A cyberattack targeting StoneZONE.com, the official news and commentary website of legendary Republican political strategist Roger Stone, temporarily wiped out 20 years of published material on Monday, October 26, in an attempt to erase one of the most provocative archives of conservative political journalism on the internet.

The website, which has spent two decades exposing corruption, political misconduct, government abuses, and the activities of powerful figures on the American left and within the globalist establishment, was compromised by hackers who deleted its extensive archive of articles and other published content.

But whoever was responsible for the attack apparently underestimated one thing: Stone’s technical team was prepared.

Thanks to a rigorous system of daily backups and an IT team that works around the clock to protect the website, StoneZONE.com was restored and fully operational in less than an hour. Twenty years of political reporting, investigative material, historical documentation, and commentary that might otherwise have disappeared were successfully recovered.

The attack raises an obvious question: Who would want to erase 20 years of Roger Stone’s reporting, and why?

The timing of the attack is particularly revealing. Shortly before StoneZONE.com was targeted, Stone had publicly intensified his opposition to continued American financial and military support for Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. In a provocative article titled “It’s Time to Cut Off Zelensky and The Ukraine War Effort”, Stone called for an end to American assistance to Kyiv, challenging the continued commitment of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the conflict.

Stone’s outspoken position placed him squarely at odds with powerful advocates of continued American involvement in Ukraine. The cyberattack followed shortly thereafter, raising serious questions about whether the attempted destruction of StoneZONE.com’s extensive archives was an act of retaliation intended to punish Stone for his criticism of Zelensky and silence his opposition to further American support for the war effort.

Stone is no ordinary political operative. One of the most recognizable and controversial figures in modern American politics, he has spent more than five decades operating at the highest levels of Republican presidential campaigns, with a political résumé that stretches from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Donald J. Trump.

That history helps explain why Stone has remained such a polarizing figure among his political opponents, and why his independent media platform has become a frequent target of those seeking to suppress its reporting and erase its extensive archive of political exposés.

Unlike traditional news organizations, StoneZONE.com has never attempted to conceal its ideological orientation. Its articles have aggressively challenged Democrat politicians, intelligence officials, establishment Republicans, globalistorganizations, and individuals Stone believes have abused political or institutional power.

Over the years, the website has published documents, analysis, and commentary concerning some of the most contentious political controversies in modern American history. Its archives contain material that Stone and his contributors contend exposes wrongdoing, hypocrisy, and corruption among figures who have frequently escaped meaningful scrutiny from mainstream media outlets.

For political opponents who would prefer that certain controversies be forgotten, the permanent availability of such an archive can be deeply inconvenient.

An article published a decade ago can suddenly become relevant again when a politician seeks higher office, when previously undisclosed information emerges, or when historical events are subjected to renewed public scrutiny.

Deleting that history would not merely silence a political voice in the present. It could also deprive readers of access to years of material documenting political controversies and challenging official narratives.

When reached for comment, Stone’s team confirmed that the FBI has been notified of the cyberattack and made aware of the circumstances surrounding the attempted destruction of the website’s extensive archives. Further developments are expected as the incident continues to be examined.

The incident also underscores the growing vulnerability of independent media platforms in an era when cyberattacks can threaten years of published work in a matter of minutes.

Fortunately, the attempt to destroy StoneZONE.com’s extensive archive was unsuccessful.

For Stone, who has weathered countless political battles, years of political persecution and a legal lynching at the hands of the Deep State during the Russia Collusion Hoax, and relentless attempts by his opponents to discredit and silence him, the latest incident represents yet another confrontation in a career defined by political combat.

The website is back online. The archives have survived. And Roger Stone’s political voice has not been silenced.

The Republican Party of Florida has voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Florida Democratic Party, three statewide Democratic candidates, and 11 television stations over an ad exposing the $10 million DeSantis family Hope Florida scandal.

The facts here are pretty clear. Ron and Casey DeSantis diverted $10 million in federal Medicare funds to a dark money political committee that they used to fund a constitutional statewide amendment campaign. This money was earmarked for the poor, the elderly, and the handicapped. James Uthmeier, then the governor’s Chief of Staff, but now the state’s appointed Attorney General, facilitated the transfer. Then Attorney General Ashley Moody, now appointed to the US Senate, approved the transaction. The Florida State House held revelatory hearings on the matter. Ultimately the perpetrators returned the $10 million, but took it from state Medicare funds, not from their political coffers to which the money they grabbed had flown.

RPOF filed the suit late Friday night in Highlands County, seeking an immediate order to block the ad before Democrats could respond, while its lawyers warned stations that airing it could be a crime. On Tuesday, a circuit judge denied Republicans’ request to pull the ad without hearing from Democrats. On Wednesday, the GOP dropped the case.’’

This is a major loss for Ron DeSantis and his wife, who are desperately trying to cover up the fact that they stole $10 Million directly from Florida’s poorest residents.

