional wringer: A test for Trump’s newly-minted attorney general

Fauci in the congressional wringer: A test for Trump’s newly-minted attorney general

Contempt of Congress. It sounds bad. And it usually is. But what does it mean? Holding someone in contempt of Congress usually stems from them refusing to testify before a House or Senate committee or declining to provide documents and information requested by lawmakers. Especially if someone rejects an inquest by subpoena.  REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: WHY FAUCI’S 111 FIFTH AMENDMENT PLEAS COULD END UP BEFORE THE COURTS You refuse to cough up the goods, and Congress may try to hold you in contempt. And if you’re held in contempt, lawmakers may send a referral to the Justice Department. That’s kind of a parliamentary suggestion box, informing the feds that House members or senators believe you’ve earned prosecution.  The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted recently to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at a hearing.  The panel issued a subpoena to compel Fauci’s compliance. Republican senators say that’s all the more reason why Fauci should testify. They point to his pardon by then-President Joe Biden. That’s why they believe Fauci was obligated to answer their inquiries. Instead, he invoked the Fifth Amendment. “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” said Fauci. Twenty-one words. Uttered an astounding 111 times. That’s a grand total of 2,331 words. Fauci never deviated from the script. WATCH: GOP SPLIT OVER RAND PAUL’S DOJ STRATEGY IN FAUCI CONTEMPT PUSH Democrats say it was a Republican ruse. “The goal was to wait for Dr. Fauci to make any kind of misstatement and then have a weaponized Department of Justice file criminal charges for that new statement that would not have been covered by the pardon,” Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., said. So, the panel took action. It voted 8-5 to hold Fauci in contempt. A party line vote. “I’ve never voted to hold somebody in contempt. But if there’s one person that should be held in contempt, it is Anthony Fauci,” said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He warned that the GOP gambit is dangerous. “Criminal contempt is punitive. It does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we’d all like to see. What we’ll do is create a damaging precedent that future witnesses will use to resist legitimate congressional oversight and weaken this committee’s ability to compel testimony.” Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., was unbowed. “We will hand carry this over to the attorney general. We will hand carry this to the district court here in (the District of) Columbia,” Paul said. Even though, at the time, the DOJ only had an acting attorney general. FAUCI’S NEWLY RELEASED COVID DIARIES REVEAL BIZARRE FIXATION ON FAME AS PANDEMIC DEATHS MOUNTED However, Paul was freelancing. He ignored the custom of the entire Senate voting to refer someone to the Justice Department for prosecution. The Kentucky Republican himself previously sent other, unilateral referrals to the DOJ asking for Fauci’s prosecution. But those efforts never even went through committee. Fox can’t locate any precedent for such an independent maneuver. Especially circumventing the Senate floor. Republicans control the Senate. It’s unclear whether there would be 51 votes to hold Fauci in contempt. But there is almost no scenario where the Senate could find 60 votes to break a filibuster on a contempt of Congress resolution of this nature.  This is why Democrats argued that Paul is out of line. “No individual center senator and no committee speaks for the entire Senate as a whole,” Peters fumed. “The chairman has also suggested he may attempt to refer this matter to the Department of Justice without approval of the full Senate. That would be even more dangerous and widely unprecedented.” The DOJ says it “seriously reviews all congressional referrals.” But Democrats believe the GOP’s disregard for Fauci invoking the Fifth could undermine any prosecution. “It is almost certainly never going to be approved by a court because it violates basic constitutional rights,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. In a statement, Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, accused Paul of trying to “weaponize the Justice Department” against his client. Democrats asserted that before Fauci’s hearing, Republicans cut them out of their inquiry. “We have been excluded from witness interviews,” Peters said. FAUCI HELD IN CONTEMPT AS COVID CELLPHONE LANDS IN HANDS OF SENATE INVESTIGATORS But Republicans say Democrats showed no interest in their findings and revelations. “They have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join,” Paul said. “You never even asked for the password.” However, the Republican inquiry is just starting. Another Senate panel has now obtained a copy of the Health and Human Services phone Fauci used during the pandemic. “It’s frustrating we haven’t gotten these devices until now. But now we have them,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said on Fox. Johnson says decrypting that phone could answer questions Fauci refused to address during the hearing. Two interesting developments emerged since Fauci testified in late July. First, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeannine Pirro, dropped her prosecution of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly vandalizing the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. President Donald Trump then upbraided Pirro. Does this mean that Pirro is doing things by the book? Would that diminish chances for prosecution of Fauci? Or, since Pirro enraged the president, could she redeem herself by prosecuting Fauci? After all, Trump said he wanted Fauci prosecuted. However, the ultimate decision to prosecute is up to the new attorney general, Todd Blanche. Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, vowed to oppose Fauci.  With former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., out, the GOP couldn’t lose any more votes without tanking the nomination. It boiled down to Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who was undecided. Cassidy announced Friday morning he would vote yea on Blanche. “I am particularly concerned about episodes of apparent lawfare, DOJ bringing