Okay, yeah, I can... actually.
An Obama-appointed federal judge just handed a left-wing activist group an absurd victory. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued a temporary restraining order Monday blocking the National Park Service from removing an "86 47" flag flying near the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The flag will stay up for at least 14 days while the broader legal battle plays out.
The group behind the flag, Accountability Now USA, obtained a permit, flew the thing in one of the most visible spots in the country, and then sued when the National Park Service threatened to revoke the permit. Judge Moss sided with them, concluding that the meaning of "86" is too ambiguous to constitute a threat against President Trump.
Let’s step back for a second and remember why this is controversial. Trump survived two assassination attempts in 2024, including on July 13, when a gunman climbed onto a rooftop at a rally in Butler, Penn., and a bullet grazed Trump’s ear. In April 2026, another assassination attempt was foiled at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. We all know what “86” means in this context, and the fact that a federal judge allowed the flag to remain is sickening.
Judge Moss has a history worth noting, too. In addition to being an Obama appointee, he also previously served in Bill Clinton's Justice Department and contributed to and volunteered for Democrat candidates and causes.
It’s getting clearer, isn’t it?
In his opinion, Moss wrote that "the evidence shows that Plaintiff displayed the 8647 flag to urge that Congress impeach and remove President Trump from office." He also wrote that "a true threat to the life or safety of the President would undoubtedly outweigh the interest of the public or the speaker in continuing to urge that unlawful conduct."
The Department of the Interior took a sharply different view. "This opinion is from an Obama-appointed judge," a spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "In what world have we lost all decency, to demand that any threat against the President be taken very seriously. While the Department shall and does comply with the Court's orders, this type of behavior should not be tolerated."
ICYMI: Spencer Pratt Just Got a Huge Endorsement
The flag dispute lands in the middle of the Justice Department's indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. Comey faces two federal counts tied to an Instagram post last year showing seashells arranged to spell "86 47." He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted. Comey, of course, has denied any violent intent.
What has happened to the judiciary? This ruling comes weeks after U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui apologized in open court to Cole Allen, the suspect accused of attempting to assassinate President Trump and other cabinet officials at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. "At a minimum, I should be apologizing to him. We are obligated to make sure he's taken care of. Mr. Allen, I'm sorry that things have not been the way they are supposed to," Faruqui said.
Everything wrong with the judiciary can be seen in these two cases. First, a judge apologizes to a would-be Trump assassin, then another judge allows a violent anti-Trump message to be displayed near the National Mall. This is what left-wing judges are like. They aren’t neutral arbiters of the law; they are activists with an agenda.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member