“Well, that didn’t take long,” said Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried. “Republicans raced to court in the middle of the night to silence us, threatened TV stations, and tried to scare Floridians out of talking about Hope Florida. After a judge denied their emergency request to pull our ad, they walked away from their own case. Their stunt backfired. Thanks to this lawsuit, more Floridians are paying attention, and the pressure for answers keeps mounting. Who decided to send $10 million from a Medicaid settlement to the first lady’s charity? Why did $8.5 million of it end up in a political committee run by James Uthmeier? And what did the Republican Party of Florida do with its share? Those questions aren’t going away just because Republicans dropped their lawsuit.”

The lawsuit was the latest in a string of efforts to keep Hope Florida out of public view, including more than $327,000 in taxpayer-funded outside legal fees tied to the investigation, and months of court fights over the release of the grand jury report.

When initially asked about the illicit transfer Governor Desantis urged reports to ask his wife since the Hope project was “her thing”

The Governor’s defenders claimed that 10 millions dollars came from a fine that had been levied against a company caught over-charging the Medicare System.

This argument does not hold water because the fines still belonged to the State Medicare system and should have been used to fund the Medicare program not to illicitly fund a campaign against those “Desanti”, as I call them, oppose.

Despite the fact that this is an egregious violation of both state and federal law, a grand jury in Orange County released a “presentment” rather than indictments and sealed those documents, so people (also known as voters) would not know precisely what had transpired.

This grand jury presentment leaked and was widely reported in the media. Citing the revelations of that grand jury presentment in public is not in any way a crime since the grand jury proceedings have not been challenged as in-authentic or inaccurate and are now in the public domain.

This scandal does not touch Republican Governor nominee Byron Donalds, who has not defended the actions but has referred reporters questioning him about it to Governor DeSantis for answers.

We have discussed the criminality of this scandal at length here at Stone Cold Truth. To read about it in depth make sure to check out this extremely detailed piece on the depths of this scandal, and Ron DeSantis’ backstabbing nature:

People must remember that if elected, Governor Byron Donalds does have the authority to launch an investigation into the DeSantis’ corruption. This is a prime reason why I have been speaking out against the DeSantis’ for many years.

Governor Byron Donalds would have the authority to in essence appoint a Special Prosecutor under Florida Statute 27-14 to examine this article afresh.

The only reason the DeSantis’ are not currently under indictment for their conduct is the ‘general amnesia’ of their staff while they were being questioned by the grand jury, and before the State Legislature which found that they misappropriated the funds.

Whether it’s the insurance crisis, skyrocketing utility rates, or deep corruption, Ron DeSantis is not the governor he wants you to think he is. He didn’t even stand up for Floridians, as he falsely claims, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DeSantis locked down his state, pushed COVID vaccinations, and later changed the narrative to suit his invented career narrative. More egregiously he betrayed the man who lifted him from obscurity and catapulted him to the Governor’s office.

Ron DeSantis is a fraud, and he will never be President of the United States.

Justice isn’t one-sided, and doesn’t belong to one political party, and no man is above the law, especially Ron DeSantis, who is such a short little man that he stands above nothing.

For years, certain free-market conservatives have dismissed Social Security as a bankrupt, compulsory government Ponzi scheme. They pointed to demographics, political raiding of the trust funds, and a worker-to-beneficiary ratio that has collapsed from over 40-to-1 in the early decades to under 3-to-1 today. The actuarial math looked grim enough that those critics appeared headed for vindication.

Trustees reports have long projected the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund’s exhaustion in the early 2030s. After that point, incoming payroll taxes would cover only about 78 percent of scheduled benefits. That trajectory has shifted under President Trump.

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, a trustee of the system, has stated plainly that the program “will be around for another 90 years.”

“This is a long journey. It’s 90 years old, and it’ll be around for another 90 years,” he said. “The president has promised to protect and preserve and that’s what we’re doing.”

The change rests on concrete actions. These include stronger anti-fraud measures, tax relief for seniors, and—most fundamentally—a growing economy that generates the revenue any safety net requires.

President Trump eliminated federal income taxes on Social Security for the vast majority of beneficiaries through the One Big Beautiful Bill. This delivered the largest tax break for seniors in history and fulfilled a core campaign promise. Roughly 88 to 90 percent of recipients will now pay no federal tax on their benefits, keeping more of what they earned through decades of work. This is not merely relief. It reinforces the program’s legitimacy as a return on contributions rather than a pure transfer.

Fraud and improper payments have been a quiet drain. Trump signed the Improving Social Security’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act (H.R. 5345). The law requires the Social Security Administration to provide a single, specially trained point of contact for victims of identity theft involving their Social Security numbers or cards. The measure streamlines resolution, reduces bureaucratic runaround, and protects the integrity of records that determine eligibility and payment amounts.

Vice President JD Vance’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud has maintained focus on Social Security and related programs. The task force has identified hundreds of billions in suspected fraud across federal benefits and stopped tens of billions in improper payments.

Complementing this, Executive Order 14249 directed the Treasury Department to gain access to the Social Security Administration’s Full Death Master File. Treasury has since screened hundreds of millions of payments totaling trillions of dollars. It flagged and stopped thousands of improper payments to deceased individuals worth nearly $100 million in early results alone. Permanent access was later secured by statute. These steps do not solve every structural issue. They do demonstrate that waste can be reduced and that benefits reach the living Americans who paid in.

