A left-wing media figure has publicly admitted how the Honduran LIBRE Party is being boosted by support from the Iranian terror regime.

The far-left LIBRE Party, exposed by Stone Cold Truth as being bankrolled by narco-trafficking dollars, was recently booted from power in Honduras. However, they remain a subversive organizing force working to undermine the new conservative government and their objectives to rebuild the country and establish close ties with President Trump. LIBRE will stop at nothing to prevent Honduras from becoming a cornerstone of the Donroe Doctrine eradicating communism in the hemisphere.

LIBRE Party operative Daniel Sierra can be seen in a viral video on X admitting that party activity is promoted by the Iranian government. The information war in Latin America has been fueled by terrorism going back over a decade, and Sierra’s arrogant boast cements how leftist support for Iran in Latin America is emerging from the shadows and coming into the forefront.

ORIGINS OF IRANIAN SUBVERSION IN LATIN AMERICA

HispanTV is an Iranian state media operation launched in late 2011/early 2012 as a Spanish-language soft-power and influence tool targeting Latin America, Spain, and U.S. Hispanics. Its owner, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), is controlled by Iran’s Guardian Council, which sets the editorial line. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad framed it at launch as an ideological instrument against “those seeking to dominate.” It operates from Tehran with correspondents across the region, including Honduras.

IRIB and related outlets have faced U.S. sanctions for human-rights abuses, including broadcasting forced confessions obtained under the threat of terror. HispanTV was dropped from some European/American satellites in 2013 and has frequently had its YouTube accounts restricted. It continues to disseminate subversive propaganda throughout Latin America via other satellites, streaming, social media, and partnerships. Their content is regularly amplified by Telesur (Venezuela), Russia Today en Español, and Cuban state media..

Multiple reports have documented how HispanTV systematically advances antisemitic tropes— such as Jewish/Zionist control of media, governments, Hollywood, COVID plots—through its programming. They also push Holocaust revisionism, blood-libel style claims, and broader conspiracy theories. It frames Israel as an illegitimate colonial entity slated for extermination.

HispanTV regularly glorifies Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” proxies, framing Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as moral, heroic “resistance.” They have described the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel as “impressive,” “extraordinary,” and a “tsunami.” They have described terror groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis as disciplined, necessary forces whose violence is defensive and historically required.

HispanTV exists to legitimize terrorist organizations and promote incitement, with a sharp escalation after October 7. Their goal is to poison potential alliances between Latin America and the United States. HispanTV was created amid sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program to build alliances with anti-U.S. governments. It supported far-left candidates and governments in Latin America (Venezuela under Chávez/Maduro, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and aligned parties).

SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN HONDURAS

HispanTV has frequently had Honduran correspondents on its airwaves. The channel was bestowed with awards from left-wing social/indigenous organizations, such as COPINH, MADJ, C-Libre, when President Juan Orlando Hernandez was in office, for covering protests and resource conflicts. They were influential in creating the coalition that led to the election of Xiomara Castro and the rise of the openly communist LIBRE Party, which brought the country to the edge of ruin before last year’s narrow election victory by current President Tito Asfura of the National Party.

Daniel Sierra publicly lists himself as a HispanTV correspondent, journalist, and content strategist. He is the leader of Espacio Consciente Honduras (ECO), which he describes as a personal, unpaid, independent project separate from his government advocacy work. He was also appointed in 2024 as an Institutional Communications Officer at the National Civil Service Administration (ANSEC) and subsequently became an Audiovisual Producer at the Secretariat of Finance in 2025, utilizing these various capacities as a versatile LIBRE attack dog.

What is indisputable is that Sierra is employed by Iranian state media whose line includes glorification of Iran’s terrorist proxies, held a government communications role under a left-wing administration with deep ties to the Maduro narcoterror regime, and local digital content that is vehemently anti-U.S. Sierra is a foreign-influence and disinformation risk who must be exposed and discredited for the Latin American renaissance to continue in Honduras.

Iranian influence operations in Latin America mix overt media, cultural centers, diplomatic cover, and opportunistic alliances with leftist or authoritarian governments. HispanTV is the most visible Spanish-language piece of that apparatus. Local correspondents like Sierra and their amorphous digital platforms like ECO function as amplifiers. This constitutes a security concern for Honduras as the nation removes itself from the yoke of communist tyranny. Those directly connected to the Iranian regime must be brought to justice by the U.S. and their partners, such as the Asfura administration in Honduras, for aiding and abetting terrorism. Daniel Sierra is less a reporter and more of a Jihadist and ought to be legally treated as such.

During the testimony of former Special Counsel Jack Smith before the Senate late last week, odious Texas Senator Ted Cruz launched an untrue and baseless attack on my mentor, and one of my personal heroes, President Richard Nixon.

Cruz said, “Well, let me say congratulations. Because you have succeeded where Richard Nixon failed, which is weaponizing the Department of Justice and the federal government to go after your political opponents. Congratulations, you are stepping into the shoes of John Mitchell.”

Cruz compared Smith to Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell, then said Smith’s abuse was “far greater than John Mitchell,” accused him of being “conscripted as a foot soldier for the DNC,” and called the conduct “the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the Department of Justice.”

The framing that Cruz uses to describe one of the greatest Presidents in American history reveals his deep disdain for the country he claims to represent.

Nixon was not a political marauder seeking revenge on his opponents, nor was he in a position where spying on his opponents was even a necessary act.

When you’re talking about Richard Nixon, you’re talking about potentially the most popular President in the history of the United States, based on election results.

Nixon’s first win in 1968 was narrow. His second was one of the largest landslides in modern presidential history. His job approval was solid, not extraordinary, until the Vietnam settlement briefly pushed it near 70 percent in early 1973.

In 1968 he beat Hubert Humphrey by a hair. Nixon took about 43.4 percent of the popular vote to Humphrey’s 42.7 percent, with George Wallace at 13.5 percent.

The electoral vote was 301–191–46. It was a plurality win in a three-way race, not a mandate.

In 1972 he crushed George McGovern. The final total was about 47.2 million votes (60.7 percent) to 29.2 million (37.5 percent), and 520 electoral votes to 17.

McGovern carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia; one Virginia elector defected to Libertarian John Hospers.

Coming out of the 1972 Election, President Richard Nixon had a mandate from the American people, a mandate that pathetic Senator Ted Cruz is trying to erase from history.

But why would Ted Cruz attack Richard Nixon? The answer is simple…

Republicans like Ted Cruz have always existed. Weak, spineless, immoral cowards who stand for nothing, while boasting of their false bravado.

Cruz, an effeminate Canadian-born fraud, and his betrayal of Richard Nixon highlights the divide within the Republican that existed in the days of Nixon, and continues into the days of President Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon represented the working class of this country, the backbone of America. The factory workers, the auto workers, the small businessmen and businesswomen nationwide. They are who elected Richard Nixon, and they were the main focus of Richard Nixon’s policies.

Much like President Donald Trump, Richard Nixon put America and Americans first.

On the other hand, establishment figures like Ted Cruz, who could be compared to any number of Republicrats of the Nixon-era, legislate from an entirely different perspective. Cruz comes from the Bush-era of conservatism.

While Americans that support Donald Trump believe in limited government, free speech, and the Constitution, Republicans like Cruz compromise, and even directly contradict these values, almost always arguing for Big Government, restrictions on free movement and free speech, especially online, and directly arguing against the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

While Ted Cruz may play the part of a patriot, his record reads like that of a paper tiger.

As for his comments specifically relating to John Mitchell, Cruz couldn’t be more wrong.

The Watergate Special Prosecution Force proved that much of the evidence that was used to come after John Mitchell was entirely fabricated.

In a February 6, 1974, memorandum, WSPF lawyer Peter F. Rient identified 20 instances in which John Dean’s testimony before the Senate diverged materially from what was on the tapes. The Rient memorandum did not surface until 1997.

George Frampton, another WSPF lawyer, actually concluded that one key meeting Dean had described, deeply damning to Mitchell, “apparently didn’t take place, adding: “We probably would do well simply to omit Dean’s testimony about this.” In the same document, Frampton wrote about California attorney Herbert Kalmbach, the chief fundraiser of the “hush money” that was delivered to the Watergate burglars and their attorneys. Dean has always maintained that John Mitchell authorized the enlistment of Kalmbach. But the WSPF concluded: “Mitchell’s logs and schedule suggest…Dean exercised somewhat more discretion himself to forge ahead with getting Kalmbach into the picture than he has admitted.”

Ted Cruz obviously has no idea what really happened in Watergate.

Cruz not only has no clue what happened at Watergate, he’s also deeply corrupt.

Cruz told voters he and his wife liquidated their savings to fund his underdog 2012 Senate race. In reality, more than $1 million came from a Goldman Sachs margin loan (his wife Heidi worked there) and a Citibank line of credit.

He reported the money to the FEC as “personal funds” and did not disclose the banks as the source on campaign reports, as required.

The FEC later found the reporting inaccurate. In 2019 his campaign paid a $35,000 fine and signed a conciliation agreement.

Cruz called it an “inadvertent filing error.” The loans themselves were listed on his separate Senate personal financial disclosures, just not correctly on FEC campaign forms.

iHeartMedia produces and syndicates Cruz’s podcast. Between 2023 and 2024, IHeart paid roughly $630,000–$961,000 in “digital revenue” to Truth and Courage PAC, a super PAC whose purpose is getting Cruz reelected. Watchdogs argued this was an illegal corporate contribution or an undisclosed gift.

Cruz has also received luxurious gifts from donors, getting a $76,440 private-jet round trip to Turks and Caicos from Sharmin Mossavar-Rahmani, a Goldman Sachs executive. Cruz has received charter flights, Astros tickets, concert tickets, and a Longhorns ticket from Texas oil and real-estate donors.

Not only does Ted Cruz operate on a corrupt basis while working as a United States Senator, but he also barely shows up to work.

Reports have been published detailing the fact that in some years, Cruz has missed upwards of 32% of the Senate hearings he was supposed to attend.

Current figures put his absences at eighth-worst in the entire United States Senate, meaning there are only seven Senators who show up to work less than Senator Ted Cruz.

In addition to having one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate, Senator Ted Cruz has also spent the last 10 years being a quiet, yet effective objecting force to President Donald Trump’s agenda in the Senate.

In May 2022 Cruz voted for the roughly $40 billion Ukraine supplemental, which the Senate passed 86–11. In a floor speech he said he would have preferred a smaller, more focused bill, but concluded continued military support was in the U.S. national interest while Ukrainian forces were winning with weapons already supplied.

The 11 Republican “no” votes included Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. America First critics of open-ended Ukraine funding have pointed to this vote.

Cruz’s support for Ukraine is a prime example of his willingness to stab Republican voters in the back whenever it suits his political career, rather than the desires of his constituents.

Ted Cruz is wrong about a lot of things, but few statements by Cruz have been as egregiously false as his statements about Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Cruz’s history as a traitorous, barely-present neocon that devours the most blatant and disgusting kind of corruption in the Senate is just the cherry on top of his lies.

When Vice President JD Vance recently declared at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library that “his historical legacy is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, but I think deservedly so,” he put into words something that has become increasingly evident. Thanks also to the extraordinary efforts of the Richard Nixon Foundation, the record of America’s 37th president—beyond Watergate—is undergoing a remarkable reexamination and reevaluation. Among a younger generation in particular, this renewed fascination with Nixon has even acquired its own distinctly modern name: “#Nixonmaxxxing.”

On May 13, 1958, Vice President Richard Nixon arrived in Caracas on what was supposed to be the final stop of an eighteen-day goodwill mission through South America. Instead, he and his wife, Pat, walked into one of the most dangerous episodes ever faced by a sitting American vice president abroad. Venezuela was only months removed from the overthrow of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez, anti-American feeling was being aggressively exploited by the Communist left, and Nixon had already encountered violent demonstrations in Peru. But nothing prepared the American party for Caracas. Even before Nixon left the airport, demonstrators shouted insults, blew whistles, waved hostile placards, hurled stones and subjected both Dick and Pat Nixon to what a subsequent Secret Service account described as showers of human spittle and chewing tobacco. Contemporary TIME reporting described older organizers whipping up a student crowd carrying slogans associated with international Communism. Nixon nevertheless proceeded with the mission rather than retreating.

The hostility began almost immediately. As the Nixons walked toward their automobiles, demonstrators spat at them so heavily that, once safely inside the cars, both Dick and Pat reportedly used handkerchiefs to wipe the saliva from their faces and clothing. Protesters attempted to drape banners across the windshields of the motorcade vehicles in an effort to obstruct the drivers’ vision. Pat Nixon, displaying remarkable composure of her own, even reached toward one jeering teenage girl and took her hand, momentarily silencing her. The motorcade nevertheless pressed ahead toward Caracas.

The danger rapidly became more serious. Nixon was scheduled to lay a wreath at the tomb of Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of South America. But the American naval attaché carrying the wreath ahead of the vice president was attacked, roughed up and the wreath itself destroyed. The official State Department report described a mob numbering roughly 4,000 blocking the route through Caracas and recorded that the Venezuelan police escort fled as the crowd closed in. The vice presidential party was suddenly left in a nearly indefensible position in the middle of an enraged mob. Windows were smashed, members of Nixon’s party were cut by flying glass, and the official cars were battered as demonstrators attempted to prevent them from moving. According to the State Department report transmitted to Washington that afternoon, Venezuelan security had effectively collapsed at the critical moment; only the eventual appearance of troops with fixed bayonets helped open a path through the crowd.

The assault on Nixon’s automobile was frighteningly physical. As the caravan slowed in heavy traffic in the working-class Catia district, rioters surged toward the vice president’s limousine from both sides of the street. They tore the American and Venezuelan flags from the car and hammered its body and doors with clubs, pipes and brass artillery-shell casings. Stones described by contemporary reporters as roughly the size of grapefruit were hurled repeatedly against the supposedly protective safety glass. The barrage became so severe that the glass began splintering inward, showering the occupants. At least one fragment struck Nixon near the temple, close to his right eye, although he was not seriously injured.

The mob did not merely throw objects from a distance. Men crowded directly against the limousine, beat on its roof and windows, kicked its sides and attempted to immobilize it. Nixon’s motorcade was trapped as the crowd pressed tighter around the vehicle. At various points the attackers began rocking the limousine from side to side in an apparent attempt to overturn it with the vice president and the other passengers still inside. Other accounts describe rioters using heavy objects almost as battering rams against the thick windows. For somewhere around a quarter of an hour, Nixon and those around him could not know whether the glass would hold, whether the crowd would succeed in overturning the car, or whether an attacker might force his way inside.

Inside the automobile with Nixon was Lieutenant Colonel Vernon Walters, the brilliant linguist and Army officer who was serving as the vice president’s interpreter and who would later rise to major general, become Deputy Director of Central Intelligence and serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Walters was himself wounded when the limousine’s glass shattered inward, cutting him around the mouth and leaving him, as he later vividly recalled, with a mouth full of glass. Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Óscar García Velutini, who was also riding in the car, was cut as well. The official State Department account specifically recorded Walters’ facial injury and the Foreign Minister’s wounded arm.

Walters’ later recollection provides one of the most revealing eyewitness accounts of Nixon’s conduct during those minutes. Decades afterward, Walters told The Washington Post, “Nixon never lost his cool in that car.” Walters remembered the mob “beating on the roof and throwing stones” while Nixon remained composed. Even more remarkably, according to Walters, he continued acting as Nixon’s interpreter despite the glass in his mouth as Nixon verbally challenged members of the hostile crowd to debate him rather than attack him. Walters and Nixon would remember May 13 for years afterward with grim humor, referring to the anniversary as their “rock ’n’ roll day”—a reference to the rocks thrown at the limousine and the violent rocking of the car itself.

That testimony is particularly significant because Walters was not reconstructing events from a distant vantage point. He was inside the car, bleeding, as the attack occurred. His judgment was therefore based upon observing Nixon at extraordinarily close range under immediate physical threat. Nixon was not posing for cameras or delivering a prepared speech about courage. He was trapped in a battered automobile, surrounded by a screaming crowd, while glass broke around him and men attempted to rock the vehicle over. Walters’ recollection that Nixon never lost his composure is powerful evidence of how the vice president actually reacted when the possibility of serious injury or death became real.

Nixon himself later remembered the instant when the danger became unmistakable: “we might be killed.” The fear was hardly imaginary. Contemporary American reporting bluntly stated that his life had been in danger. A New York Herald Tribune editorial reprinted in the Congressional Record described his ordeal as a “trial by fire,” noting that the car was wrecked by stones and pipes, its glass broken, Walters cut by flying glass, the flags ripped away, and the automobile covered with spit and rotten eggs. Nixon’s response after emerging from the ordeal was characteristically defiant: “I’m all right. They cannot frighten me.”

What stands out most dramatically is Nixon’s composure while all this was happening around him. Secret Service agents believed the vice president’s life was in danger and prepared to use their weapons. Yet Nixon understood that gunfire into a Venezuelan crowd could transform a vicious street attack into an international catastrophe. Accounts of the incident record that he instructed the agent in charge, Jack Sherwood, not to open fire except on Nixon’s order. No shots were fired. It was an extraordinary exercise of restraint: Nixon was not making this decision from the safety of Washington but from inside a besieged automobile whose windows were being smashed while a mob attempted to overturn it. The Nixon Presidential Library today describes his “calm resolve” as helping prevent an already explosive confrontation from becoming an even more serious international incident. The Library’s collection still contains shattered glass from Nixon’s limousine and unused ammunition carried by American security personnel that day.