America has both a moral obligation and the material capacity to care for its elderly. Generations who built the country’s infrastructure, raised families, and paid payroll taxes deserve the retirement security they were promised. The wealth exists. The question has always been whether policy priorities unleash or suppress the growth that funds such promises. The Trump economy is doing the former.

Robust growth expands the tax base. It increases employment and wages. It improves the ratio of workers supporting retirees over time. Without a dynamic economy, every entitlement faces insolvency pressures. With one, the arithmetic improves. That is the most important reform for Social Security’s long-term solvency: not endless tax hikes or benefit cuts in isolation, but sustained economic expansion that generates the revenues to keep the system solvent for generations.

Young workers paying into the system today can reasonably trust that the safety net will exist for them. That trust holds provided growth continues and integrity is maintained.

The legislative centerpiece of the effort to lock in these gains is the Social Security Guarantee Act (H.R. 6079). Introduced by Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee with Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna of Florida as co-sponsor, the bill requires the Treasury Secretary to issue benefit guarantee certificates to individuals entitled to Social Security benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.

These certificates affirm the full monthly benefit amount due, with at least an accurate annual cost-of-living adjustment. The legislation also provides for additional mandatory funding to support those benefits.

This matters because of a long-standing legal reality. In Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court held that Social Security contributions do not create a contractual right to benefits. Congress retains broad power to alter the program. Many Americans assume their payroll taxes create an enforceable claim. The Guarantee Act would establish a clearer statutory assurance that full benefits, adjusted properly for inflation, cannot be reduced. It converts what has been treated as a political promise into a more protected obligation.

The bill is the direct product of the 60 Plus Association, a nonpartisan seniors advocacy organization founded in 1992 to ensure the longevity of Social Security without massively expanding government control. 60 Plus worked with Rep. Burchett to reintroduce the measure and has made securing full benefits a top priority alongside ending the estate tax.

Its grassroots work is substantial. The organization has reached millions of seniors through letters and straw polls. One such effort contacting over 9.6 million seniors generated more than 750,000 responses. Ninety-eight percent favored passage of the Guarantee Act. There was overwhelming support for prohibiting politicians from cutting benefits. Most respondents were previously unaware that the Supreme Court had ruled there is no contractual entitlement.

60 Plus continues to educate, mobilize, and push for co-sponsors and a Senate companion. It is building momentum from the ground up rather than relying solely on Washington insiders.

Critics who once predicted collapse overlooked the possibility of restored growth, reduced waste, and explicit legislative guarantees. Social Security is not self-funding in perpetuity under current demographics and law. It requires a productive economy and vigilant administration.

President Trump’s approach addresses both the moral claim that America should care for its elderly and the practical requirement that wealth must be generated and protected to do so. That approach includes tax relief for seniors, fraud reduction through the Vance task force and Death Master File access, operational improvements at the Social Security Administration, and support for the Social Security Guarantee Act.

The momentum is grassroots as well as presidential. With continued economic expansion and passage of measures like H.R. 6079, the program’s longevity is no longer a hopeful projection but a credible outcome. Young Americans paying in today have reason to expect the system will be there when they need it.

The Hope Florida scandal that has enveloped the DeSantis’ throughout the last year has reached a new fevered pitch as CBS News Miami has leaked the entire grand jury presentment against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his wife, First Lady Casey DeSantis.

The leaks reveal damning evidence that the grand jury found evidence of severe, and even potentially criminal conduct by the First Family as it pertains to the Centene settlement, in which their appointed officials illegally steered $10 Million into Casey DeSantis’ Hope Florida charity.

Now the DeSantis’ are trying to cover up the information by suing those attempting to expose this information before the midterm elections.

We will examine the depth of the DeSantis’ treachery as it pertains to their theft of $10 Million later within the article, but first, let’s look at DeSantis’ own statements on the matter.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his wife Casey DeSantis have been clear over the last year. Each time the couple has been asked publicly about the ‘Hope Florida’ scandal, in which DeSantis and his wife skimmed $10 Million from taxpayers through their own appointed officials and a Medicaid settlement, they have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

At times, the Governor has even gone as far as to attack those who dare to ask questions about the scandal. During a press conference in February, DeSantis attacked a reporter for asking questions about the allegations that he and his wife had taken $10 Million from the poorest Floridians, handing it to Casey DeSantis’ own Hope Florida charity, in a settlement with Centene.

DeSantis scolded the reporter, “Political lies!” he said.

“We said at the beginning. It was a political op, it was a hoax, and we’re at this point, clearly that was true. Our agencies acted in ways that were legally sound and appropriate. That’s the fact. The fact that you wouldn’t have even opened one with DOJ, there was no basis to even do it, I think that’s really telling. It was all a political scam. There was a political agenda,” DeSantis added.

Thanks to CBS News Miami, we now know just how much Ron DeSantis was really lying about the Hope Florida scandal, and the depths to which he and his wife sunk in order to divert money from needy Floridians to their own political causes. We also have new information on how the scam played out, who helped orchestrate the theft, and who allowed it to happen.

Not only did Ron DeSantis orchestrate a criminal scheme to swindle poor Floridians out of money for their healthcare. He also lied about it, in public, for over a year. Now, because of the leaks, his lies have been exposed.

What Is The Hope Florida Scandal?

Casey DeSantis’ “Hope Florida” charity received a $10 million payout as part of a 2022 settlement with the state’s largest Medicaid provider at the behest of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) - in a clear conflict of interest.

The money was moved into Hope Florida from the AHCA as part of a $67 million settlement between the AHCA and Medicaid provider Centene regarding alleged overpayments made to pharmacy benefit managers.

$57 million of this settlement money went back to the taxpayers while $10 million went to Casey DeSantis’ nonprofit, as compelled by the AHCA in the documentation. The AHCA denies that this payout involved “the expenditure of state funds” in a peculiar and deceptive claim designed to dispel legitimate inquiry into the developing scandal.

“There was no civil action and this settlement did not require the expenditure of state funds, so no notice was required,” AHCA Deputy Chief of Staff Mallory McManus said in an email to Politico. “This was a pre-suit settlement in AHCA’s favor that was directed, in part, to the direct support organization which serves a population of individuals traditionally served by AHCA.”

McManus is a DeSantis hack using weasel words to obfuscate the facts of the matter. The settlement money was clearly meant to go to the people, and yet it ended up in the coffers of Hope Florida. If the AHCA thought this money should be dispersed to nonprofits, why was this money not dispersed to different public health nonprofits? Why was it not evenly distributed between different nonprofits engaged in this sort of work? The answer, of course, is due to political connections.

The state has been tight-lipped about divulging any further details about the settlement and which parties were involved, only adding to the intrigue and sending signals that the DeSantis family has much to hide. New reports indicate that the $10 million may have been funneled into the coffers of an anti-cannabis campaign supported by Hope Florida’s partners at the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Records show that Hope Florida gave a $5 million grant to the Florida Chamber’s ‘Secure Florida’s Future’ front group and an additional $5 million grant to the ‘Save our Society from Drugs’ organization after receiving the controversial settlement. Both of those organizations then funneled substantial sums of money, close to the amount they received from Hope Florida, to the Keep Florida Clean committee to defeat Amendment 3, a measure to legalize cannabis in Florida, in the 2024 election.

DeSantis even publicly referred to the $10 Million as the ‘cherry on top’ of the deal with Centene.

“When you do settlements, you can try to get as much money as you can, but this was in addition to what they were getting. This is kind of like a cherry on top where they agreed to make an additional contribution, and so we were served well by what ACHA did,” DeSantis said during a news conference.

Grand Jury Finds DeSantis Administration Directly Stole Money From Florida’s Poorest Residents

Lost in the reporting on the Hope Florida scandal is the omission by the grand jury that Ron DeSantis and his thugs stole $10 Million directly from the poorest Floridians, endangering their access the basic healthcare.

Centene’s settlement was based on Medicaid funds, and the grand jury found that all, not some, of the funds negotiated in the $67 Million+ settlement belonged to the defrauded Florida Medicaid recipients.

As stated previously, DeSantis had previously referred to the $10 Million portion pushed to Hope Florida as a ‘cherry on top’ of an overall Medicaid settlement. The court thoroughly debunked this argument, which was presented by several DeSantis officials.

“Hence this money was part of the damages Centene owned to Florida’s taxpayers,” the jury found.

DeSantis Appointee Jason Weida Hid Stolen $10 Million From State Legislature

The jury went further, concluding that the decision to reduce that portion of the settlement to exactly $10 million was done to circumvent a state law requiring any settlements above that threshold be directed to the general revenue fund controlled by state lawmakers.

Not only did DeSantis and his goons steal $10 Million, but they stole the exact amount necessary to evade any accountability in the process.

Once a settlement reaches a certain threshold, just over $10 Million, the state legislature has say over where the funds are diverted. Weida and DeSantis carefully crafted the payment to Hope Florida to evade this law, and ultimately accountability.

The official specifically named in this portion of the grand jury presentment is Jason Weida, former secretary of the Agency for Health Care Administration and one of four state officials who signed the settlement.

It also pointed to his decision to reimburse the federal government’s share of recovered Medicaid funds based on the full $67 million settlement.

DeSantis’ Deputy Chief Of Staff Katie Strickland ‘Fails To Remember’ Multiple Meetings With Centene On Settlement

The grand jury made several revelations that implicate Ron DeSantis and Casey DeSantis, as well as many of the officials he has surrounded himself with in the State government. It heard testimony from many DeSantis officials, including Katie Strickland, DeSantis’ Deputy Chief of Staff.

Strickland oversaw the health care agencies working with Casey DeSantis’ Hope Florida initiative, including the Agency for Health Care Administration which negotiated the deal with Centene.

Though Casey DeSantis had no official chief of staff, Strickland effectively served in that role. In 2022, Strickland attended at least three meetings about Centene, including one with the CEO of the company’s Florida subsidiary. She was intricately involved in the negotiations.

The grand jury, however, found Strickland to be completely “uninformative” and “not credible.”