Nor was Washington treating the danger as political theater. Within hours, the highest levels of the Eisenhower administration were contemplating emergency military measures. Admiral Arleigh Burke ordered 500 airborne Marines prepared for immediate dispatch to Caracas, subject to State Department clearance. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was told that officials did not know how they would safely get Nixon out of the country, and the possibility of using a helicopter was discussed. Eisenhower’s position, relayed by his aides, was unmistakable: if Venezuela could not guarantee the vice president’s safety, the United States was prepared to consider doing so itself.

The ordeal also revealed something about Nixon that his political caricature has often obscured. He possessed remarkable physical courage. This had already been demonstrated days earlier in Lima, when he confronted hostile demonstrators rather than hiding from them; President Dwight Eisenhower personally wired him that his “courage, patience and calmness” had earned him new respect at home. Caracas presented an incomparably greater test. Nixon had Pat nearby, members of his party were bleeding, security had broken down and there was no certainty that the mob could be stopped. Yet there is no record of Nixon panicking or losing command of himself. His concern remained both getting his party to safety and preventing his protectors from responding in a manner that could cost Venezuelan lives. Walters’ eyewitness testimony—“Nixon never lost his cool in that car”—provides perhaps the most concise verdict on his behavior during the crisis.

There was also substantial contemporary evidence that the violence was not merely a spontaneous eruption of anti-American sentiment. American officials on the scene reported to Washington on May 13 that the attack was “undoubtedly” organized by Communists. The State Department’s subsequent analysis concluded that the confrontations had been directed primarily by communist-led organizations. Two weeks later, CIA Director Allen Dulles reported that the demonstrations in Lima and Caracas had been well organized and were “undoubtedly Communist instigated,” although his assessment importantly added that the Communists were exploiting authentic Latin American grievances over aspects of American policy. Thus, calling the Caracas violence communist-inspired is not a retrospective political embellishment; it reflects the assessment recorded in official American documents produced at the time.

Indeed, the organization and escalation of the demonstrations were difficult to miss. Nixon had encountered agitation elsewhere on the tour, but Caracas was different in its coordination and violence. Demonstrators were waiting at the airport; another hostile concentration had assembled at the Bolívar tomb; roadblocks impeded the motorcade; and crowds repeatedly converged on Nixon’s vehicles. The Congressional Record noted contemporary reports that the disturbances had escalated from jostling in Buenos Aires to stone throwing in Peru and finally to the far more dangerous violence in Venezuela. Whatever legitimate political grievances existed in Venezuela, attacking the official representative of the United States, smashing his automobile and attempting to overturn it with the vice president and other passengers inside had passed far beyond political protest.

Nixon also refused to allow the attackers to turn the episode into an indictment of the Venezuelan people. That distinction was important. The Communist organizers and violent demonstrators did not represent Venezuela, and Nixon knew it. The State Department reached much the same conclusion, believing that revulsion at the violence among ordinary Latin Americans might ultimately undermine the radicals who had organized it. Even Eisenhower, while condemning the incidents, emphasized that they could not erase the underlying friendship between the peoples of the Americas. Nixon’s refusal to respond with indiscriminate hostility was therefore more than good manners. It served the diplomatic purpose for which he had undertaken the trip in the first place.

America’s reaction when Nixon came home demonstrated how profoundly the episode had affected the country. On May 15, the vice president and Mrs. Nixon landed at Washington National Airport to a reception almost unimaginable for an ordinary vice-presidential return from a diplomatic tour. Contemporary reporting estimated the airport crowd at more than 15,000 people—ordinary citizens, students carrying welcoming signs, bands, diplomats, members of Congress, Cabinet officials and President Eisenhower himself. Even political opponents joined the reception. Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson was among those who welcomed Nixon home, greeting him warmly in a remarkable display of bipartisan solidarity. What had begun as a goodwill tour had ended with the country rallying around a vice president who had faced unmistakable physical danger abroad.

The Caracas attack deserves to be remembered as more than an exotic Cold War anecdote. Nixon went into an exceptionally hostile environment as the representative of his country, was subjected to personal humiliation, saw his wife abused, found himself trapped inside an automobile under a potentially lethal assault, and nevertheless maintained his composure. The shattered windows, the stones and clubs, Walters bleeding from the mouth, the attempt to rock the limousine over, armed Secret Service agents waiting for permission to fire, and Marines preparing for possible deployment all demonstrate how serious the danger actually was. Nixon neither surrendered his dignity nor permitted panic to dictate his actions. That is why he later chose the South American journey as one of the defining episodes in his book, Six Crises, and why the battered limousine glass and unused ammunition carried by American security personnel were eventually preserved as historical artifacts. Whatever judgments history makes about the long and complicated political career of Richard Nixon, Caracas provides unusually tangible evidence of one quality that even many of his adversaries came to recognize: when confronted by genuine physical danger, Richard Nixon was a man of courage.

There has been a historic update in the investigation into Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man responsible for firing eight rounds from a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle at President Donald Trump during his July 2024 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

President Donald Trump made a statement on the status of the investigation into Crook’s Butler assassination attempt last week that changes the entire outlook of the shooting.

The President wrote on his Truth Social feed that the Department of Justice, under former President Joe Biden and former FBI Director Christopher Wray, had largely deleted any information pertaining to Crooks or the assassination attempt before he took office in January of 2025.

The President wrote on his feed: “Everybody knows the Crooked Joe Biden FBI didn’t do what they should have with respect to the Lunatic who shot me in Butler, PA. By the time I got into Office, on January 20th, most of the information was missing, altered, corrupted, or gone. New info was just found! Why wasn’t it seen long ago? This was all a Democrat Plot, to get me out of the Election, that failed. Dirty Cop Christopher Wray should pay a price for the way he handled this assassination attempt, and certainly for the things he said. GOD BLESS AMERICA, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

President Donald Trump’s statement reveals yet another one of the greatest political scandals of our time.

Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, working with elements of the Deep State and former FBI Director Christopher Wray moved to cover up an assassination attempt against their chief political rival. This revelation further raises questions as to the authenticity of Crooks, and who he may have been communicating with prior to the rally.

The President’s comments came just hours after documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that Thomas Matthew Crooks had his cremation paid for by an ‘anonymous donor’ after his parents refused to pay for his cremation for financial reasons.

That same report also revealed that Crooks had ordered his firearm through the mail, with pieces delivered to a ‘Bob Dole’ at his home address.

The Many Anomalies Of The Near-Assassination of President Donald Trump on July 13^th, 2024

I have been reporting on the anomalies surrounding the Crooks Assassination attempt since that fateful day in Butler, of which there are many.

Local officers (Beaver County Emergency Services Unit countersnipers) saw Crooks using a rangefinder and looking toward the stage before the rally in Butler began that day.

They photographed him and radioed/texted the concern. One contemporaneous message around 5:38 p.m. said he was “looking towards stage” with the device.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified that Crooks flew a DJI drone over the area around 3:50–4:00 p.m. (roughly two hours before the shooting) for about 11 minutes, approximately 200 yards from the stage. He watched a live feed on the controller. The drone and controller were later recovered from his car.

Crowds pointed and shouted about a man on the roof for roughly two minutes before shots.

The AGR complex (the building Crooks used) was left outside the Secret Service secure perimeter despite known line-of-sight to the stage. No one from any agency was assigned to the roof. Local snipers inside the building thought the outer area and roofs were someone else’s job.

Video posted after shooting shows what appears to be Crooks shuffling on the roof prior to the shots being fired at President Donald Trump.

Approximately 22 seconds before Crooks fired, A Senate report found, a local officer sent a radio alert that there was an armed individual on the building.

But that information was not relayed to key Secret Service personnel who were interviewed by Senate investigators.

The Senate panel also interviewed a Secret Service counter-sniper who said that they saw officers with their guns drawn running toward the building where the shooter was perched, but the person said they did not think to notify anyone to get Trump off the stage.

Another troubling finding from the bipartisan Senate investigation was how technical issues downed Secret Service drones during the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The agent responsible for overseeing the Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) called a toll free 888 tech support hotline ‘to start troubleshooting with the company.’ There were no backups.

It took several hours to get the drones back up and running – and the agent responsible for the drone operations only had three months of experience with the equipment.

USSS denied specific on-the-ground requests for additional C-UAS drone capabilities and a Counter Assault Team liaison in Butler that day.

Investigators found that there was no clear chain of command among the Secret Service and other security agencies and no plan for coverage of the building where the shooter climbed up to fire the shots.

Officials were operating on multiple, separate radio channels, leading to missed communications, and an inexperienced drone operator was stuck on a help line after his equipment wasn’t working correctly.

Communications among security officials were a ‘multi-step game of telephone,’ Peters said.

Who Was Thomas Matthew Crooks? Investigation Reveals More Facts About The Shooter

Thomas Mattew Crooks was born to his parents, Matthew and Mary Crooks, on September 20^th, 2003 in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

He grew up in a modest family home in Bethel Park with his parents, Matthew and Mary Crooks, both licensed professional counselors. He had an older sister, Katherine.

He was often characterized as quiet, intelligent, and socially withdrawn. Reports mention limited disciplinary issues growing up.

Crooks attended local public schools, including Bethel Park High School. He graduated high school in 2022 with high honors.

He received a $500 “star award” from the National Math and Science Initiative and belonged to the National Technical Honor Society. He scored 1530 on the SAT, which is considered to be an incredibly high score.

Crooks earned an associate degree in engineering science from the Community College of Allegheny County, graduating with high honors in May 2024.

He had planned to continue at Robert Morris University for mechanical engineering. The college reported no disciplinary issues in his records.

He worked as a dietary aide (kitchen/food-prep role) at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, a job he held for several years. Employers said he passed a background check and raised no concerns.

The trove of files includes FBI interviews with Thomas’ father, Matthew, who revealed he “never really had a father/son bond” with the gunman, and that his stoic son rarely expressed strong emotions, hardly laughed and was very difficult to read.

Thomas started getting into shooting and guns as a teenager, though he had little interest in the outdoorsman life, Matthew said he briefly took interest in hunting but said he couldn’t envision him actually killing an animal. He also “hated” fishing.

Matthew said his conversations with Thomas during this period were usually brief and gun-related, such as the then-teen wondering if “he would have to do a background check” to buy his dad’s Glock, a question he told investigators he considered “odd.”

He also asked if he could have his grandfather’s guns. Video has since surfaced of Crooks dry-firing a handgun in his bedroom.

Thomas started going to the gun club around the time of the pandemic and was a “terrible” shot — “he could not hit the paper [target],” Matthew told investigators, estimating it took 4-5 years of practice before he could even do that.

Eventually, with practice, Thomas became a better marksman, coming home with range targets showing off to his dad how well he did with a target placed over 100 yards away.

After he questioned his son about why he was “going out so far,” Thomas explained, “he wanted to see how far he could shoot with rudimentary sights.”

He found he was able to shoot even further distances after he bought a prism sight, eventually becoming “very knowledgeable” about how to measure and zero-in on a target, and knew exactly how many clicks it would take to change the specific angle on the sight.

As Thomas’ interest in guns grew, he started buying large numbers of Amazon packages, including “parts, tools and items to increase the capacity of his rifle.”

He took to using the pseudonym “Bob Dole” for his delivery address, a bit of misguided paranoia he picked up after his father’s Citizens Bank checking account was hacked and several fraudulent BetMGM charges were made on his account.

Matthew said Thomas believed if one were to purchase items under a pseudonym, such as the ex-GOP presidential candidate’s moniker, the buyer could never be hacked. The father explained that wasn’t how it worked, and that even under an assumed name for deliveries, the charge is still being made to a bank account under his name.

He also coached Matthew how to use identity-obscuring software like CyberGhost VPN and the Bravenet Browser — which Thomas would argue made them “less likely to be compromised by outside actors.”

Matthew further recalled Thomas using multiple different, privacy-focused encrypted email providers, including GMX and Mailfence.

It was around this time Thomas obtained a 3D printer, and once brought home a large container of an unknown substance he claimed was needed to clean it.

Matthew said he once tried to fashion his own handgun, which nearly ended in disaster.

“Using carbon fiber plastic, a dryer and a toaster oven, Thomas did once create a Glock 19,” Matthew told investigators.

But he said after he discharged a single round from it, he feared the frame would explode, and would not allow Thomas to use it.

From all angles, Crooks appears to be a lonely individual who was coaxed into committing political violence by somebody, yet no accomplice has yet to be revealed. Despite the fact that authorities flagged Crooks as a ‘suspicious person’ who was communicating on his phone and ‘not paying attention to the rally’ on the day of the shooting.

Reports claim that Crooks purchased the ammunition he would use during the attack that very morning, just before coming to the site of the rally to do his drone surveillance.

The documents revealed through the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal the similarities between Crooks and Lee Harvey Oswald, along with other political assassins throughout modern history. A lone gunman, acting without collaboroation.

As you can see through my New York Times Best-Selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy, the evidence shows that Oswald collaborated with many different groups prior to the assassination of JFK, and that Lyndon Baines Johnson had the most to gain from Kennedy’s assassination. I lay out the facts in that work, which you can find at Barnes and Noble, online, or really any bookstore.

That leads us to the obvious question about Butler, given the time it happened, the effect Donald Trump’s potential assassination would have had on the 2024 election, and the impact it would have had on the psyche of the American people, who had the most to gain from a potential assassination that day?

Given the failures of our own government agencies, who at the time were under the direction of President Joe Biden, who also covered up the evidence surrounding Crooks prior to his leaving office, we are left wondering If the Democrat Party was complicit in this assassination attempt, or perhaps the very “Deep State” President Donald Trump has spent his entire political career fighting against.

There needs to be a full investigation into the DOJ officials who handled this case prior to President Donald Trump taking office.

We must get to the bottom of who exactly worked to cover-up facts surrounding this assassination attempt, and bring them to justice. The time to act is now.

The Eerie Similarities Between Lee Harvey Oswald and Thomas Matthew Crooks

When examining the scenarios which led to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks in 2024, the similarities are impossible to ignore.

Crooks ordered over 25 gun accessories and parts to his home address using an alias, fearing that his identity would be exposed. Lee Harvey Oswald ordered his rife through the mail, using the alias “A. Hidell” / “Alek Hidell.”

Both Oswald and Crooks were young men in their early 20s from relatively ordinary backgrounds who were described by many who knew them as quiet, socially isolated, or hard to read.

Each killed at least one bystander in addition to wounding the intended target. Neither left a clear manifesto. Investigators in both cases struggled to pin down a single, coherent motive.

Both showed mixed or contradictory political signals.

Both men took action to kill the most important political figure of their time, one successfully, and another unsuccessfully.

The government has also worked to obscure evidence surrounding both alleged shooters, classifying documents to ensure secrecy.

Over two years after the near-assassination of President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and we know no more about Thomas Crooks today than we did they day that he fired the shot.

Who was Crooks communicating with in Butler that day? Why was he able to fly a drone around the site of the rally with Secret Service present, unable to fly their own drones for surveillance?

Why was the AGR building, from which Crooks took his shots, left unattended by Secret Service despite the fact that it was well-within the range which requires rooftop surveillance?

Why did law enforcement act so slowly, even as people screamed and warned of a shooter minutes before Crooks ever fired a single bullet?

We don’t have an honest set of facts when it comes to Butler shooting. That much is clear.

What did Joe Biden, Christopher Wray, and others in government fear being revealed in the Crooks investigation?

Why did they move to delete this crucial, relevant, and historical evidence before President Donald Trump took office?

There must be a complete investigation into the deletion of this information. The American people deserve the truth.

President Donald Trump has spent his second term pursuing an end to the Russia-Ukraine war through the traditional machinery of presidential diplomacy: meetings with world leaders, direct conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, American envoys traveling between capitals and negotiations over territory, sanctions and security guarantees.

Those negotiations remain extraordinarily difficult, with the diplomatic process repeatedly advancing, stalling and restarting. As recently as September, preparations were underway for another possible round of U.S.-Russia-Ukraine talks.

But alongside the President’s conventional diplomatic effort, First Lady Melania Trump has developed something different: a parallel humanitarian channel between countries at war, centered not on territory or military objectives, but on children and families separated by the conflict.

That distinction may be more significant than Washington realizes.

The effort began with a personal letter the First Lady wrote to Putin in August 2025 raising the plight of children affected by the war. From that outreach grew continuing communications involving her representative and officials from both Russia and Ukraine – and results followed.

The first reunifications came in October 2025. Seven more children were reunited with their families in December, with additional rounds in February, April and July. By August 17, 2026, the White House said the initiative had helped facilitate the reunification of 34 children and families separated during the war.

Thirty-four children represent only a small portion of a much larger crisis. Ukrainian officials have documented approximately 20,000 reported cases involving the deportation or forced transfer of Ukrainian children, while Russia disputes Ukraine’s characterization of those cases.

But the significance of the First Lady’s effort isn’t simply a number – it’s the mechanism she has helped create. Traditional peace negotiations tend to begin with the hardest questions: territory, borders, sanctions, armies and security guarantees. Those are precisely the issues on which neither side believes it can easily compromise.

Child reunification works differently.

A child returning to his or her family does not require either country to surrender territory, abandon a military position or settle the future of disputed land. Instead, it identifies something simpler: an area where two adversaries can still cooperate.

Every successful reunification requires names to be exchanged, identities verified, families located, logistics arranged and commitments honored. Those may be small steps beside negotiations to end a war. But diplomacy is often built from small commitments that are made – and then kept.

The First Lady herself captured the idea in July when she said that the parties should be able to place children “above international disputes.”

That principle has now produced repeated cooperation, and it offers a lesson for Washington: American diplomacy traditionally approaches conflicts from the top down, settling the largest geopolitical disputes first and expecting humanitarian progress to follow.

Melania Trump’s initiative suggests a second path can run alongside it – one that begins where agreement is possible, builds trust through narrow and verifiable commitments, and produces a tangible result before attempting another.

The President and First Lady are, in effect, operating on two different tracks – one from the top down, the other from the bottom up.

They do not have to remain disconnected.

The First Lady’s humanitarian channel cannot by itself resolve territorial disputes or produce a ceasefire, and 34 reunifications should not be confused with a resolution of the enormous suffering the war has caused. But diplomacy depends on channels of communication, particularly ones that have already demonstrated that opposing sides can exchange information, make commitments and carry them out.

That is why what Melania Trump has built deserves attention beyond the humanitarian success of each individual reunion. She has shown that even nations fighting a brutal war can still find a narrow piece of common ground.

And sometimes that is how something much larger begins.

President Trump continues working toward an agreement capable of ending the war. Alongside him, the First Lady has developed a different kind of diplomacy – humanitarian, personal and deliberately focused on the one subject both sides should be able to place above politics and war: children.

After 34 reunifications, her effort is no longer merely symbolic. It is a functioning diplomatic channel – one built on communication, cooperation and commitments kept.

Together, they have created two paths toward the same destination. One is working to end the war. The other is helping reunite the families caught in it.

Much has been reported about the potential legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House press pool for their repeated abuse of their position to lie about the President, and ultimately the country.

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump has faced unprecedented and unmatched media scrutiny since he first announced his candidacy for President back in 2015. The media has attempted, since they day he has entered politics, to viciously malign the President with false scandals, big lies, and fake news.

Instead of simply allowing outlets such as CNN, MSNOW, and Politico to spew their lies unchallenged, President Donald Trump has taken action. Trump issued an announcement from his Truth Social feed last week that the three outlets mentioned previously would no longer have access to the White House press pool, citing their negative and distorted coverage.

The backlash from the Democrat-Media complex has been swift and unanimous, as it was announced today that even Fox News has removed their team from the White House press pool in solidarity with CNN, Politico, and MSNOW in protest of the President’s decision.

ABC, CBS, and NBC have also announced that they will no longer be participating in the White House press pool in protest.

CNN falsely characterized the ban as an attack on free speech. Emily Kuhn, CNN spokeswoman said on September 18^th in a statement, “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”

Politico issued a similar statement, writing, “We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them.”

MSNOW echoed the sentiment of the previous two, writing, “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

These outlets didn’t just save their words for statements, either. The three organizations, this morning, filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Administration over the ban, citing free speech concerns.

A joint statement recognizing the lawsuit issued this morning reads, “This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes. Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Ted Boutrous, the attorney representing the three outlets, who also happens to be the same lawyer who represented CNN in the 2018 Jim Acosta case, said today about the lawsuit, ““The President’s ban of CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House is a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of due process. The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration.”

The outlets are making it clear. They believe that President Donald Trump’s actions against them are a direct violation of their free speech rights. Luckily, we have had 250 years of judicial precedent on issues such as these throughout American history, and many such cases specifically involving the direct access media organizations are legally obligated to have to politicians have been settled.

A close examination of these cases reveals that President Donald Trump has every right, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, to remove communist, fake news outlets such as CNN from the White House press pool. Here are the decisions and how they impact the lawsuit filed by CNN, MSNOW, and Politico against the White House.

Zemel v. Rusk (1965)

In the early 1960s, Louis Zemel was an American citizen that wanted his passport validated so he could travel to Cuba “to satisfy [his] curiosity” and become a better-informed citizen after the U.S. broke relations with Castro. The State Department refused.

Zemel argued the ban violated his First Amendment right to gather information. The Supreme Court (6-3) upheld the restriction.

Chief Justice Warren wrote the key line in the case, writing, “The right to speak and publish does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information.”

The Court added that “the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen’s opportunities to gather information… but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right.”

The White House is government property. The Court itself used the White House as the example of a place the public, and therefore the press, has no constitutional right to enter.

Denying CNN, Politico, or MS NOW physical access does not, under this holding, automatically violate the First Amendment simply because those outlets want to report from inside the building.

Pell v. Procunier (1974) and companion case Saxbe v. Washington Post

In the early 1970s, California prison rules banned face-to-face interviews with specific inmates chosen by journalists.

Reporters and prisoners sued, claiming a First Amendment right of access.The Court rejected the claim.

Justice Stewart wrote that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.”

Journalists could still visit prisons, talk to inmates they encountered, and interview people at random, the same access the public had, plus a little extra.

They just could not demand interviews with particular prisoners. A companion case, Saxbe v. Washington Post, applied the same rule to federal prisons.

White House press credentials and briefing-room access have never been available to the general public.

They are a limited privilege the Executive Branch has historically controlled. Pell is the case most often cited for the proposition that the press has no constitutional right to locations or interviews that ordinary citizens cannot get.

This case yet again illustrates, through the precedent that the First Amendment does not provide journalists special access, that the President is well within his legal right to ban these outlets from the White House.

Houchins v. KQED (1978)

In the mid-70s, a local TV station wanted to inspect and film a specific part of a county jail after a suicide, including interviews and cameras. The sheriff offered only the same public tours given to everyone else. The station sued for special media access.The Court (plurality) held there is no First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities under government control.

Chief Justice Burger’s opinion contains the other line your friend quoted: the First Amendment “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.”

The press’s protection is the right to communicate information it has obtained, not a right to collect it from the government on demand.

If the public is excluded, the press can be excluded too. Any extra access is a policy choice for the political branches, not a constitutional mandate.

This is the strongest of the three precedents for the administration’s position. The White House grounds, Oval Office, and briefing room are government-controlled spaces.

The Court said the Constitution does not require the government to open those spaces to journalists beyond whatever access it already gives the public, which, in practice, is almost none.

Under no circumstance is the President violating the First Amendment right of any of these organizations, or any Americans by revoking access to the White House for nefarious “news outlets” that simply exist to peddle the narratives desired by the ruling class.

President Donald Trump was elected to end the bureaucratic control of America that saw our jobs leave our shores, our factories shuttered, and our way of life decimated. The news agencies banned by the President have not only tolerated that agenda of degradation instituted by our ruling class, but assisted in furthering it.

The American people deserve honest reporting. Especially about the President of the United States. His move is a brilliant step in the direction of truth, based in absolute law and fact.

CNN, MSNBC and POLITICO, all of whom claim to be objective journalistic organizations, spent almost 2 years accusing me falsely of treason and being a Russian intelligence asset.

Now they are apoplectic about the fact that they will no longer be able to spew their lies from inside the White House, as President Donald Trump has announced that he is banning their organizations’ White House access due to their relentless falsified reporting about his Administration.

On September 18^th, 2026, the President posted to his Truth Social account making the declaration. The President said, “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

The news received backlash immediately from the Democrat political establishment, as well as their cohorts in the mainstream media. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said about the move, ““Donald Trump just did what dictators throughout history have done. This is a democracy. You will not be able to manipulate the news or hide the truth.”

Even former President Barack Obama has chimed in, saying about the ban, “My imagination could not foresee some of the stuff that’s going on right now. I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘You know what, Fox News, you’re out of here!’ It’s unimaginable.”

Here is why I have a little sympathy for the networks that tried to destroy my life over a fabricated narrative, and why the nakedly partisan statements from Schumer and Obama do nothing to reflect reality.

Late in the night on election day 2020, just hours before the legal deadline imposed, the U.S. Department of Justice complied with a federal court decision ordering it to release the last remaining redacted sections of the so-called ‘Mueller Report’ that had been hidden since the report’s publication nearly 18 months earlier.

At midnight on election day, November 3rd, 2020 – timed to get as little press coverage as possible on the busiest news day of the year, the United States Department of Justice released the remaining unredacted sections of the Mueller Report regarding me specifically, in which they had admitted that despite two years of intense investigation, spending millions to pour through every aspect of my life, dragging 36 witnesses to the grand jury and after obtaining all my electronic communications for four years (literally millions of e-mails and pages of documents, tax returns, banking, and financial records) – they found no factual evidence of any collaboration or coordination between me and WikiLeaks regarding the release of emails regarding John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton or that I had any advance knowledge of the timing, content or source of their disclosures.

Even BuzzFeed, who won the release of the data in a lawsuit actually said I was “vindicated.” The rest of the media? They reported nothing at all.

The report is a voluminous effort by the ‘Special’ Counsel’s unethical, if not criminally-corrupt, lawyers, as their prolonged, baseless, partisan-motivated legal fishing expedition finally came to an end, to blunt the logical conclusion by the public that the entire corrupt multi-year multi-million dollar boondoggle was, in reality, a malicious fraud against President Donald Trump and anyone who supported him and a runaway purveyor of kangaroo “justice” against its unfortunate political targets.

For its hundreds of pages tediously propping up a convoluted defamatory narrative now known to be nothing more than a brazen fabrication by the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, the report is rife with highly-parsed wording, deceitful innuendo, and presumptuous, conclusory leaps of illogic, often delving into irrelevant minutiae, engaging in misleading factual cherry-picking and employing officious-sounding spin as dishonest substitutes for evidence that never existed. Despite this sugar-coating, what the unredacted documents do show is shocking.

Specifically, the newly unveiled documents say:

On Page 178,

“The Office’s determination that it could not charge WikiLeaks or Stone as part of the Section 1030 conspiracy was also informed by the constitutional issues that such a prosecution would present. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin.”

Also Page 178,

“The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones.1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated. Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails. Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability. See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985).

“Regardless, success would also depend upon evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions-the proof that is currently lacking.”

Judge Amy Berman withheld this from my lawyers at trial. The Mueller’s dirty cops concluded in their report that even if they had found evidence that I had received documents from Assange of WikiLeaks and passed them to anyone, which I did not and for which they found no evidence whatsoever, it would not have been illegal. The whole thing was a hoax.

For three years the fake News media has insisted that Julian Assange ( a journalist who has never had the accuracy of anything he has published questioned) is actually an asset for the Russians and that his website Wikileaks got the documents and e-mails via a hack via the Russians.

Worse they insisted that I had served as the link between Assange and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. I was called a traitor and a Russian spy. The left insisted that my colorful Twitter feed and some of my speeches and interviews proved that I had advance knowledge of the source and content of the WikiLeaks disclosures that so roiled the 2016 campaign. I was falsely accused of having advance knowledge of the publication of John Podesta’s e-mails.

The only three news outlets who reported on this shocking election day admission that there was no evidence found that would support this narrative were BuzzFeed, who successfully brought the lawsuit for the release of this material, the Washington Examiner and ZeroHedge. Where were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Hill, Politico, Salon, Vox, Vice, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and the Business Insider – all of who were quick to smear me as a “go-between for WikiLeaks and the Trump Campaign” but none of whom reported on the stunning conclusions of Mueller’s thugs.

It is important to note that the only communication I had with Wikileaks was via Twitter direct message and was fully disclosed and supplied to the House Intelligence Committee at the time of my testimony in 2017. Even this exchange proves nothing- yet Mueller’s thugs tried to pretend it was some kind of bombshell.

The media lynch mob that smeared me is a typical example of the bias and the fraudulence of the corporately-owned fake news media. The headlines below reflect just a small sample of the inaccurate and malicious reporting by the fake news media. Every one of these stories is disproven by the November 3rd disclosure by the US Department of Justice. Every one of these stories includes fundamental falsehoods, inaccurate leaks from the Special Counsel’s office, the omission of important facts, and the relentless pushing of an entirely false narrative.

NY TIMES – Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign and Wikileaks

NY TIMES – Roger Stone Sold Himself to Trump’s Campaign as a WikiLeaks Pipeline. Was He?

NY TIMES – Roger Stone Was in Contact With Julian Assange in 2017, documents show

NY TIMES – Stone Trial Links Trump More Closely to 2016 Effort to Obtain Stolen Emails

CNN – Mueller indicts Roger Stone, says he was coordinating with Trump officials about WikiLeaks’ stolen emails

Share

CNN – Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks

Reuters – Mueller says searches yielded evidence of Stone-WikiLeaks communications

The Hill – FBI releases documents showing Roger Stone, Julian Assange communications

The Atlantic – Roger Stone’s Secret Messages with WikiLeaks

The Guardian – I saw Roger Stone as ‘access point’ to WikiLeaks in 2016, Bannon tells court

POLITICO – Steve Bannon: Roger Stone was our unused WikiLeaks ‘access point’

Huffington Post – FBI Documents Reveal Communication Between Roger Stone, Julian Assange

Huffington Post – How WikiLeaks, Paul Manafort And Roger Stone Fit Into The Mueller Investigation

Huffington Post – Roger Stone Pressed For Damaging Emails About Hillary Clinton From WikiLeaks: Report

Business Insider & AP – FBI documents reveal that Roger Stone was in direct communication with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

Business Insider – Mueller is looking into a stunning claim former Trump associate Roger Stone made about a meeting with Julian Assange

Business Insider – Roger Stone communicated with WikiLeaks about hacked Democratic emails, says Mueller investigation

New York Intelligencer – Mueller Investigating Whether Roger Stone Had Dinner With Assange

New York Intelligencer – Trump Floats Pardon of Russia-Scandal Accomplice Roger Stone

New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Sought Clinton Emails From Assange in September 2016

New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Knew in Advance About About the Stolen Emails. Did He Tell Trump?

Washington Post – The Roger Stone indictment fills in new details about WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign

VICE – Why Roger Stone could be Mueller’s next target in the Russia probe

VICE – Roger Stone says he doesn’t “think” he discussed WikiLeaks with Paul Manafort

VICE – Trump surrogate Roger Stone claims ‘devastating’ WikiLeaks bombshells to come

MSNBC – Roger Stone Tried to Walk Back Claims About Julian Assange

MSNBC – Stone trial testimony sheds new light on Trump, WikiLeaks connections

MSNBC – Roger Stone faces new questions about alleged WikiLeaks connections

MSNBC – Roger Stone link to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange Uncovered

NBC – Text messages show Roger Stone and friend discussing WikiLeaks plans

Salon-Roger Stone admits to 2016 phone conversation with Julian Assange: Report

Sharon LaFrontiere of the New York Times, Roz Helderman of the Washington Post, Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal, the odious Natasha Bertrand, then of Atlantic Magazine, now at Politico, the vile Jonathan Chiat of New York Magazine, Daniel Friedman at Mother Jones, Andrew Prokop of Vox, Sara Murray of CNN, congenital liar Ari Melber of MSNBC, NBC propagandist and long -time CIA plant Ken Dilanian, ( who was actually fired by the Chicago Tribune for clearing his stories with the Agency)-are just a handful of the “reporters” who defamed me repeatedly with a torrent of lies and distortions, none of whom had the courtesy or professionalism to report the Nov 3 disclosures which prove that virtually all of their reporting on my case and the Mueller witch hunt efforts to destroy me, were flawed, distorted and based on the fundamental principles of honest journalism should now be retracted or corrected. I won’t hold my breath.

It wasn’t just the nut jobs like Mother Jones, the Daily Beast, Salon and nutty bloggers like Marcy Wheeler but allegedly responsible media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and CNN and MSNBC became obsessed with the idea that I was working with WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks was working with the Russians.

I often joke with some of my associates as to what newspaper in the United States is the worst when it comes to trafficking in the mainstream media narrative in which they told us that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russian intelligence in the 2020 elections and repeatedly asserted the questionable claim by US Intelligence that Julian Assange was a Russian asset and that the Democratic National Committee’s servers were hacked by the Russians.

Not surprisingly, none of these reporters or outlets reported on the declassified documents ultimately liberated from the national security bureaucrats by then-acting DNI Director Rick Grenell which prove that now not even Crowdstrike stands behind the claim that there is forensic proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. The intelligence services and the FBI knew from the beginning that the Steele dossier had been compiled with the assistance of Russian intelligence and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Actually, there is no question whatsoever that the Washington Post is the most dishonest and blatant purveyor of falsehoods. This timeline, for example, compiled by Phillip Bump is a perfect example of a completely false narrative now disproved in the actual words of the Mueller report. Bump’s reporting at the Washington Post stands out as the most dishonest, inaccurate, contrived, defamatory coverage of the ordeal I went through. This timeline, for example at the Washington Post – “A timeline of the Roger Stone-WikiLeaks question” should be nominated for a fiction writing prize.

Bump is, of course, the ‘journalist” who insisted in the pages of the worst newspaper in America that there was never any evidence that Bill Clinton ever sexually assaulted any woman.

I was also vilified for an innocuous Twitter direct message exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 who our Intelligence Chiefs insist is a Russian operative and responsible for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign emails on behalf of the Russians. In fact, the identity of Guccifer 2.0 and the claim that he is a Russian assets is based on a series of cyber fingerprints that no real Russian Spy who wanted to have his intrusions undetected would leave and the CIA’s extensive report on how to hack a server and make it look like it came from elsewhere in the Vault 7 disclosures of CIA dirty laundry published by Wikileaks.