Strickland, who served as DeSantis’ Deputy Chief of Staff, and the person that would be closest to serving as Casey DeSantis’ Chief of Staff, according to the leaked documents refused to reveal basic information about her contacts with Centene.

Why did Strickland refuse to speak on the meetings she had in 2022 with Centene? It seems obvious. With her placement overseeing the AHCA, and directly meeting with Centene multiple times in 2022, she would have been intricately involved in the innerworkings of this deal, yet she ‘couldn’t remember’ enough to provide information.

Grand Jury Wanted Criminal Charges, But ‘Amnesia’ Stood In The Way

Within the leaked resentment it is revealed that the ‘general amnesia’ of DeSantis officials including Strickland, Weida, and others was the only impediment standing in the way of criminal indictments in the Hope Florida scandal.

Isn’t that convenient?

“While we can’t prove who is responsible, we can plainly see that taxpayer money was misused for political purposes,” jury members wrote.

In addition to finding the money being used for political purposes, the grand jury also found that Hope Florida ‘mischaracterized’ how it used the diverted money once it was officially received.

It also found a pattern of diverted funds being misappropriated throughout state government, not just as it pertains to this specific settlement with Centene.

The DeSantis administration diverted at least $36.2 million in taxpayer resources originally earmarked for healthcare, child welfare, opioid recovery, and aid to vulnerable Floridians, including children, to fund advertising campaigns against various state wide 2024 ballot measures the Governor opposed.

Critics, including Republican State Rep. Alex Andrade of Pensacola, have alleged rampant corruption, money laundering, and misuse of public funds.

Now let’s take a look at evidence against Hope Florida that was revealed during a Florida Legislature hearing last year.

Florida Legislature Found Ron & Casey’s Hope Florida Failed to File Basic IRS Paperwork

Joshua Hay, the head of the Hope Florida Foundation, testified that the nonprofit, only a few weeks before the hearing, hired accountants to help it. He said the previous accounting of the foundation, which would included the time when the $10 Million settlement was paid by Centene was done by the Florida Department of Children and Families.

“There were lapses in reporting procedures; there are lapses in reporting procedures. And the foundation was not provided with the staffing support necessary to ensure all matters were quickly and appropriately handled,” Hay testified.

Rep. Allison Tant railed against Hope Florida for its failure to obtain basic organization paperwork such as bylaws, saying, “I’m just astonished. I’m astonished that you don’t have bylaws, a budget, meeting minutes.”

Rep. Alex Andrade claimed that he was “stunned” by the organization’s lack of transparency, saying, “I’m more stunned, than anything else, by the responses, the demeanor, the flippancy [toward] the serious questions we have.”

Andrade added, “I have serious concerns about what might be occurring in the post-dating of documentation in the attempt to justify and cover up what actually happened.”

Hope Florida Director Joshua Hay admitted during the Legislature’s hearing that Hope Florida failed to file basic tax documentation, including its IRS 990 form required to legally accept donations. Hay told lawmakers in Tallahassee, “[There was a] misunderstanding on who was responsible for preparing the tax records for the non-profit.”

“In recent weeks, the public reporting has made evident that mistakes were made,” Hay added.

The IRS requires Form 990 to be filed by the 15th day of the 5th month after the organization’s fiscal year ends, and failure to file for three consecutive years can lead to automatic revocation of tax-exempt status.

Considering that Hope Florida has existed since 2021, it would be, under the IRS law, eligible to lose its tax-exempt status for its failure to file.

Hope Florida Doesn’t Even Have Headquarters, State Legislature Finds

It was also revealed in the Florida State legislature hearing that Hope Florida does not have a headquarters or an actual place of operation.

The Hope Florida Foundation was found to lack a dedicated office or building, operating instead in a nebulous capacity without a verifiable headquarters, raising additional questions about the organization’s legitimacy.

Hope Florida Only Gave $500k To Needy Families

Joshua Hay, the Hope Florida Foundation’s chair, testified that the foundation had distributed “north of $10 million” in grants, as reported by the Orlando Sentinel.

However, lawmakers challenged this, noting that campaign finance records and foundation documents showed only about $500,000 in smaller grants to individuals and organizations, excluding the two $5 million grants to Securing Florida’s Future and Save Our Society from Drugs, which totaled $10 million.

Rep. Marie Woodson hammered Hay over this, asking him, “I’m struggling to understand how you can claim such a large amount of grants when the actual impact on Floridians seems so small. Where is the money really going?”

Rep. Andrade stated about the lack of funds distributed to Floridians, “You’re telling us you’ve granted over $10 million, but when we look at the numbers, it’s clear the vast majority went to two questionable groups, not to helping Floridians.”

The poorest of Florida residents were taken advantage of by their Governor, who directly stole $10 Million from them, illegally diverting the money to charity controlled by his wife, who then funneled the money to support political causes backed by the Governor.

Despite attempting to portray themselves as helping the needy with Hope Florida, all available evidence on the organization portrays it as nothing more than a front for Ron and Casey to divert millions of taxpayer dollars, and to funnel it to the political causes that matter to them most.

It remains to be seen whether or not the DeSantis’ will ever face justice for their clear criminal conduct. The only reason this grand jury failed to produce a criminal indictment is the ‘general amnesia’ no-doubt coordinated by the DeSantis team heading into the trial.