“Roger Stone admits contact with Russian Intelligence” the headlines falsely screamed. Even if he was Vladimir Putin himself the fact that the entire exchange took place long after the Clinton documents had been obtained and published by Wikileaks -meaning my involvement in the alleged hack of those would be impossible and the exchange itself proves no collaboration or collusion- because I released SCREEN SHOTS of the entire exchange in 2017.

The left never lets facts get in the way of a good smear.

So in other words the claim that my innocent and innocuous exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter DM which I myself released publicly, was proof of collusion between the GRU and the Trump campaign is disproved by the context, timing, and content of the exchange which took place after the release of DNC documents by Wikileaks Mueller himself revived this chestnut in the Washington Post Op-Ed written for him by little Andy Weissmann.

For two years leaked stories predicting that although I had no formal role in the President’s campaign I would be charged with “Conspiracy Against the United States” “Foreign Contribution Ban” “Fraud and Related Activities in Connection with Computers” “Wire Fraud” “Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy” “Unauthorized Access of a Protected Computer” “Accessory After the Fact to the commission of a felony. Indeed, Aaron Zelinsky the prosecutor on the Mueller team who previously worked as Deputy Counsel for Hillary Clinton at the State Department would represent to multiple Federal Judges and magistrates that he had probable cause to investigate me on these ridiculous charges to obtain search warrants to access (and trash) my computers, my cell phone, my text messages, my paper files, my business records, my Florida home, my Florida studio and my New York City Apartment.

This is why they had to find something else, anything else, to charge me with. The ‘Lying to Congress’ charges are a tortured stretch. The witness tampering charge is a bogus concoction. The witness I allegedly tampered with- Randy Credico- threatened to put a bullet in the head of one of my associates who was subpoenaed to the grand jury, if he contradicted Credico’s ( false) testimony.

No misstatement I made to the House Intelligence Committee hid any underlying crime, meaning I had no motive to lie. The argument made by prosecutors at my trial, that I lied to hide the Trump campaign’s interest in the Wikileaks disclosures because it would ” look bad” for Donald Trump is ludicrous in view of the fact that candidate Trump himself discussed the WikiLeaks disclosures 142 times in September and October of 2016 according to MSNBC. If I had been given a fair trial, with an honest Judge who did not bar every powerful defense and had an honest unbiased jury, I might have been acquitted.

The report’s previously blacked-out pages reveal what is, in effect, a confession by Special Counsel operatives that they had absolutely nothing to substantiate any prosecutable offenses against myself, Wikileaks, or the Trump campaign, despite their efforts to torture the law to its limits to obtain their desired outcomes.

Most astonishingly, after explaining they had no evidence to support criminal charges for what they knew full well were perfectly-legal efforts to raise awareness and promote public scrutiny of Democrat corruption, as chronicled in an authentic record of the Democrats’ own communications, the report further confesses that their investigative targets like me had substantial 1st Amendment-based defenses, likely to overcome any attempted criminal prosecution. In other words, the Mueller gang now admits that my efforts to promote public awareness of the Wikileaks disclosures was perfectly legal. Shove that up your ass, Natasha Bertand.

My constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press, as exercised in totally-legal political and election campaign activities attempting to inform the public about Clinton Democrat corruption ahead of a presidential election, were maliciously violated by cynical, criminally power-abusive Special Counsel thugs.

The same goes for the rights of the President and those in the Trump Campaign who likewise sought to legally bring public light to information highly-relevant to the 2016 presidential election.

It is clear from the recently declassified materials released by ODNI Tulsi Gabbard that the Special Counsel, by its own admission, was fully aware it had no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that either WikiLeaks, the Trump Campaign or I had done anything illegal concerning the Clinton-DNC email corruption expose. Moreover, they admit that our efforts were in fact constitutionally-protected political and journalistic activities.

The short of this is that the malicious prosecution visited on me as a parting shot by the failed Special Counsel, just as it finally ended its nearly two-year witch hunt, was nothing more than a sensationalist ass-covering distraction and a cynical ploy intended to superficially justify the Special Counsel’s pointless, prolonged existence, after spending almost two years to come up with literally nothing whatsoever of any substance or credibility to support the BIG LIE on which it was dishonestly founded and perpetuated.

When this ulterior-motivated, malicious prosecution against me entered the federal court system it was before a hostile partisan judge whom the Special Counsel had purposefully “shopped” into the case through one of the prosecution team’s many false, misleading representations made to the U.S. District Court throughout the case. They knew quite well what they were doing when they fraudulently secured Amy Berman-Jackson as the trial judge in my case.

Prosecutors insisted that my case must be tried before Judge Jackson because it was ‘related” to the case of the 17 alleged Russian Intelligence officers who they claim hacked the DNC and gave the purloined data to Wikileaks, a contention of the Government which they relied totally on an analysis by Crowdstrike, a Clinton-friendly IT Security firm. Except Crowdstrike now denies that conclusion. In fact, prosecutors promised Judge Jackson they would introduce evidence obtained by search warrant in that case at my trial. They didn’t produce any such thing but they got the Trump-hating Judge they wanted- and lied to do it.

My attorneys were successful in getting the government to admit that the only “evidence” they had that Russian intelligence agents had computer hacked the Democratic National Committee was this redacted draft report from the Democratic-aligned IT Firm Crowdstrike and that the FBI had never actually examined the DNC servers.

When this news hit the media like a bombshell, out-of-control left-wing Judge Amy Berman Jackson tightened the unconstitutional gag order on me to prevent me from discussing the shocking revelation and the prosecutor in my case Jonathan Kravis, a former Deputy White House Counsel to President Barack Obama after clerking for left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and failed Supreme Court nominee and far-left D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, filed a sur reply with the court falsely claiming that the US Government and the Mueller investigation had additional evidence to bolster their claim that the Russians hacked the DNC.

We now know based on the documents declassified to date that no such proof exists and that Kravis defrauded the court.

The secrecy of this entire process is obsessive. The 76 pages of e-mails turned over to BuzzFeed News by the Executive Office of US Attorneys were heavily redacted. The agency withheld 152 pages in releasing the emails Nov. 3rd and indicated some of those records are sealed and others were referred to the FBI for review. These many redactions need to be explained or removed. This isn’t some national security case. There are no sensitive intelligence, diplomatic or military implications. All parties involved are U.S. citizens. There is no continuing investigation nor other pending cases involving its subject matter.

This is a domestic criminal prosecution of a sole defendant by jury trial in a federal district court for offenses implicating only legislative oversight of domestic political activities. A prosecutor in the case made a public protest of withdrawing from the case over the government’s alleged handling of the sentencing. He then volunteered public testimony to a legislative oversight committee alleging that the handling of the sentencing by his prosecution team was subject to undue influence by DOJ officials for ulterior political motives. Yet according to the Washington Post three top senior non-political Officers at DOJ have denied the under-oath testimony of Rogue prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky in which he claimed all three had told him of political pressure to ‘go easy” on Roger Stone. When will Zelinsky be indicted for lying to Congress? Why is Zelinsky still working in the Trump Justice Department?

Loose cannon Aaron Zelinsky isn’t the only one who lied under oath. When Steve Bannon’s House Intelligence Committee testimony was declassified we learned that his testimony at my trial in which he was Mueller’s star witness was directly contradicted by his sworn testimony before the House Committee. In fact, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who reviewed both transcripts told the New York Post “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry.” Turley said. “He (Bannon) has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance,” Turley noted.

Additionally, federal prosecutors had an obligation under the law to inform us that Steve Bannon was actively under investigation and knew this to be the case at the time that he offered false testimony against me. The prosecutors in my case who were well aware of the discrepancies between Bannon’s house testimony and his testimony understand my trial knowingly suborned perjury.

Specifically, in the summer before trial, my defense team asked Berman-Jackson to order the DOJ to disgorge the Mueller report’s many redacted sections about me for our evaluation and possible use as exculpatory evidence, if not as evidence of prosecutorial deceit and manipulation in violation of my constitutional rights as a criminal defendant.

Berman-Jackson’s response to this motion was to withhold her ruling and order the DOJ to turn over the unredacted report to her for her ‘in camera’ (or behind closed doors) evaluation of the contents before deciding whether to grant or deny our motion. After receiving the unredacted report from the DOJ, per her order, and reviewing its contents out of view of the defense (the prosecution already knew what was in it), Berman-Jackson summarily denied our motion, gave us numerous unredacted sections of the hidden material that was innocuous or meaningless without context but withheld the material that even Buzzfeed said ” vindicated “me.

Berman-Jackson fully understood that evidence from the Special Counsel’s own report which unequivocally negated the entire premise of its pending prosecution against me — namely, a nefarious conspiracy to steal Democrat emails and collude with the Russians — would likely be devastating to the case against me for false statements to a partisan committee supposedly investigating what they and Special Counsel knew to be legal, constitutionally-protected political and press activities.

Berman-Jackson knew what a death blow it would likely be to the Special Counsel’s inflated charges against me for purported false statements and witness tampering, if it came to light that this prosecution was entirely based on an effort to violate, suppress and punish my 1st Amendment-protected political activities, and that the Special Counsel knew all along that this was what they were doing.

I thank God almighty and President Donald Trump for recognizing that I did nothing wrong and granting me an unconditional Pardon at Christmas of 2020.

When it comes to the conjunctive apoplexy being thrown around cable news right now, as CNN and MSNBC scramble to claim that Trump’s ban on their networks from direct White House coverage is an ‘infringement on free speech,’ I have little to no sympathy.

Free speech doesn’t guarantee you direct White House access, in fact, legitimate conservative news organizations with audiences that dwarf CNN and MSNBC combined have been blocked from White House access for years because of their defense of the truth. MSNBC and CNN have, for years, benefitted because of their commitment to serving the interests of the ruling class. For once, we have a President who stands against the ruling class. For that, he is attacked, maligned, and slandered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across channels such as CNN and MSNBC.

When Barack Obama, or Chuck Schumer stand up to defend CNN and MSNBC, they aren’t doing it because they believe those organizations report honest information that helps to build a sensible public discourse. They’re doing it because CNN and MSNBC carry their water, and defend them at every turn, always reflecting negatively on Republicans, particularly President Donald Trump.

For these same networks to lose their direct White House access for the various blatant lies they’ve spewed isn’t a violation of free speech, but an execution of justice to a nefarious group of anti-American hacks who have worked with those in power, for decades, to rob America of its identity.

They also tried to destroy me, but as you can tell, they failed.

A troubling report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy provides a stark reminder of how thoroughly the system remains tilted against the little guy. At least 88 profitable U.S. corporations paid zero federal income tax in 2025 despite reporting more than $105 billion in U.S. pretax income. At the statutory 21 percent rate, these companies should have owed roughly $22.1 billion. Instead, they collected $4.7 billion in rebates, pocketing a collective $26.7 billion in tax breaks. Measured against the pre-2017 rate of 35 percent, the savings climb to an estimated $41 billion in a single year.

The examples are not obscure. Tesla reported nearly $5.7 billion in U.S. income and paid nothing. United Airlines cleared almost $4.3 billion in U.S. income with the same zero federal tax bill. Southwest Airlines did the same on $561 million. Yum! Brands, parent of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, paid zero on more than $1 billion in U.S. pretax profits. Digital payment firms PayPal, Toast, and Block together wiped out federal taxes on $3.2 billion in income. Live Nation Entertainment joined them with $98 million. These are not struggling firms scraping by; they are household names that thrive while the tax code they helped shape treats them as if they earned nothing.

Let’s be clear: MAGA is not, and should never become, a pro-taxation movement. The long-term goal remains the abolition of the income tax and the IRS itself, which are inherently unconstitutional. Government does not need an army of bureaucrats extracting a portion of every paycheck and every profit statement. Yet as long as an income tax exists, the principle of equal application cannot be optional. Your local contractor, restaurant owner, or machine shop pays mightily or suffers massive consequences. Ergo, the corporate giants must pay as well. In fact, if anything, the largest players should shoulder a heavier burden relative to their size because they already extract disproportionate benefits from the system through regulatory capture, lobbying, corporate welfare, and preferential access to federal contracts and bailouts.

Everyone who has ever tried to start or grow a small business understands the disparity. The rules are written in a language that only armies of lawyers and accountants can navigate. Accelerated depreciation, research credits, immediate R&D expensing, foreign-derived income deductions, and stock-option write-offs are not equally available to the Main Street entrepreneur who lacks a tax department larger than most towns’ police forces. The result is a two-tier system in which the biggest players can drive their effective rates to zero while the rest of the country funds the government that those same players influence. This is not free-market capitalism. It is a rigged game, and the American people know it. That knowledge is one reason the status quo is so widely despised.

The companies themselves are not the primary villains. They are acting in their own self-interest, just as market economics would predict. No rational actor seeks to pay more tax than the law requires. The shame belongs to the bureaucratic system that makes these outcomes legal and routine. The same administrative state that MAGA and the Department of Government Efficiency set out to dismantle is the engine that produces these disparities. Waste, fraud, and bailouts flow from Washington into the balance sheets of the well-connected. The corporations grow fat from that upward flow while ordinary businesses and workers suffer the consequences. Inequality widens. Social trust erodes. A country cannot remain great when the rules are openly disparate for the powerful and the rest.

Radical socialists understand this dynamic and weaponize it. They hammer corporate cronyism with relentless focus. Their solutions—confiscatory rates, industrial policy directed by the same bureaucrats who created the problem, and ever-expanding government—are destructive. But the public often does not care about the details of the alternative. People simply hate the existing arrangement and will embrace whoever appears to oppose it with the most gusto. When Republicans look the other way because those same corporations write large checks to their campaigns and affiliated PACs, the party forfeits credibility with independents and younger voters. Without those groups, the Republican coalition becomes an endangered species. The Left is skilled at demagoguing the issue and placing conservatives on the defensive whenever Republicans appear to defend the indefensible.

The only durable answer is to promote fairness within a free-market framework: capitalism with genuine guardrails that prevent the richest and most connected from exploiting the rest. That does not mean higher overall tax rates or new layers of regulation. It means closing the pathways that allow profitable giants to pay nothing while smaller competitors are squeezed. It means ending the corporate welfare that distorts markets and rewards political access over productive investment. It means treating the administrative state itself as the core problem rather than a permanent fixture to be managed.

Several straightforward steps follow from these principles and align with the DOGE impulse to shrink waste and special privilege. First, simplify the corporate tax code so thoroughly that most of the specialized deductions, credits, and timing gimmicks disappear. A broader base with fewer carve-outs reduces the advantage of scale and legal firepower. Second, terminate federal subsidies, preferential loans, and bailout authority that function as off-budget transfers to favored firms. Third, continue aggressive reduction of the regulatory thicket that large corporations help write and then use as barriers to entry against smaller rivals. Fourth, insist on transparency and accountability for every tax expenditure so that the public can see, in plain language, who benefits and by how much. None of these measures requires expanding the IRS or inventing new restrictions on legitimate business activity. They require the opposite: fewer rules, less discretion for bureaucrats, and an end to the private-public partnerships that enrich the already powerful.

MAGA’s strength has always been its willingness to name the ways the system is stacked against ordinary Americans. Pretending that zero-tax outcomes for multi-billion-dollar firms are somehow a free-market triumph is a betrayal of that insight. The administrative state and the corporate interests that feed on it are not separate problems; they reinforce each other. Defeating one requires confronting the other. If the movement allows the super-wealthy to keep their loopholes while small businesses and workers carry the load, the public will eventually look elsewhere for relief. The radical left is ready with its own false promises. The only way to keep MAGA from becoming a temporary interlude is to apply its core principles—fairness, accountability, and hostility to the deep state—consistently, including to the corporate elite that has learned to game the system for its own benefit. The alternative is a slow erosion of trust that no amount of campaign contributions can reverse, which will make the rise of the far-left socialists an inevitability.

By its very nature, the Lindsay Clancy case was always going to be grotesque. What it became is something worse: a national morality play in which a woman who strangled her three children was recast as a martyr, her husband as the villain, and the one juror who refused to pretend otherwise as a public enemy.

On Jan. 24, 2023, in Duxbury, Massachusetts, Lindsay Clancy, then a labor-and-delivery nurse, sent her husband Patrick out of the house on errands. While he was gone she took her children to the basement and brutally strangled them to death with exercise bands: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, eight months old. Then she cut herself and jumped from a second-story window. She has never denied that she did it. Her lawyers admitted it in open court. The only question at trial was whether she should be held criminally responsible.

At the beginning, a certain level of sympathy was not insane. In the four months before the killings Clancy was put on a merry-go-round of dangerous Big Pharma chemicals: Zoloft, Prozac, Seroquel, Ativan, Klonopin, Valium, Ambien, Trazodone, Remeron, buspirone, amitriptyline, and more—thirteen psychiatric drugs, more than thirty prescriptions, handed out by a rotating cast of psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, and emergency-room doctors. Anyone who has looked out the national overprescription crisis and the preventable tragedies that have resulted could look at that list and think that the system failed her. But what began perhaps as an empathetic impulse soon gave way to something far more depraved and indefensible.

The defense of Clancy’s actions did not stop at “she was overmedicated.” It demanded that the public treat the murders as an act of love. And a large, loud, mostly female audience on TikTok was happy to oblige. They declared her innocent even as she and her lawyers kept emphasizing that she had done the killing. They invented a husband who hired a body double to walk into CVS. They decided Patrick had framed her, gaslit her, or somehow performed the stranglings himself. There is video, phone records, and a 911 call that jurors later said they will never unhear. There is zero evidence Patrick killed anyone. That did not matter. Jilted, aggrieved women turned the victim into the perpetrator to satiate their Jezebel spirits.

Influencers shamelessly picked apart photos of Patrick with his new wife, a fertility doctor in New York, speculating that he was engaged in an affair with Lindsey Clancy to gain attention and clicks. His lawyer has now threatened legal action against what he called a “relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign” by “minor celebrities, so-called influencers and outright conspiracy theorists.” This only emboldened the mob to attack him further. As the trial arrived, the agenda behind the gynocentric circus became unmistakable.

After five weeks of testimony and some thirty-eight hours of deliberation, eleven jurors wanted Lindsay Clancy incomprehensibly found not criminally responsible for the murders she committed. One man defiantly stood strong and refused to be bullied into joining the consensus. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked the judge to throw that juror off the panel for “refusing to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt. The judge refused as it is a juror’s responsibility to follow their conscience above all else. Reddington raced an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which was denied. A mistrial was declared, and a tremendous miscarriage of justice was prevented—at least temporarily.

Subscribe now

What followed was not the solemn response from citizens who had just spent weeks staring at three dead children. It was a media tour. Foreperson Roni Carlson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, told NBC she was “so sad, so sad that we couldn’t come up with a verdict for Lindsay.” She said she started filling out the not-guilty forms in excitement when the holdout allegedly admitted some doubt—then he added that he still would not say she was not guilty by reason of insanity. Juror Paula Devlin explained that a hospital video helped the room understand “altruistic filicide,” and that “whatever she did, however she did it, it came from a place of love.” Kellie Farina complained that the holdout “had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” They found the prosecution “harsh.” They found the defense “compassionate” and “entertaining.” They suggested maybe juries should not have to be unanimous. They were not describing a criminal trial. They were describing a pro-Lindsay support group that was bothered by a man with the audacity to remember the crime.

NBC10 Boston then engaged in a doxxing spree against the holdout, described as a black man in his thirties. They stalked his home, harassed his family, and published a dossier. To impugn his reputation, they drudged up a 2021 domestic-violence allegation that was dismissed, a restraining order involving a nephew and an eviction fight over unpaid rent. Even though the juror list was impounded, it did not stop the media from its irresponsible coverage. This is a direct attack on the jury process. Twelve citizens are supposed to be able to say no without being hunted by media ghouls and a digital chorus that has already decided so-called “postpartum psychosis” means license to kill.

The result they wanted is not merely about Lindsay Clancy. For a generation, feminists moved abortion from a tragic concession to a holy sacrament. The next step, always denied until it is not, is to treat the child outside the womb as a continuation of the same problem. If the infant is an accident of timing, then the three-year-old is an accident of endurance. This is what happens when a nation turns its back on Christianity and secularizes. A child goes from an individual whose spirit should be nurtured and whose life should be venerated; to a parasite whose existence impedes the vaunted notion of female empowerment.

Lindsay Clancy is the latest incidence of a social contagion tearing through society like a battering ram. It happened in the summer of 2020 when fentanyl-addicted thug George Floyd was made into a Christ figure and it became virtuous to raze cities in the name of racial retribution. It happened on a different scale when children were systemically indoctrinated, told that their God-given birth sex could be changed on a whim, and then were drugged and butchered and left scarred and mangled for life. These instances draw lines in the sand within the broader culture war, and those of us with decency and sanity must respond in kind. In this particular case, we must make sure through crowdfunding that the lone juror becomes very wealthy in the aftermath so others are incentivized to stand strong in the future.

Twenty-five years later, our country mourns the victims of 9/11. Gatherings take place around the sites where the planes, manned by terrorists, struck and killed innocent people. Names are still read, and we stand together as Americans, in solidarity.

What is rarely discussed on this day is how they got in. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals. Their visas were issued in Jeddah and Riyadh. Most of the Jeddah stamps came from one single consulate.

Four were issued at the embassy in Riyadh. Eleven of the Jeddah stamps were handled by a single junior consular officer. Overlooked paperwork there made all that occurred on this day possible.

The State Department’s own accounting, confirmed in the days after the attacks and later laid out in the 9/11 Commission’s terrorist-travel monograph, showed the pattern. Most of the applications were incomplete.

Four were issued at the embassy in Riyadh. The 9/11 Commission’s terrorist-travel staff report later recorded the pattern: one consular officer issued visas to eleven of the nineteen hijackers. Most of the applications were incomplete. Almost none of the applicants were interviewed.

The rejection rate for Saudi visitors at the time was about 3%. That was not fate. It was a cultivated culture of approval: a system that treated a high-risk threat as a low-risk transaction.

John Brennan sits in that story as CIA chief of station. Before that, he was a political officer in Jeddah in the early 1980s. He ran the Agency’s station in the Kingdom from 1996 to 1999. Station chiefs sit at the intersection of liaison, collection, and influence with the host service. In Saudi Arabia that meant the General Intelligence Presidency, a relationship Washington had cultivated for decades and was reluctant to strain.

A station chief is judged by what he makes a priority. In Saudi Arabia in those years, the priority was the liaison relationship. Visa screening of young Saudi men was not.

The culture at the consulate was to approve.

Brennan left the station in 1999. The culture did not leave with him.

Former consular officer J. Michael Springmann ran the visa section in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989. He has spent years arguing that the CIA used that post to move people it wanted in the United States, mujahideen first, others later, and that State officers who objected were overruled.

Springmann’s tour ended long before 9/11. He later wrote about that work in Visas for Al Qaeda. He says the U.S. consulate there did not function like a normal State Department office: CIA officers worked there while posing as regular diplomats, and the consul general and the CIA’s local chief pressed visa officers to approve travelers who failed the usual tests. Those tests ask whether a person has real ties at home and an honest reason for the trip. Springmann says the standing rule was to make travel easy for Saudis.

His account describes a practice. Most of the world faced a hard look: an interview, a full application, and proof the traveler would go home. Thin files were supposed to be refused. Favored Saudi travelers, he says, often skipped that review when the Saudi government or the CIA office wanted them moved. Springmann left Jeddah more than a decade before the hijackers got their visas.

In June 2001 that practice was made official. Visa Express, mandated Kingdom-wide on June 1, let applicants drop paperwork at designated travel agencies. No interview required. Three of the hijackers used it: Abdulaziz al-Omari, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdhar on his June 13 renewal.

The surviving applications, pulled and reviewed after the attacks, reveal careless oversight. The review found misspellings, blanks, and answers that should have required a second look.

Subscribe now

Wail al-Shehri listed his occupation as “teater.” He and his brother gave “Wasantwn” as a destination. Mihdhar listed “Hotel” as a U.S. address.

The program that let those forms through had been pitched as a courtesy to a wealthy ally whose citizens almost never overstayed. In practice it was also a gift to anyone who already knew how to fill out a form badly and still get a stamp.

Brennan later became CIA director. When the 28 pages and the families’ lawsuits kept the Saudi question alive, he repeated the institutional line: no evidence the Saudi government as an institution directed the plot. That sentence is carefully drawn.

It does not explain why the man who had been the Agency’s senior officer on the Arabian Peninsula during the years the network assembled was never forced to answer, in public and under oath, what his station knew about the flow of young Saudi men through Jeddah and Riyadh.

No one has produced a confession. The record is dates, incomplete forms, and a liaison relationship that treated Saudi visas as low-risk until nineteen men proved they were not.

Remembering 9/11 as only fanatics with box cutters is a kind of amnesia. The pilots and the muscle needed a door. The door was a consular system built around an ally, a station that lived off that alliance, and a generation of managers who were promoted for keeping the relationship smooth.

Brennan sat at the top of it in the years the network assembled, then climbed past the wreckage without a public accounting of what his station saw, what it asked the Saudis for, and what it decided not to fight.

Twenty-five years on, the visas are still treated as a mysterious part of the story. The mystery is how a station that was supposed to see the Kingdom clearly left the paperwork so easy, and why the officer who ran it rose instead of being asked to explain it under oath.

These men got into the country because someone inside the United States government decided Saudi paperwork was not worth a hard look. That choice did not come out of nowhere.

George H.W. Bush spent decades tying the American presidency to the House of Saud. He did it as CIA director, as vice president and then president during the Gulf War alliance with King Fahd, and later as a Carlyle adviser who traveled to Jeddah to court Saudi investors, including the bin Laden family.

Prince Bandar was close enough to the family to be treated as one of their own. A relationship that intimate makes a hard look at a Saudi file feel like a diplomatic problem. That is the part of 9/11 that still does not get a ceremony.

The Trump administration’s decision to move decisively against the Southern Poverty Law Center marks one of the most consequential institutional reckonings in our nation’s history.

Federal prosecutors have charged the organization with wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, alleging that it systematically deceived its own donors. According to the indictment and statements from senior Justice Department officials, the SPLC funneled more than three million dollars in contributions—raised under the banner of dismantling hate groups—into payments to informants embedded inside Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi circles. Shell companies and opaque accounts allegedly masked the transfers. FBI Director Kash Patel has publicly accused the group of promising donors it would dismantle violent extremists while instead paying those same extremists and, in some cases, enabling criminal activity.

Regardless of how the eventual trial concludes, the SPLC is already finished as a credible moral authority. Its reputation lies in ruins. Donors have fled, major financial platforms have restricted contributions, and the organization’s carefully cultivated image as a neutral watchdog has been eviscerated. The campaign against the SPLC must now serve as the operating template for every far-left front that has spent years operating with similar impunity.

Yet cutting off one tentacle of the hydra accomplishes little if the rest of the body remains free to regenerate. Marxists and their fellow travelers have perfected the art of the nebulous front. They create layers of “autonomous” collectives, community organizations, and mutual-aid networks that can absorb pressure, rebrand overnight, and deny any central command structure when the authorities close in.

These Marxist organizers possess discipline, long-term strategic patience, and an organizational playbook refined over decades. Their tactics are designed to evade culpability while continuing the same subversive work under new letterheads. The federal government cannot allow that evasiveness to become a shield. The full weight of investigation, prosecution, asset seizure, and institutional disruption must be expanded to the next tier of organizations that have functioned as the operational backbone of street-level disruption and resistance to lawful federal authority.

The following fronts are a good starting point for expanding the federal crackdown against subversive leftism:

Communities Organizing Latine Power and Action (COPAL)

Based in Minneapolis and founded in 2018, COPAL presents itself as a member-driven advocate for Latine families focused on housing, health, and environmental justice. In practice it has become a central node of terrorism directed against law enforcement.

In June 2026 federal prosecutors indicted fifteen individuals linked to the COPAL network and its affiliated fronts. The pattern is familiar: COPAL trains activists in disruption tactics, deploys “constitutional observers” and rapid-response teams to monitor and interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, then carefully distances itself once arrests occur. Its Immigrant Defense Network coordinates dozens of allied groups across the Midwest.

The organization has helped organize large-scale anti-ICE actions, including the ICEOUT MN protests, while maintaining a public posture of pure community service. This is the same dual-track method the SPLC once used—public virtue signaling paired with private operational support for confrontational activity.

COPAL deserves the same comprehensive federal scrutiny that has already gutted the SPLC’s credibility and financial model. The 15 indictments cannot be seen as bad apples. These were effectively COPAL’s footsoldiers and that should lead to broader action to bring down the COPAL network. Training people to obstruct federal officers and then feigning innocence when those people are caught is not 1st Amendment advocacy; this is part of a war designed to prevent immigration enforcement and put law enforcement in grave danger.

Unión del Barrio

Unión del Barrio occupies a parallel role on the West Coast. This long-standing socialist organization, active since the early 1980s, has positioned itself as the backbone of anti-ICE resistance in California. Senator Josh Hawley formally accused the group of financing and providing logistical and material support for coordinated protests that escalated into riots in the Los Angeles area.

Unión del Barrio organizes community “self-defense” patrols that systematically monitor ICE staging areas, document agent movements, and broadcast real-time alerts so that targets can scatter. These patrols are not spontaneous neighborhood watches; they are trained, coordinated, and explicitly framed as resistance to federal authority.

After Hawley’s letters demanded that the organization cease such support, Unión del Barrio responded with defiance, casting the scrutiny itself as an attack on community self-defense. The group’s ideology is openly revolutionary. It does not merely lobby for policy change; it builds parallel structures designed to stop federal law on the ground by any means necessary. That is precisely the kind of organized obstruction that warrants the same aggressive investigative tools applied to the SPLC—subpoenas, financial tracing and criminal charges against group leaders who aid and abet civil disorder.

Torch Network

The Torch Network represents the national infrastructure of militant ANTIFA groups operating under the convenient fiction of autonomy. Born from the older Anti-Racist Action network, Torch functions as an accrediting and coordinating body for chapters that include Atlanta Antifascists, Front Range Anti-Fascists, Asheville Anti Racism, Rose City Antifa, and others scattered across the country. Its points of unity explicitly reject reliance on police or courts and commit members to direct action against those they label fascists.

The network holds annual conferences, maintains communication channels, and provides mutual support for legal defense and tactical training. Claiming decentralization has long been the movement’s preferred defense against conspiracy charges. Yet the shared ideology, interlocking personnel, and coordinated public messaging reveal a functioning organization. Going after Torch is the equivalent of striking at the circulatory system of American ANTIFA. Dismantling its ability to credential new chapters, share resources, and sustain continuity would do more to degrade the capacity for organized political violence than a series of isolated local prosecutions.

Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Freedom Road Socialist Organization is an explicitly Marxist-Leninist cadre group with deep historical roots in the New Communist Movement and a long paper trail in FBI files. One of its affiliates, Alejandro Orellana, was raided by federal agents in June 2025 and charged with conspiracy to commit civil disorder and aiding and abetting civil disorder after he allegedly distributed protective gear to anti-ICE protesters engaged in clashes with law enforcement in Los Angeles. The charges were later dropped without prejudice—a miscarriage of justice caused by holdovers in the Justice Departments who cowed political pressure rather than stick with the evidence.

Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the case can and should be revived. FRSO openly celebrates its members’ participation in confrontational street actions and frames federal enforcement itself as illegitimate. An organization that trains and deploys cadres for the express purpose of resisting federal immigration operations while maintaining a formal Marxist-Leninist structure cannot claim the protections of ordinary political speech. It is a revolutionary formation working against the United States and should be treated accordingly.

These four organizations are merely illustrative. Hundreds more operate under similar banners of mutual aid, community defense, immigrant justice, or antifascism while performing the same essential function: building parallel power designed to obstruct the constitutional order. This would be no different than if ISIS or Al Qaeda were building up their ranks in the streets. It would not be tolerated then, and this domestic threat is far more insidious and widespread than radical Islam could ever hope to be. It must be treated similarly without exception.

The Trump administration must remain aggressive and set clear precedents. During the lawfare years of the previous administration, the Left demonstrated it would use every available legal and institutional lever against its opponents. There is no strategic reason to exercise unilateral restraint now. Softness will not be reciprocated. These groups and the ideology that animates them stand in fundamental opposition to Western Civilization, the American constitutional system, and the liberties that every American patriot holds dear.

The stakes of the present contest are existential. While the Trump administration still holds the necessary power, it must use that power fully. This goes beyond investigation, prosecution, financial disruption and sustained institutional pressure—which are a good start but cannot suffice alone. The feds must examine every War on Terror statute. They must use RICO laws. They must get creative. Every tool at their disposal must be used to render the leftist organizational apparatus wholly inoperable, leaving them scrambling for decades to come.

A Honduran court has unilaterally dropped all charges against former President Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH), who received a full pardon from President Donald Trump last year after being ensnared in a conspiracy by the Biden-era deep state coercing testimony from narcotraffickers who JOH had been responsible for incarcerating.

The now-deposed communist government slapped charges of fraud and money laundering on Hernandez as part of the comprehensive effort to railroad him and destroy his reputation.

“This chapter of political persecution has now ended,” Hernandez said after the charges were dismissed. “Those who orchestrated this operation not only wanted to see me banished from Honduras forever, never to return, but they were determined to leave my family on the street.”

It is now an undeniable fact that President Trump’s pardon of JOH changed the course of Latin American history.

JOH was extradited to the U.S. due to an extradition treaty that he personally approved to help fight crime in the region. JOH was triumphed in bipartisan fashion as a hard-nosed reformer and ally of American interests, but that changed after he emerged as a top President Trump ally in the fight to repel migrants flooding across the U.S. southern border.

After he left office in 2022, the incoming far-left LIBRE Party regime of Xiomara Castro colluded with the Biden administration to get JOH removed. They worked together to get their pound of flesh in the retaliatory efforts against all those who helped the Trump administration achieve their successes.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris strutted around with Castro amidst her inauguration. They intended to usher in the liberal future of Honduras with the country’s first female president at the helm. But unfortunately for the Biden/Harris regime, Castro proved to be stunningly corrupt and incompetent.