For Americans, this is a shining example of what Ron DeSantis and his family are capable of doing with access to power. No mother is safe, no child is cared for, and the hard-earned tax dollars that are taken from you, the American people, to be used to care for the sick, and elderly, are nowhere near safe when the DeSantis’ are near.

Though the grand jury found that the funds diverted to Hope Florida were misappropriated for political use, they failed to bring criminal indictments. Will the DeSantis’ skirt accountability forever?

The Republican Party of Florida is threatening criminal prosecution of television stations, the Democratic Party and, by the terms of its own legal theory, anyone who repeats a Leon County grand jury’s finding that high-ranking state officials diverted $10 million in the Hope Florida scandal.

The facts here are pretty clear. Ron and Casey DeSantis diverted $10 million in federal Medicaid funds to a Dark money political committee that they used to fund a constitutional statewide amendment campaign. This money was earmarked for the poorest of Floridians, as well as the handicapped. James Uthmeier, then the governor’s Chief of Staff, but now the appointed Attorney General, facilitated the transfer.

Casey DeSantis’ “Hope Florida” charity received a $10 million payout as part of a settlement with the state’s largest Medicaid provider at the behest of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) – in a clear conflict of interest.

The money was moved into Hope Florida from the AHCA as part of a $67 million settlement between the AHCA and Medicaid provider Centene regarding alleged overpayments made to pharmacy benefit managers. $57 million of this settlement money went back to the taxpayers while $10 million went to Casey DeSantis’ nonprofit, as compelled by the AHCA in the documentation. The AHCA denies that this payout involved “the expenditure of state funds” in a peculiar and deceptive claim designed to dispel legitimate inquiry into the developing scandal.

“There was no civil action and this settlement did not require the expenditure of state funds, so no notice was required,” AHCA Deputy Chief of Staff Mallory McManus said in an email to Politico. “This was a pre-suit settlement in AHCA’s favor that was directed, in part, to the direct support organization which serves a population of individuals traditionally served by AHCA.”

McManus is a DeSantis hack using weasel words to obfuscate the facts of the matter. The settlement money was clearly meant to go to the people, and yet it ended up in the coffers of Hope Florida. If the AHCA thought this money should be dispersed to nonprofits, why was this money not dispersed to different public health nonprofits? Why was it not evenly distributed between different nonprofits engaged in this sort of work? The answer, of course, is due to political connections.

The state has been tight-lipped about divulging any further details about the settlement and which parties were involved, only adding to the intrigue and sending signals that the DeSantis family has much to hide. Reports indicate that the $10 million may have been funneled into the coffers of an anti-cannabis campaign supported by Hope Florida’s partners at the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Records show that Hope Florida gave a $5 million grant to the Florida Chamber’s ‘Secure Florida’s Future’ front group and an additional $5 million grant to the ‘Save our Society from Drugs’ organization after receiving the controversial settlement. Both of those organizations then funneled substantial sums of money, close to the amount they received from Hope Florida, to the Keep Florida Clean committee to defeat Amendment 3, a measure to legalize cannabis in Florida, in last year’s election.

Republican lawmakers, whose state-mandated oversight of these funds was sidestepped, are not convinced by the DeSantis spin and continue to demand answers into what very well may be an illegal payout.

Then Attorney General Ashley Moody, now appointed to the US Senate, approved the transaction. The Florida State House held revelatory hearings on the matter. Ultimately the perpetrators returned the $10 million but took it from state Medicare funds not from their political coffers to which the money they grabbed had flown.

When initially asked about the illicit transfer Governor Desantis urged reports to ask his wife since the Hope project was “her thing,” referencing his wife.

The Governors defenders claimed that $10 millions dollars came from a fine that had been levied against a company caught over-charging the Medicare System. This argument does not hold water because the fines still belonged to the State Medicare system and should have been used to fund the Medicare program not to illicitly fund a campaign against those “Desanti” ,as I call them, oppose.

Despite the fact that this is an egregious violation of both state and federal law, a grand jury in Orange County released a “presentment” rather than indictments and sealed those documents, so people (also known as voters) would not know precisely what had transpired

This grand jury presentment leaked and was widely reported in the media. Citing the revelations of that grand jury presentment in public is not in any way a crime since the grand jury proceedings have not been challenged as in authentic or inaccurate and are now in the public domain.

This scandal does not touch Republican Governor nominee Byron Donalds, who has not defended the actions but has referred reporters questioning him about it to Governor DeSantis for answers.

In a lawsuit filed late Friday night and a letter sent the same day to station managers across Central Florida, the party argues that the grand jury’s report and its findings became contraband on Oct. 7, when a state appeals court ordered the report erased.

Under the party’s theory, broadcasting the report’s “content, gist, or import” is now a first-degree misdemeanor and criminal contempt of court.

It also requested that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and prosecutors investigate the media stations.

The verified complaint, filed in Highlands County circuit court, asks a judge to issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the other side. It names the Florida Democratic Party, three of four statewide Democratic candidates, and the owners of 11 television stations in the Orlando and Tampa Bay markets, including WFTV, WESH, WKMG, WOFL, WTVT, WFLA, WTSP and WFTS.