Whereas the criminal case against JOH relied mostly on dubious second-and-third hand accounts, Castro’s own family was caught on video negotiating bribes with drug dealers to fund LIBRE Party operations. For some reason, the Biden administration looked the other way regarding Castro white doing everything in its power to engineer a guilty verdict against JOH.

When the show trial against JOH was ultimately successful, it appeared to shut the door on any hope for freedom in Honduras. The communist government had all the momentum, the National Party base was demoralized, and far-left communists had successfully infiltrated the Liberal Party of Honduras to effectively rig the system.

Enter President Donald J. Trump at the 11th Hour. He changed the game less than week before the election, issuing a full-throated endorsement of the National Party’s presidential candidate Tito Asfura. He also called out the communist collusion between Asfura’s competitors, Roxi Moncada of the LIBRE Party and Liberal Party’s effeminate botox-cheeked Salvador Nasrallah donning his infamous plaster-cast hair piece.

This began to change the dynamics of the race as more Hondurans were once again considering the National Party, but it would be the JOH bump that would tip the scales toward victory. When President Trump shocked the world and announced he would be pardoning JOH, it showed every disaffected Honduran patriot that their voice mattered.

When JOH was hauled off from his home in front of the cameras by an army of police officers, it was a garish display meant to subjugate every Honduran who cared about law and order and conservative values. It was a forceful demonstration that their voice no longer mattered, and they were doomed to watch their country morph into Venezuela before their very eyes.

President Trump inspired the decent people of Honduras. When hundreds of TikTok videos were produced of entire villages celebrating and holding raucous spontaneous celebrations in response to the news, it became obvious that what we were being told about JOH was far from the truth. This was a man celebrated as a hero by his people, not a pariah or an outcast.

When JOH finally made his valiant return to Honduras, he received a welcome like few would have imagined. Tens of thousands rallied to demonstrate their national pride and celebrate the restoration of their sovereignty. With the dismissal of his charges, doubt no longer lingers regarding JOH’s innocence. His record is now fully cleared, and the dawn of the Honduran people has come.

The JOH saga is far from over. Democrats have vowed to get revenge after being humiliated and besmirched by the JOH pardon. If they gain political power in the midterms, they boast that they will come after myself and others who advocated for the freeing of JOH, spinning a conspiracy out of whole cloth. Despite the exhaustive amount of proof indicating that JOH was framed, they will abuse the levers of power to give the opposite impression.

But in the eyes of the Honduran people, there is not a shadow of a doubt regarding JOH’s innocence. The specter hanging over JOH and his family has been removed. They can live in peace now. And Honduras is set to become a foundational cornerstone of the Donroe Doctrine that is eradicating leftism in the Western Hemisphere. That is the legacy of the JOH pardon, and it is indeed a beautiful one.

In 2019, behind closed doors with House Intelligence Committee investigators, Michael Cohen made a prediction about Roger Stone: Donald Trump would never pardon him.

Trump would keep Stone loyal and “on message,” Cohen claimed, but eventually abandon him.

“He’ll let them rot in jail forever,” Cohen said. “He just doesn’t care.”

Seven years later, that prediction could hardly have aged worse.

If you like what you see here on Stone Cold Truth, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support my work, and to get access to exclusive content, shop deals, and more.

For a VERY limited time you can get 50% off your subscription, locked in forever, at the link below:

Get 50% off forever

This deal won’t be around long — So don’t delay!

Cohen misjudged Trump. He misjudged Stone. And he was wrong about which man would ultimately buckle under pressure.

One folded. The other stood firm.

By then, Cohen had already made his choice.

After federal investigators came after him, Cohen pleaded guilty, cooperated with prosecutors and turned against the man he once famously said he would “take a bullet” for.

He went before Congress and attacked Trump. He became a regular television critic of his former boss. He later served as a key witness against Trump in New York.

Cohen cooperated. Stone didn’t.

Stone made clear that he would not turn on Trump or give prosecutors what they wanted simply to make his own situation easier.

That is the central difference. When the pressure came, Cohen chose cooperation. Stone chose truth and loyalty. And Cohen mocked him for it.

His message to Congress was clear: Stone was foolish to believe Trump would ever stand by him. In Cohen’s telling, Trump would use loyalists as long as they were useful, then leave them behind bars when helping them became politically inconvenient.

But that is not what happened.

Trump commuted Stone’s sentence in July 2020, days before Stone was scheduled to report to prison. Five months later, Trump granted Stone a full pardon.

The man Cohen predicted would “rot in jail forever” never spent a day in prison.

Now comes the extraordinary irony.

In 2026, Cohen began moving back toward Trump. And Trump recently appeared on Cohen’s new 77 WABC radio program – the same New York station that carries The Roger Stone Show.

During their conversation, Cohen called Trump “boss.”

Trump said prosecutors had “weaponized” Cohen and praised him for recanting previous claims. Cohen himself has now said he felt pressured and coerced by prosecutors to provide testimony they wanted against Trump.

And then came the ultimate reversal. Cohen submitted a pardon application to President Trump.

Think about that.

The man who cooperated with prosecutors, turned against Trump and predicted Roger Stone would be abandoned to “rot in jail forever” is now asking Trump for the mercy he insisted Trump would never show Stone.

Pressure reveals character.

One stood his ground when the pressure was greatest. The other changed sides.

Forgiveness is admirable, and Trump’s willingness to forgive Cohen says something important about him.

But forgiveness does not erase the record.

Cohen predicted Stone would rot in jail because Stone refused to fold.

Stone never folded.

And Cohen could not have been more wrong.

The so-called “fake electors” narrative has finally collapsed under the weight of its own fabrication. One by one, the cases built by Democratic attorneys general against Republican alternate electors from the 2020 election have crumbled. The most recent example came in Nevada, where Clark County District Judge Mary Kay Holthus dismissed forgery and false-document charges against the six Republican electors, including state GOP Chair Michael McDonald. The judge found no evidence they intended to deceive officials. They had openly announced their purpose, and the certificates they signed could not be legally accepted under Nevada or federal law. Prosecutors’ claims of secret fraud evaporated the moment a court examined them.

The pattern is now unmistakable. In Michigan, a judge appointed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer dismissed all charges against 15 alternate electors in September 2025, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove specific intent to defraud. The electors were exercising their constitutional right to seek redress—posing for a photograph and testifying under oath that they genuinely believed the election was stolen—actions inconsistent with perpetrating a criminal conspiracy. In Arizona, Attorney General Kris Mayes’s sprawling indictment against 18 defendants, including Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, and John Eastman, has been repeatedly rebuked. A trial judge found that prosecutors misled the grand jury by withholding the Electoral Count Act; an appeals court refused to revive the case; and the Arizona Supreme Court shut the door. AG Mayes now scrambles for a new grand jury, a desperate admission that the original case was improper. Similarly, the case against alternative electors in Georgia was dismissed last year as well in a blow to the disgraced low IQ Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

These cases were never about enforcing the rule of law. They were poorly constructed political theatre, assembled years after the fact by Democratic AGs who coordinated their efforts with far-left nonprofits. Norm Eisen’s States United Democracy Center supplied the blueprints, Marc Elias’s lawfare operation provided legal cover, and the Democratic Attorneys General Association funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to boost the prosecution strategy as it was being crafted. What looked like independent state actions was actually a national scheme designed to criminalize political opposition. Yet the most damning part of the story is not the collapse of the cases. It is how ordinary the alternate-elector strategy was portrayed before Democrats decided to retcon it as a crime.

In the fall of 2020, major news outlets treated the possibility of “dueling electors” as a serious contingency, not a conspiracy. Reuters published an explainer on how competing slates in battleground states with split partisan control of governors and legislatures could deadlock the Electoral College, citing the historical precedent of 1876. An election guide posted by Politico casually walked through Republican operatives discussing alternate electors if Trump lost and claimed fraud, and Democratic governors responding with their own slates. No one called it sedition. It was framed as a constitutional stress test.

Even more striking was the war game played by the so-called Transition Integrity Project. Former White House Chief of Staff and pizza party aficionado John Podesta, playing the role of Joe Biden, refused to concede a narrow electoral defeat. He alleged voter suppression and persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. The New York Times reported the exercise without even an inkling of moral panic. It was treated as a genuine possibility that could come from either side of the political aisle in the case of a close or disputed election, not as some nefarious plot to overthrow the government.

Then after a disputed election marked by late-night ballot dumps, statistical anomalies, rule violations, and widespread distrust, Republican electors in several states signed contingent certificates to preserve their legal options if courts or legislatures later found the results invalid. They did not hide. They did not claim the certificates were the official ones. They acted in the open—doing everything in their power to draw attention to their efforts in the midst of a media blackout shuttering all fraud claims—consistent with historical precedent. For years, almost no one cared. The narrative only hardened into “fake electors” and “attempted coup” after the call came down from the permanent bureaucracy and progressive legal networks that President Trump and his supporters had to be destroyed.

What followed was lawfare at its worst. Democratic attorneys general in Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere dusted off obscure statutes and stretched them into felony charges that carried the threat of decades in prison. Ordinary citizens—many of them senior citizens, small-business owners, and longtime party activists—were indicted for the “crime” of believing the 2020 election was stolen and trying to keep legal options open. The goal was never primarily conviction. It was destruction: bankrupting defendants with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, terrifying them with federal scrutiny, isolating them from family and friends who bought into the media narrative, and sending a chilling message to every election-integrity activist in the Republican Party. The message was clear: challenge the official story and we will ruin your life.

These patriots endured more than most Americans will ever face from their own government. They lost homes. They watched savings evaporate. They were treated as domestic terrorists for the same contingency planning that elite Democrats had discussed openly months earlier. The most powerful institutions in the country—Democratic state AGs, progressive dark-money groups, the national media, and deep state operators—trained their fire on private citizens whose only offense was loyalty to a candidate despised by the establishment. Miscarriage of justice does not begin to describe it. This was an abuse seemingly right out of the People’s Court of the Soviet Union.

The alternate electors have been effectively vindicated. The charges have been dismissed or are collapsing. President Trump issued federal pardons to 77 alternate electors and associated figures. Now the victims are going on offense. In Michigan, former defendants have filed notice of their intent to sue Attorney General Dana Nessel for malicious prosecution, seeking millions in damages and personal accountability. They are right to do so. Officials who weaponize criminal law against their political opponents must pay a steep price, or the practice will continue unabated.

This is why President Trump must revive the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a brilliant idea that has unfortunately been shuttered due to political calculations. RINO Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis received assurances from Attorney General Todd Blanche that the Anti-Weaponization Fund was dead to secure votes for his confirmation. The senators extracted a formal order terminating the fund and narrowing the related IRS settlement. Perhaps after Blanche is settled into his role, he can issue another formal letter changing his mind. Tillis and Cornyn will be out of the U.S. Senate soon anyway, and their voices are not needed to sustain MAGA’s governing coalition. In other words: Screw ‘em.

The patriots who stood in the breach after 2020 and absorbed the full force of unprecedented lawfare deserve more than symbolic vindication. They deserve substantial compensation that makes clear the government will not escape consequences for political persecution. Elections have consequences. Restoring the lives of those who were bankrupted, isolated, and terrorized for defending election integrity should be chief among those consequences. The Anti-Weaponization Fund must be revived, and dramatic payouts must be made. Anything less continues the injustice, and as the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Let’s remedy this injustice, and make the Anti-Weaponization Fund great again.

Hunter Biden is attempting yet another reinvention. Fresh from securing a $1.7 million punitive damages judgment against former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, who lost the case by default after failing to appear for trial, the former first son has launched a coordinated publicity campaign involving podcasts, frequent posts on X, a new Substack, live appearances, and an upcoming documentary financed by his Hollywood benefactor Kevin Morris.

As Miranda Devine has reported in the New York Post, this is not an organic redemption story. It is a deliberate effort to rehabilitate Hunter Biden’s image, monetize his notoriety, and recast the history of the laptop that exposed his conduct, financial dealings, and proximity to his father’s political power. Hunter now portrays himself as a misunderstood addict whose every failure should be excused as the product of crack cocaine. His addiction was real and destructive, but it does not explain years of foreign business arrangements, complex corporate structures, unpaid taxes, suspicious financial transfers, or repeated invocation of the Biden name while seeking money and influence.

Addiction may explain chaos. It does not erase evidence. The laptop documented Hunter’s dealings in China, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, and elsewhere. It contained emails, messages, photographs, financial records, and recordings that directly contradicted Joe Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business affairs. References to the “Big Guy,” proposed equity splits, meetings with foreign associates, and Hunter’s own complaints about paying his father’s expenses raised serious questions that much of the media refused to examine honestly.

Instead of addressing those questions, Hunter and Kevin Morris have advanced an increasingly elaborate narrative involving Rudy Giuliani, Russian operatives, manipulated databases, fabricated recordings, Hunter’s former psychiatrist Keith Ablow, me, and others. It is an attempt to recast those who exposed the material as participants in a conspiracy against him.

As I have stated emphatically in the past I must now reiterate that I never possessed, nor saw the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop until I read about it in the New York Post. His claim that I was somehow involved with the exposure of his laptop, are the delusions of a crackhead.

The origin of the laptop is not a mystery. A man identifying himself as Hunter Biden brought three damaged MacBook Pro computers to John Paul Mac Isaac’s repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware, in April 2019. Hunter’s signature appears on the repair authorization. He never paid the bill and never retrieved the devices. Mac Isaac later provided the original computer to the FBI, which seized it under federal subpoena in December 2019.

Federal prosecutors later introduced material from the laptop during Hunter’s gun trial. An FBI agent testified that the device was authenticated through its serial number and that investigators found no evidence of tampering or file insertion. The laptop was not just a media story; it became courtroom evidence.

Independent analysts also verified large portions of the data. Some emails were confirmed through cryptographic signatures, others through recipients and contemporaneous records. Hunter has gradually retreated from blanket denials, acknowledging that much of the material is genuine while still suggesting that unspecified portions may have been altered.

This is a familiar pattern. Deny everything until denial becomes impossible, then concede selectively while casting doubt on the remainder.

When the New York Post first reported the laptop in October 2020, the Biden campaign did not disprove the contents. Instead, 51 former intelligence officials issued a letter claiming the story had the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, despite offering no evidence of Russian involvement. That claim provided justification for social media companies and major outlets to suppress the story during a presidential election.

Twitter blocked the Post’s reporting. Facebook limited its distribution. Major news organizations treated authenticated material as suspect while amplifying the unproven Russian narrative. Only after the election did many acknowledge the authenticity of the material they had previously dismissed.

Hunter now argues the laptop proves only drug use and addiction. That claim is false. The device contained a detailed record of income, spending, foreign relationships, tax issues, firearm purchase, and business negotiations. It helped establish conduct that later resulted in multiple federal convictions.

In June 2024, a federal jury convicted Hunter Biden of three felonies related to the purchase and possession of a Colt revolver. The jury found he lied on federal forms about drug use, made false statements required for firearm purchase records, and possessed a firearm while unlawfully using controlled substances. These were not political accusations. They were criminal convictions reached unanimously by a jury.

Three months later, Hunter pleaded guilty to three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanors. Federal prosecutors alleged he failed to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes, evaded assessments, and filed false returns over a four-year period while spending heavily on drugs, escorts, luxury travel, cars, clothing, and other personal expenses.

He was not a destitute addict. He received millions through foreign business arrangements while ignoring tax obligations. Addiction may explain some behavior, but it does not excuse deliberate tax violations or false filings. The laptop was central to this record. It contained financial data and communications from the same period covered by the tax case, helping establish timelines and corroborate evidence later used in court.

The public also had legitimate questions about why foreign companies and politically connected figures paid large sums to Hunter Biden. He had no background in Ukrainian energy policy when he joined Burisma’s board. He lacked the experience typically required for such compensation. His primary asset was his last name.

Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, and Hunter monetized proximity to him. Burisma appointed Hunter while its owner faced scrutiny in Ukraine, and while U.S. policy toward that country was under the vice president’s influence. Hunter has never provided a convincing explanation for why his role was necessary beyond access and prestige.

A similar pattern emerged in China. Hunter traveled with his father to Beijing aboard Air Force Two in 2013 and introduced him to Chinese businessman Jonathan Li. Hunter later obtained a 10 percent equity interest in Bohai Harvest RST (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company Limited, a Chinese private equity firm backed in part by state-connected financial institutions. He held that interest through his wholly owned company, Skaneateles LLC.

Hunter’s lawyer subsequently announced publicly that Hunter had divested himself of his interest in the Chinese firm. What was not disclosed at the time was that the divestment consisted of selling Skaneateles, and therefore its 10 percent interest in Bohai Harvest RST, to his sugar daddy Kevin Morris. Hunter later confirmed the transaction in sworn congressional testimony. Morris separately acknowledged that his purchase of Skaneateles gave him control of Hunter’s Chinese equity interest and that he continued to hold it.

Hunter did not simply relinquish the investment or walk away empty-handed. He sold the company holding the equity to the same wealthy patron who paid his delinquent taxes, purchased his artwork, covered personal expenses, financed his legal defense, and is now bankrolling a documentary intended to rehabilitate him. Morris also assumed responsibility for a loan associated with Hunter’s acquisition of the Chinese equity. The arrangement further entwined Hunter’s foreign business interests with the man who became his lawyer, financier, purchaser, and public relations impresario.

Hunter also pursued a separate series of deals with the Chinese energy conglomerate China Energy Company Limited. One email related to that venture referenced dividing equity among the participants, including “10 held by H for the big guy.” Business partner Tony Bobulinski identified the “big guy” as Joe Biden. Whether or not that particular deal was completed, the language reflected how participants discussed the vice president’s role.

Hunter also sent a message to a Chinese associate stating he was with his father and demanding payment. Shortly afterward, millions of dollars moved into accounts tied to his business network. He now claims this reference to his father was meaningless. That explanation strains credibility.

Congressional investigators traced more than $24 million from foreign sources to Biden family members and associates. The money moved through multiple entities before reaching individuals connected to the family. While not every transaction is criminal, the structure warranted serious scrutiny.

Banks filed more than 150 suspicious activity reports (SARs) involving Hunter Biden and related accounts. Routinely a SAR is always reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). These reports are not proof of wrongdoing, but they are indicators that financial activity may require investigation. A politically connected family receiving repeated foreign transfers should not be shielded from scrutiny.

Romania added another example. Funds linked to businessman Gabriel Popoviciu moved through intermediaries before reaching Biden-associated accounts while Popoviciu faced corruption allegations. Hunter was paid despite lacking any official role.

Joe Biden repeatedly denied discussing business with his son. That claim was undermined by testimony and records showing calls, meetings, and shared appearances with foreign associates. Devon Archer testified that Joe Biden was placed on speakerphone during business meetings. Hunter arranged dinners where his father met foreign partners.

Joe Biden’s presence itself was the product being sold. Access, not policy, was the commodity.

The defense offered by the Bidens relied on a narrow definition of corruption: that no specific policy change was directly exchanged for payment. Influence operations rarely work that way. They depend on access, expectation, and implied leverage rather than explicit contracts.

Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden were part of a broader financial network. Money moved through associates and entities before reaching family members. Joe Biden received payments labeled as loan repayments from his brother after business-related transactions. These arrangements demanded scrutiny rather than dismissal.

A House impeachment inquiry concluded that Joe Biden engaged in conduct involving influence peddling that benefited his family. While not a criminal conviction, the findings were based on records, testimony, and financial data that cannot be ignored.

Whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler testified that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into Hunter Biden was obstructed, delayed, and limited. They alleged investigators were restricted from pursuing leads that could implicate Joe Biden and that key steps were blocked or slowed. They also stated that statute-of-limitations issues were allowed to expire on potential charges and that investigative tools were withheld. Their testimony helped expose irregularities in the handling of the case.

A plea agreement initially offered to Hunter would have resolved charges with minimal consequences. It collapsed in court when a judge questioned its scope and unusual immunity provisions. Only after that collapse, and after whistleblower disclosures, were felony charges pursued.

Joe Biden later issued a sweeping pardon covering federal offenses from 2014 through 2024. That period includes Hunter’s foreign business activity, tax issues, and firearm conviction. The pardon effectively shielded him from further federal prosecution across a decade of conduct. The timing and scope of the pardon raised serious questions about its purpose.

Hunter’s current media campaign depends on selective memory. He wants the public to forget prior denials, prior statements, and prior reporting. He seeks to replace documented history with personal narrative shaped by addiction, recovery, and grievance. But the record remains unchanged.

His judgment against Byrne does not validate his broader claims. The case was decided by default and did not address the laptop’s authenticity or the wider evidence. Addiction does not erase responsibility. Many Americans struggle with substance abuse without engaging in foreign business dealings, tax evasion, firearm violations, or relying on presidential pardons. Hunter Biden is entitled to recovery. He is not entitled to rewrite history.

Kevin Morris can fund documentaries. Media figures can provide platforms. None of it alters emails, financial records, testimony, or court findings.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Hunter repeated claims that the laptop data was stolen from cloud storage by unknown actors. He offered no evidence. Carlson acknowledged familiarity with some material but did not press sufficiently on the physical device, its chain of custody, or its use in court.

Hunter’s claim remains unsupported speculation. His strategy is consistent. Question the origin of the laptop, concede partial authenticity, and attribute remaining material to manipulation. Deny foreign payments are connected to influence. Reframe legal outcomes as persecution. Present addiction as universal explanation. Each step narrows responsibility while expanding ambiguity. A forthcoming documentary will likely emphasize personal struggle, family hardship, and recovery. These elements may be real, but they also serve to obscure documented financial and legal issues.

Compassion for addiction does not require acceptance of revisionist history. The chronology is clear. Foreign payments flowed to Biden-linked entities. Taxes went unpaid. A firearm was purchased illegally. A laptop containing extensive records was abandoned. Federal convictions followed. A presidential pardon closed the legal consequences. These are facts, not interpretations.

The Biden family’s survival strategy has long relied on denial, delay, and institutional protection. Hunter’s current campaign is a continuation of that pattern, now repackaged for media consumption. The laptop remains. The evidence remains. The record remains. No amount of publicity can change that.

On a warm Sunday evening fifty-five years ago today, Americans gathered around their televisions to hear President Richard Nixon unveil an ambitious package of economic changes. One historic announcement stood out among the steps to curb the rising cost of living: the United States would no longer redeem dollars held by foreign governments for gold.

America’s spending on the Vietnam War, Great Society programs, and overseas investment had poured dollars abroad far faster than the Treasury’s gold stock could support.

By 1971 U.S. gold reserves equaled only about one-quarter of the dollars held by foreign governments and central banks, down sharply from the comfortable surplus of the 1950s.

Domestic inflation, already rising from the mid-1960s, was being exported through the fixed-rate system and intensifying pressure on the dollar.

The final trigger came in early August when Britain requested roughly $3 billion in gold “cover” for its dollar holdings, following earlier French conversions.

On the weekend of August 13–15, Nixon and a small group of advisers met in secret at Camp David and chose to act.

Closing the gold window was necessary. It ended the Bretton Woods system that had governed international money since the end of World War II and launched the modern era of pure fiat currency.

A brief attempt to restore modified fixed rates followed in the December 1971 Smithsonian Agreement, which raised the official gold price to $38 an ounce, but that arrangement collapsed within little more than a year, leading to generalized floating by early 1973.

The move was the only responsible response to an approaching crisis:

• It prevented an immediate crisis and gold drain. U.S. gold reserves had fallen sharply and could no longer cover outstanding foreign claims on the dollar. Continuing convertibility risked a disorderly run on gold, potential default on obligations, and a broader international financial panic. Convertibility had already been restricted since the 1968 collapse of the London Gold Pool, which left only official transactions at the $35 price. Ending convertibility removed that immediate threat.

• Corrected an overvalued dollar and improved competitiveness. The fixed $35-per-ounce rate made U.S. goods expensive abroad and imports artificially cheap. Ending convertibility, combined with a temporary 10% import surcharge, was intended to force other countries to revalue their currencies upward, effectively devalue the dollar in real terms, boost U.S. exports, and improve the trade balance and employment. The surcharge was dropped after the Smithsonian negotiations.

• Gave greater policy flexibility. Under a pure gold-linked system, domestic monetary and fiscal policy was constrained by the need to defend the gold parity. Severing the link allowed more active management of inflation, unemployment, and growth without automatic gold outflows or forced deflation. Supporters later noted that fiat money and floating (or managed) exchange rates give central banks tools to respond to recessions and shocks that a rigid commodity standard would limit.

• Political and short-term economic goals. The package included a 90-day wage-price freeze and tax measures aimed at cooling inflation while supporting jobs ahead of the 1972 election. Closing the gold window was framed as protecting the dollar from “speculators” and shifting focus to domestic priorities after Vietnam. Many contemporaries viewed the overall New Economic Policy as popular at the time. Markets initially responded positively, with the stock market rising in the days after the announcement.

• Exposed that Bretton Woods was already unsustainable. The system had been under strain for years (the London Gold Pool collapsed in 1968). It also suffered from the inherent “Triffin dilemma”: the United States had to run deficits to supply the world with dollar liquidity, yet those same deficits steadily undermined confidence in the dollar’s convertibility into gold. Unilateral action was seen by some as preferable to a drawn-out, potentially messier collapse or endless negotiations that might not succeed.

Yet the same step that averted an immediate crisis also carried lasting costs. The other side of the coin remains clear. In both books I have written on Richard Nixon, Nixon’s Secrets , the Rise, Fall and Untold Truth about the President, Watergate and the Pardon and Tricky Dick - the Rise and Fall and Rise of Richard M. Nixon I have been critical of this decision.

• America lost its monetary anchor and higher inflation risk. Gold provided an external discipline that limited the ability of governments and central banks to expand the money supply excessively. Critics argued that ending convertibility removed this constraint, contributing to the high inflation and “stagflation” of the 1970s (though oil shocks and other factors also played major roles). Over the long term, the dollar has lost substantial purchasing power since 1971 under the fiat regime.
  

• Created currency volatility and uncertainty. The shift from fixed rates to floating, or managed floating exchange rates introduced greater short-term volatility in currency markets. This required new hedging instruments and complicated international trade and investment planning. Some preferred negotiated reform of Bretton Woods over a unilateral break.
  

• Damaged U.S. credibility and relations with allies. The action was unilateral and sudden, negotiated over a secret Camp David weekend. Allies holding large dollar reserves saw it as the United States defaulting on a core commitment. The episode strained relations and temporarily closed foreign exchange markets.

• Wage-price controls and other accompanying measures were flawed. The freeze, and later controls, distorted markets, suppressed rather than cured inflation, and created shortages or pent-up price pressures that erupted later. Fed Chairman Arthur Burns and others opposed closing the gold window, warning of the risks of pure paper money and potential loss of confidence.

• Undermined longer-term fiscal discipline. Without the gold constraint, governments faced fewer automatic checks on deficit spending and debt monetization. Critics, especially from free-market or gold-standard perspectives, argue this facilitated the large growth in federal debt and spending that followed.

On that Sunday evening the United States stepped out of the Bretton Woods system and into a different monetary order. The move was driven by necessity more than ideology, yet its consequences have proved lasting.

Nixon’s action averted a disorderly collapse of the postwar monetary system; it also removed the discipline that gold had imposed. Both statements are true, and both continue to shape how the episode is judged. The gold window was closed to protect the remaining reserves and to restore competitive balance. Once closed, it stayed closed.

Many still point to the policy freedom that followed; while others still point to the inflation, volatility, and fiscal expansion that became easier once the link was severed.

Fifty-five years on, the world continues to operate inside the framework that night created, one of floating rates, pure fiat currency, and the permanent question of how far governments should be free to create money without an external limit. The argument over what that decision ultimately cost has never really ended.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) marked the centenary of Fidel Castro’s birth by attempting to resurrect one of the bloodiest dictators of the twentieth century as a champion of humanity. In an official statement, the DSA praised Castro as an “organizer, a fighter” and a “stalwart symbol of anti imperialist struggle”. It accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio of committing “genocide” against the Cuban people, demanded his prosecution for “crimes against humanity”, and blamed the United States for the devastation created by nearly seven decades of communist dictatorship. This was not an impetuous social media post from an errant intern. It was a considered declaration of allegiance to the totalitarian regime Castro built and his successors still operate.

Stone’s Rule applies here: when the left invokes genocide, examine whose firing squads actually operated at dawn.

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born on August 13, 1926 near Birán in eastern Cuba, the son of a prosperous landowner. Educated by Jesuits, he studied law at the University of Havana, entered violent revolutionary politics, and developed the instincts of a demagogue. The mythology surrounding Castro depicts him as a humble peasant champion. In reality, he came from privilege and exploited legitimate grievances in pursuit of absolute power.

Castro also experienced American freedom firsthand. In 1948, he married Mirta Díaz Balart and spent an extended honeymoon in New York and Miami. The young revolutionary enjoyed American hotels, restaurants, automobiles, and consumer abundance, reportedly purchasing a Lincoln equipped with the modern luxuries of the day. He later returned to solicit money and political support among Cuban exiles.

After seizing power in 1959, Castro visited America on a public relations tour, presenting himself as a democratic reformer who was supposedly neither a communist nor an enemy of the United States. Vice President Richard Nixon met with him and perceived both Castro’s formidable political talent and the danger beneath his protestations.

Castro had seen private property, open commerce, political pluralism, and individual liberty at close range. He understood that a free people could criticize its government, build independent institutions, remove its leaders, and refuse obedience. Those were precisely the reasons he rejected the American model. Liberty places limits on rulers, and Fidel Castro had no interest in limits.

Castro took power after Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba in January 1959. He promised constitutional government, political freedom, and elections. Once secure, he postponed and then abandoned elections. Independent newspapers were silenced. Private property was confiscated. Political parties were eliminated. Labor unions became appendages of the state. Churches were harassed, religious education was restricted, and faithful Catholics were treated as politically suspect. Cuba became a one party Marxist state aligned with the Soviet Union.

The prisons filled while the firing squads began their work. Revolutionary tribunals dispensed verdicts with the efficiency of an abattoir. Some defendants had committed crimes under Batista, but Castro’s machinery quickly expanded beyond proven torturers. Former revolutionaries who opposed communist rule, journalists, businessmen, farmers, clergy, students, labor organizers, and ordinary citizens accused of disloyalty were imprisoned, terrorized, or driven into exile.

Cuba Archive has documented thousands of deaths and disappearances attributed to the regime, including executions, extrajudicial killings, prison deaths, and people killed while attempting to escape. The precise total remains disputed because communist dictatorships do not preserve transparent records of their crimes. Secrecy is part of the murder weapon. What cannot be disputed is the existence of thousands of documented victims and an immense exile population whose families experienced the repression directly. Castro’s admirers quibble over numbers as if revising the inventory of a graveyard absolves the men who filled it. Human Rights Watch described Castro’s system as one that punished virtually every form of dissent. Amnesty International documented the ruthless suppression of expression, assembly, association, and movement. Critics faced arbitrary arrest, beatings, isolation, sham proceedings, dismissal from employment, denial of educational opportunities, and retaliation against relatives.

The state did not merely demand obedience in public. It insinuated itself into homes, friendships, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. The Committees for the Defense of the Revolution placed surveillance at the block level. Neighbors observed neighbors, recorded visitors, reported gatherings, and identified anyone displaying insufficient revolutionary ardor. Cubans learned that an innocent celebration could invite scrutiny if too many people arrived, curtains were closed, or someone suspected an unauthorized meeting. Imagine fearing a local party functionary because you closed the curtains during a five year old child’s birthday party. That is not solidarity, equality, or liberation. It is totalitarianism in its most intimate and suffocating form.

Castro’s Cuba became a tropical panopticon. The palm trees remained, the music survived, and the Cuban people retained their irrepressible spirit, but behind the picturesque facade stood informants, political police, ration books, prison cells, and permission slips. The state could determine where someone worked, whether a child received an education, whether a family obtained housing, and whether a citizen could leave the country. Fear became an invisible public utility, distributed more reliably than electricity or water.

The consequences are visible across Cuba today. Many residents endure power outages lasting most of the day. Food spoils because refrigerators cannot run. Water pumps fail, leaving neighborhoods without dependable service. Hospitals suffer blackouts and shortages of medicine, equipment, and basic supplies. Public transportation has been crippled by fuel scarcity. Farmers struggle to operate machinery or move crops. Food production declines while prices exceed the means of ordinary workers and pensioners.

Sanitation has deteriorated into a public health menace. Havana has endured enormous accumulations of uncollected garbage because collection trucks are broken or lack fuel. Rotting waste attracts flies, mosquitoes, and rats. Stagnant water encourages disease. Residents burn rubbish because no functioning system removes it. Pharmacies lack ordinary medications. Schools lose instructional time. Elderly Cubans survive on meager pensions and help from relatives abroad. Parents spend hours searching for milk, eggs, cooking oil, and meat while Communist Party officials enjoy privileges unavailable to the people they lecture about sacrifice.

American sanctions and recent pressure on Cuba’s fuel supplies have intensified immediate shortages. The DSA exploits that fact to erase the preceding 67 years of confiscation, command economics, corruption, decrepit infrastructure, suppression of private enterprise, and dependence on foreign patrons.

The Soviet Union subsidized Havana for decades. Venezuela later supplied discounted oil. Each patron temporarily concealed the same congenital defect. Castro built an economy incapable of sustaining itself because political control mattered more than production.

Communism consumes accumulated wealth the way locusts consume a field. First, the revolution distributes property it did not create. Then it exhausts inventories, drives away expertise, punishes initiative, and blames saboteurs for the resulting scarcity. When shelves empty and the electrical grid collapses, the party demands another sacrifice. Socialism promises abundance through confiscation and delivers equality by making everyone outside the ruling caste equally poor.

The Cuban people have paid in hunger, darkness, separation, and exile. The Camarioca exodus, the Freedom Flights, the Mariel boatlift, the balsero crisis, and the enormous recent migration were not vacations from a socialist paradise. Cubans boarded overloaded vessels and improvised rafts because remaining under communism had become intolerable. Many arrived in Florida carrying little beyond photographs, memories, and the knowledge that everything their families built had been stolen.

The DSA regards these exiles as inconvenient witnesses. Their testimony punctures the gauzy mythology taught in radical seminars. Cuban Americans know that Castro did not merely nationalize corporations. He confiscated neighborhood shops, family farms, homes, savings, and futures. They understand that “free” medicine means nothing when medicine cannot be found and that literacy is not liberation when the government dictates what may be read, published, or believed. A prison can contain schools and clinics and remain a prison.