The target is a 30-second spot paid for by the Democratic Party and approved by David Jolly for governor, Jose Javier Rodriguez for attorney general, and Annette Taddeo for chief financial officer.

The ad says: “A leaked grand jury report found taxpayer money was quietly moved into a dark money political committee that James Uthmeier controlled, not to Florida families. They found $10 million was misappropriated.” It closes with the words “conspiracy, concealment, corruption.”

Uthmeier, the sitting attorney general, is on the Nov. 3 ballot. The Republican Party’s complaint describes him as “the candidate the advertisement targets.”

The suit rests on the First District Court of Appeal’s Oct. 7 opinion, written by Judge Lance Neff, ordering the 116-page presentment expunged “in its entirety.” That ruling, as the Trident has reported, was issued after the only party fighting to make the report public was kept from learning the appeal existed. Highly unsavory.

Under the Court’s own rules, the ruling is not final until 15 days after it was entered, or until disposition of any motion for rehearing. At the earliest, the ruling would not go into effect until this Friday. When asked whether the lawsuit filed was premature since the ruling is not yet final, Republican Party of Florida chair Evan Power told the media “they’re not going to change their minds.”

Meanwhile, the appellate court has ordered State Attorney Jack Campbell to explain why the court should not appoint a special master to investigate how the unredacted grand jury report reached the media and whether the court’s injunction was violated.

The court order also instructed Campbell to demonstrate why he should not be sanctioned for an Aug. 26 email to lawyers for Uthmeier and others suggesting that a clerk of the appeals court or the Leon County Clerk was responsible for the leak, and why he should not be referred to the Florida Bar for discipline. Campbell is required to provide answers under oath within five days.

The Republican Party argues the ruling changed the legal status of the report’s contents. Because the grand jury summarized witness testimony, the party says, anyone who knowingly broadcasts the “content, gist, or import” of that testimony violates section 905.27 of the Florida Statutes. A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor and criminal contempt of court.

“The law then is straightforward,” party lawyer Benjamin Gibson of Shutts & Bowen wrote to station managers on Friday. “Knowingly broadcasting advertisements built on the contents of the confidential Presentment is criminal conduct in Florida.” No lawyer I know agrees with this twisted analysis of the law.

Gibson’s letter went further than the lawsuit. It told the stations the party was “referring this matter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and relevant prosecutorial authorities.”

Copies went to FDLE Commissioner Larry Keefe, Statewide Prosecutor Brad McVay, and the state attorneys in 11 of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits. McVay works in Uthmeier’s office. With Uthmeier on the ballot and a party to the transfer this makes this an egregious conflict of interest.

The Democrats have not responded in Court but a serious rebuttal on the law is expected. It makes sense why the Republican Party of Florida under the direction of Ron DeSantis would want to cover this story up.

Everyone should remain mindful that if elected Governor Byron Donalds would have the authority to in essence appoint a Special Prosecutor under Florida Statue 27-14 to examine this article afresh.

The only reason the DeSantis’ are not currently under indictment for their conduct is the ‘general amnesia’ of their staff while they were being questioned by the grand jury, and before the State Legislature which found that they misappropriated the funds.

Whether it’s the insurance crisis, skyrocketing utility rates, or deep corruption, Ron DeSantis is not the governor he wants you to think he is. He didn’t even stand up for Floridians, as he falsely claims, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DeSantis locked down his state, pushed COVID vaccinations, and later changed the narrative to suit his invented career narrative. More egregiously he betrayed the man who lifted from from obscurity and catapulted him to the Governor’s office

Ron DeSantis is a fraud, and he will never be President of the United States.

DeSantis’ Betrayal Of President Donald Trump

In addition to being one of the most openly corrupt governors in the United States, Ron DeSantis has also been a treacherous, back-stabbing traitor for his entire political career. DeSantis even betrayed President Donald Trump, the man that made his political career.

In 2018, President Donald Trump’s tweeted endorsement catapulted virtual unknown Ron DeSantis to the Florida Republican gubernatorial nomination over Party favorite agriculture commissioner Adam Putnam, Trump asked Wiles to step in and right what was a rocky general election campaign against Democrat nominee and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, whose career would later crash when he was exposed in a sex and drug scandal.

DeSantis had little money, and was critiqued by Florida political insiders as having little-to-no campaign structure, poor organization, and an overall lack of professionalism. When DeSantis accused his opponent Gillum of wanting to “monkey up” the Florida economy with tax increases, DeSantis’ comments were widely condemned as ‘racist.’

DeSantis was also having trouble raising money against Republican establishment favorite agriculture commissioner Adam Putnam. Multiple respected polls showed that DeSantis’ support languished in single digits.

DeSantis, who had not actually ever endorsed Trump in 2016, and had run for re-election insisting that “just because we are on the same ticket does not mean I support Trump.”

DeSantis then cannily emerged as a vocal defender of Trump on the Fox TV and the Conservative talk show circuit in the Russian collusion battle.