The DSA’s attack on Marco Rubio is especially repellent. Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants and has spent his career warning Americans about the ideology his family escaped. To brand him the architect of genocide while celebrating Fidel Castro is moral inversion of the most grotesque kind. It is comparable to prosecuting the fireman while presenting the arsonist with a humanitarian award. The DSA absolves the jailer, condemns the jailer’s opponent, and demands that Americans finance the prison.

This statement also destroys the organization’s favorite semantic evasion. DSA activists routinely insist that their “democratic socialism” bears no relationship to communist dictatorship. Yet when given the opportunity to commemorate Castro, they did not lament his political prisons, renounce his firing squads, or express solidarity with Cuban dissidents. They praised him and adopted the propaganda vocabulary of his regime. Their democratic modifier collapses the moment an actual Marxist dictator enters the room.

The DSA’s evil resides not merely in mistaken economic theories but in its willingness to excuse coercion whenever it advances the preferred ideological project. It romanticizes governments that abolish opposition, censor journalists, imprison dissenters, and impoverish workers while claiming to represent democracy and labor. Its rhetoric may be mellifluous, but its political lineage is sanguinary. The rose in its emblem cannot conceal the barbed wire growing beneath it.

History supplies ample warning. Lenin promised power to workers and created the Cheka. Stalin collectivized agriculture and produced famine, purges, deportations, and the Gulag. Mao promised a Great Leap Forward and presided over mass starvation. Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge pursued ideological purity until killing fields replaced civil society. North Korea constructed a hereditary prison state. Venezuela, once among the wealthiest countries in Latin America, descended into scarcity, repression, and mass emigration under socialist rule. Different flags, languages, and climates produced the same lugubrious procession of censorship, rationing, corruption, terror, and graves.

President Donald J. Trump understands this pattern and refuses to indulge the euphemisms surrounding it. He has declared that “Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty” and described it as an enemy of free people, the Constitution, and the principles of July 4, 1776. He established Anti Communism Week in November of 2025 to remember more than 100 million victims of communist regimes and reaffirmed that America will never surrender its freedom to this pernicious ideology. President Trump recognizes that communism advances when decent people dismiss it as antiquated, fashionable, or harmless. It seldom arrives by announcing the abolition of freedom. It advances through confiscatory promises, resentment, institutional infiltration, historical falsification, and the gradual stigmatization of dissent. By the time bars appear on the windows, the propagandists insist that the prison was built for the public good.

The MAGA movement stands against that advance because it is rooted in national sovereignty, private property, religious liberty, constitutional government, secure borders, and the dignity of productive work. Those principles are irreconcilable with a doctrine that subordinates the individual to the state and treats faith, family, property, and independent thought as competing sources of allegiance.

The contrast is unmistakable. The DSA commemorates Fidel Castro. President Trump commemorates communism’s victims. The DSA curses Marco Rubio for confronting the Cuban dictatorship. Trump supports those who want Cuba to become free, prosperous, and governed by its own people. The DSA looks at Castro’s ruined island and demands ideological obedience. MAGA demands liberation from the system that has persecuted and impoverished the Cuban people.

Fidel Castro died in 2016, but the machinery he constructed continues to crush Cuba. Its people deserve reliable food, clean water, functioning electricity, safe streets, honest courts, open churches, private businesses, independent newspapers, and free elections. They deserve homes in which a family can close its curtains without fear. They deserve to speak without whispering, celebrate without surveillance, and raise their children without teaching them to hide the truth from local police.

The DSA’s centenary tribute strips away the organization’s cosmetic language and reveals the communist rot beneath it. An organization that eulogizes a butcher cannot credibly call itself democratic. A movement that venerates the jailer has no concern for the prisoner. A political faction that excuses tyranny abroad will eventually discover reasons to excuse it at home.

Castro belongs in history’s mausoleum of dictators, beside the false messiahs who promised utopia and constructed charnel houses. His ideology belongs on the ash heap. The Cuban people belong among the free. President Trump and the MAGA movement are determined to keep communism from gaining power in the United States and to expose its American apologists before their euphemisms become edicts. The DSA has told us exactly what it worships. We should believe it.

For far too many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) drifted from the mission Congress intended when it created the agency. Instead of concentrating its resources on violent criminals, firearms traffickers, bombings, arson investigations, and organized criminal enterprises ATF increasingly became entangled in regulatory battles that alienated law abiding gun owners. President Donald Trump’s decision to appoint Robert Cekada as ATF Director represents a deliberate course correction that restores the agency to its original purpose and, in doing so, strengthens both public safety and constitutional liberty.

As I wrote when President Trump nominated Robert Cekada, he was the right man for the job. Nothing that has occurred since his confirmation has changed that conclusion. Quite the contrary. Director Cekada has made it abundantly clear that the ATF’s future lies in pursuing violent offenders rather than treating ordinary Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights as suspects. His leadership reflects the understanding that constitutional rights and effective law enforcement are not mutually exclusive. They reinforce one another when government remains faithful to its proper role.

One of the first major initiatives under Director Cekada has been an ambitious review of dozens of ATF regulations that accumulated over many years. The objective is not simply deregulation for its own sake. Rather, it is to eliminate confusing, redundant, or legally questionable rules that consumed agency resources while creating uncertainty for lawful firearms owners and federally licensed dealers. Cekada has consistently argued that regulatory clarity allows the ATF to devote greater manpower and investigative attention toward violent crime, firearms trafficking, and criminal organizations that actually threaten American communities.

That approach reflects the ATF’s historic strengths. The bureau has long been one of the federal government’s premier agencies for investigating serial arsonists, bombings, criminal explosives networks, and firearms trafficking conspiracies. ATF agents played indispensable roles investigating the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996, and countless acts of arson and criminal explosions that required sophisticated forensic expertise unavailable elsewhere in the federal government. ATF’s National Center for Explosives Training and Research has become an internationally respected institution due to ATF’s unmatched experience in explosives investigations. Those capabilities save lives. They should always remain among the agency’s highest priorities.

ATF has likewise demonstrated tremendous value when targeting violent gangs and interstate firearms trafficking organizations. Programs such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and cooperative violent crime task forces have repeatedly shown that focused investigations against repeat offenders produce measurable reductions in shootings and gun related violence. Criminals who steal firearms, purchase weapons through straw buyers, traffic guns across state lines, or use firearms in furtherance of violent felonies deserve the full attention of federal investigators. That is precisely where Director Cekada intends to concentrate the bureau’s efforts.

The opposite approach has frequently produced controversy without corresponding improvements in public safety. Over the past decade ATF found itself at the center of repeated political disputes involving shifting regulatory interpretations, stabilizing braces, unfinished firearm frames and receivers, and other administrative questions that often generated years of litigation before ultimately reaching the federal courts. Whatever one’s views on those individual policies there is little evidence that dedicating enormous institutional energy to constantly expanding regulatory definitions substantially reduced violent crime. Instead, the agency often found itself defending administrative decisions rather than pursuing armed robbers, gang members, cartel traffickers, and violent felons.

Earlier failures also illustrate the dangers of allowing politics to overshadow sound law enforcement. Operation Fast and Furious remains one of the darkest chapters in the bureau’s history. Federal officials knowingly permitted firearms to move into the hands of Mexican drug cartels under the misguided theory that investigators could later track the weapons to higher level traffickers. Instead, many of those firearms disappeared, and some were later recovered at violent crime scenes, including the murder of United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The scandal permanently damaged public confidence because it represented a profound failure of judgment and accountability. It also demonstrated what happens when leadership loses sight of the agency’s core mission of stopping illegal firearms trafficking before innocent people are harmed.

Fast and Furious whistleblower and author Peter J. Forcelli stated, “I’ve called out ATF when they got things wrong. I did so publicly and quite bluntly. I’ve seen what happens when the enforcement of the nations gun laws becomes politicized. I’ve also known Robert Cekada for over 30 years. He understands what any good law enforcement officer understands, and that is the fact that it is the criminal that represents a danger to the American public. It is not the inanimate object; the gun. Far too often political zealots have focused on disarming the American populous while taking a soft stance on violent criminals. One thing I can say for certain is that Robert Cekada will make sure that ATF is a laser focused all in going after what really threatens honest tax paying citizens. The armed criminal.”

Robert Cekada brings something uniquely valuable to this challenge. He is not a political celebrity installed to wage ideological warfare from the director’s office. He is a career law enforcement professional who served as an NYPD detective before joining the ATF more than two decades ago. Having worked through the bureau’s investigative ranks and senior leadership, he possesses an intimate understanding of both its extraordinary strengths and its past shortcomings. That institutional knowledge cannot be replicated by someone viewing the agency from the outside.

Equally important, Cekada understands that preserving constitutional rights enhances rather than weakens the credibility of federal law enforcement. Americans who obey the law should never view the ATF as an adversary searching for technical violations. When citizens believe the government respects their constitutional liberties, cooperation with legitimate criminal investigations becomes easier, not harder. Public confidence is earned through fairness, consistency, and adherence to the rule of law rather than headline grabbing political gestures.

President Trump deserves considerable credit for recognizing that distinction. Rather than selecting someone whose primary qualification was ideological symbolism, he chose a seasoned professional capable of restoring public confidence while directing the bureau back toward its statutory responsibilities. That decision reflects an understanding that successful law enforcement depends upon competent leadership, disciplined priorities, and respect for constitutional boundaries.

America does not need an ATF that measures success by the number of new regulations it promulgates or the political controversies it generates. America needs an ATF that relentlessly pursues armed criminals, dismantles firearms trafficking organizations, investigates bombings and arsons with world class expertise, removes illegal weapons from violent offenders, and works cooperatively with state and local law enforcement to make neighborhoods safer. Those objectives are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and entirely consistent with the bureau’s original mission.

Robert Cekada appears determined to restore that balance as he outlined in The Hill and when he succeeds, the ATF will once again become known not as a political lightning rod, but as a professional federal law enforcement agency dedicated to protecting innocent Americans from violent criminals while respecting the constitutional rights of the citizens it serves. That is exactly the direction President Trump envisioned, exactly the direction the bureau needs, and exactly why Robert Cekada was the right choice to lead it.

President Trump is working to give America’s hemp industry the breathing room it needs to expand, the same president who, during his first term, became the first to unlock the industry at the federal level by signing the 2018 Farm Bill. That law ended decades of prohibition on commercial hemp production, removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act, and established the modern regulatory structure that allowed the sector to grow.

The original framework was later knocked down after a restrictive redefinition of hemp was quietly slipped into the November 2025 continuing resolution that reopened the government. The change was so tight that most hemp-derived THC products are now set to become illegal on November 12, 2026.

Rooted in agriculture, the industry today supports farmers and small businesses, sustaining approximately 300,000 jobs, generating more than $1.5 billion in state tax revenue, representing a market of about $28 billion.

The commander-in-chief personally called North Carolina Senator Ted Budd, who led the charge against the proposed delay.

Budd filed an amendment to strip the delay language out of the continuing resolution and lined up cosponsors, including Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Both argued that the ban should take effect on the original schedule of November 12, 2026.

During a closed-door lunch, White House aides got an earful from senators who weren’t buying the extra month. A bipartisan coalition of 35 state and territory attorneys general also formally urged Congress to stick to the original November 12 schedule.

Despite that opposition, the Senate voted 61–32 early Saturday to table Budd’s amendment. The funding bill, which delays the ban until December 11, then passed 90–6 and now moves to the House.

The industry is urgently warning that hundreds of thousands of jobs and significant state tax revenue could disappear if products are pulled from shelves in November. Brewers in states like Minnesota, many of whom invested heavily in THC drinks, are particularly concerned.

White House officials frame the delay as a practical step. They are developing a broader framework for medical uses of THC products, especially for veterans, and say a sudden ban would complicate that work. The White House has said it will not push for another extension beyond December.

Still, that assurance hasn’t calmed the senators who see any delay as a gift to an industry they believe needs tighter rules, not more time. The spending bill was supposed to be a relatively smooth bipartisan exercise. It passed an early procedural vote without trouble, but the hemp fight slowed everything down.

For hemp businesses and farmers, the outcome carries real economic consequences. Industry leaders view the language as a temporary lifeline and are using the extra time to push for regulations instead of an outright ban.

The Senate passed its version of the continuing resolution on August 8, including a one-month delay of the hemp ban until December 11, 2026. The House, currently on its August recess, is scheduled to return the first week of September. Until it acts, the delay is not yet law, and the original November 12 deadline remains in effect.

James Comey was fired as FBI Director by President Donald J. Trump on May 9, 2017. Declassified FBI documents released by the White House Government Transparency Task Force on August 5, 2026, reveal that the bureau was so obsessed with establishing Russian collusion that it opened a full criminal and counterintelligence investigation into President Trump within days of the firing.

The probe, codenamed “Oxferd Comma,” examined whether the 45th President of the United States was “wittingly or unwittingly” involved in activities for or on behalf of the Russian Federation when he dismissed Comey. FBI memos show for the first time that the bureau predicated this obstruction investigation on the concern that the then-president may have been an asset of Vladimir Putin.

An administration official confirmed the theory was not backed by evidence. The timeline itself supports that conclusion.

According to the May 16, 2017, electronic communication that formally opened the case, the FBI determined there was “an articulable factual basis that reasonably indicates that President Donald J. Trump may be or has been, wittingly or unwittingly, involved in activities for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation which may constitute violations of federal criminal law or threats to the national security of the United States.”

The goal of these Obama operatives, according to the classified documents, was to determine whether Trump “is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with the Russian Federation” in a manner that threatened national security or violated federal law — and whether he and others obstructed related FBI investigations. The memo further noted that Trump’s public explanations for firing Comey could “reasonably be read to imply that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was a factor” in the decision.

The electronic communication was approved by then-FBI General Counsel James A. Baker and William Priestap, assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division. Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were informed.

Oxferd Comma was designated a “sensitive investigative matter” and described internally as “the least intrusive method” to address what the so-called agents called a serious national security risk, but became the instrument for continuing the Russian collusion push, treating Comey’s firing itself as potential evidence that Trump might be acting at Russia’s behest or obstructing the ongoing inquiry.

Comey was fired for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, consistent with a recommendation from Rosenstein.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz would later conclude that Comey “violated long-standing department practice and protocol” in that case.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and Oxferd Comma was folded into Mueller’s broader portfolio of the Russia-hoax investigation. The nearly two-year probe was hampered from the start of the Trump presidency.

Mueller’s team ultimately found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. Oxferd Comma was formally closed on April 9, 2019, shortly after Mueller’s report, with no charges against Trump.

The same pattern of internal contradictions that marked Crossfire Hurricane, the Carter Page FISAs, the Flynn case, and other Obama-era operations was on full display here.

By the time Oxferd Comma opened, key FBI personnel working Crossfire Hurricane had already expressed significant doubts about the underlying collusion allegations.

Lead agent Pete Strzok texted Lisa Page on May 19, 2017, just days after the new probe began: “I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

Special Agent William Barnett later told investigators he saw no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and viewed the effort as resembling a flawed game of “Collusion Clue.”

Yet, the probe still contiuned.

Special Counsel John Durham’s later review concluded the FBI lacked a proper predicate even to open Crossfire Hurricane.

The fake Steele dossier, the early source of many collusion claims, was a Clinton-sponsored document funded through the Clinton campaign and known to the bureau.

By early 2017, well before the launch of the Oxferd Comma probe, the FBI had already evaluated every statement in the Steele dossier. According to a spreadsheet created by FBI analysts, some claims were provably false and most others were either internet rumor or unable to be corroborated.

Igor Danchenko, a paid confidential source, served as Steele’s primary source for the dossier. The bureau knew Danchenko had long been suspected of being a Russian spy, yet continued to use his information.

That same period also saw the FBI clear then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn of collusion. “No derogatory information was reported back to the FBI,” a January 4, 2017 memo stated. Agents then invited Flynn for an interview and later charged him with false statements.

Counterintelligence chief Priestap recorded his concern at the time: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Intelligence reporting further undercut the premise. On August 3, 2016, just four days after Crossfire Hurricane opened, CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, DNI Clapper, FBI Director Comey and other senior officials on Russian interference efforts and on intelligence the Agency had received about the Clinton campaign.

His handwritten notes from that briefing, later declassified by DNI John Ratcliffe, remain heavily blacked out. The portions that survive, however, record the core allegation in stark terms:

“CITE alleged approval by Hillary Clinton of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

The notes also pose the operational question that would define the next four years: “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia?”

Those surviving sentences written by the CIA Director himself after briefing Obama, sit at the center of the story the public was never fully told. This intelligence verifies what Americans have known already, once again validating this was a political witchhunt.

The release comes amid separate examinations of past FBI and DOJ actions involving Trump, including a reported Fort Pierce, Florida investigation into whether the agencies engaged in a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Trump and his supporters through repeated probes that lacked evidence of wrongdoing.

The FBI formally investigated a sitting president of the United States. The documents released on August 5 show the bureau acted on the theory that his decision to fire the FBI director might itself be evidence that he was under Russian direction or control, even as the bureau’s own agents and analysts had already largely rejected the collusion narrative that underpinned the case.

No American president in modern history has been subjected to such sustained and intensive investigation and legal pressure. President Donald J. Trump and several of his closest allies were put through years of investigation and, in some cases, prosecution. The damage was already done long before any final judgments were rendered.