Falling back on his experience as a Military prosecutor, DeSantis caught the President’s eye. In the end, however, it was not Ron DeSantis, but Congressman Matt Gaetz who convinced Trump to issue the fateful tweeted endorsement that would propel DeSantis to the Republican Governor’s nomination, and the Governor’s mansion. Gaetz had a longtime grudge against Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam who he felt had slighted him when Gaetz was a State legislature and he approached the Agriculture Commissioner about a constituent matter.

Realizing that the DeSantis campaign would need to be stabilized, President Trump deployed Susie Wiles to take control of the floundering DeSantis campaign.

DeSantis went on to secure a narrow victory in his 2018 election, due entirely to President Donald Trump and Susie Wiles.

Just 5 years later, DeSantis launched his Presidential campaign to run against former President Donald Trump in the 2024 Election. His campaign was a vicious attack on the man that made him.

On May 25^th, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, while speaking with Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, falsely accused President Donald Trump of ‘handing over’ the country to Anthony Fauci. DeSantis told Beck, “I think he did great for three years, but when he turned the country over to Fauci in March of 2020 that destroyed millions of people’s lives.”

Ron DeSantis was lying. HE pushed the vaccines. Ron DeSantis LOCKED DOWN Florida and even pushed for children to receive COVID-19 booster shots.

In late May of that same year, during a radio interview with Matt Murphy on WTN-AM, Desantis attacked President Donald Trump’s stellar record as President, saying, “I don’t know what happened to Donald Trump; this is a different guy today than when he was running in 2015 and 2016 and I think the direction that he’s going with his campaign is the wrong direction.”

In October of 2023, DeSantis claimed that Trump, who appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court that struck down the precedent of Roe v Wade, providing more protections to the unborn than had been afforded since pre-1973, was ‘betraying’ pro-life conservatives.

DeSantis said, “I think all pro-lifers should know that he’s preparing to sell you out,” to Iowa voters ahead of his defeat at the hands of Trump in the state.

The attacks didn’t stop at politics either. DeSantis also made derogatory comments about President Trump’s age, saying in October of 2023, “We don’t need any more presidents that have lost the zip on their fastball.”

During the same speech in which he made the previous statement, DeSantis also accused Trump of ‘energizing Democrats,’ saying, “You could have John Kennedy walk through the door right now and he wouldn’t energize Democrats as much as Donald Trump does.”

In December of 2023, DeSantis falsely accused President Donald Trump of disrespecting members of the military, saying on X, “Trump denigrates military service by claiming it is ‘braver’ that he debated Hillary Clinton than what soldiers endure on the battlefield. Debating isn’t ‘brave’; it’s the bare minimum any candidate should do. Hiding from debates, on the other hand, is an example of cowardice.”

DeSantis’ accusation that Trump is a ‘coward’ is laughable, especially considering that he and his wife stole $10 Million from the poorest Floridians in the Hope Florida scandal we delved into earlier.

Even after he dropped from the race, DeSantis continued to attack Trump. On January 7^th, 2024, DeSantis told Face The Nation, “If the election is about Trump and his legal issues, it will be a “really nasty election” and “doesn’t put Republicans in a good position to win.”

Just days later, DeSantis accused Trump of ‘slipping mentally’ once again, saying on Morning Joe, “Clearly Donald Trump is not the same Trump from 2016. When he gets off the teleprompter, there’s a lot of mistakes, a lot of stream of consciousness stuff.”

Ron DeSantis owes his entire career to President Donald Trump, and even after being thoroughly dismantled by Trump in the 2024 Republican Presidential primary, DeSantis refused to endorse the President.

Let’s not forget that DeSantis literally changed Florida law so that he could siphon the hundreds of millions he raised during his 2022 gubernatorial campaign to his presidential campaign.

I’ve been watching what’s happening with Ukraine, and I want to talk straight with you about why it’s time—past time—for the United States to cut off the endless aid pipeline to Ukraine and stop propping up President Zelenskyy.

I fully understand that I will be accused of being pro-Russian or worse by the neocons and Globalists for taking this view; absurd since I had members of my own family mowed down by Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956 and Robert Mueller’s witch hunt turned up no Russian Collusion by me or anyone else in Donald Trump’s 2016 Campaign, the continued lies of Adam Schiff and his media cabal notwithstanding. Those interested in the falsity of Mueller’s bogus case against me can go here.

First the history of this war: After Russia agreed to the reunification of East and West Germany, the US agreed in both the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Accords not to push Ukraine into NATO, which is to say, not to mount NATO missiles in Ukraine aimed at Russia. Why is this any different than the Russian mounting missiles in Cuba 90 miles from our shores in 1962? Barack Obama gave Russia Crimea. Joe Biden started this war which would never have started had Trump rightfully been re-elected in 2020.

President Trump just tried to do something practical and sensible for American families and for energy markets. He announced an energy ceasefire—effective immediately—so that neither side would keep hitting each other’s energy infrastructure.

That matters here at home. High diesel and fuel prices hit truckers, farmers, families at the pump, and manufacturers. Trump’s been clear: Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries have been driving up those costs, and he even worked a deal to get more diesel flowing into global markets. The goal was simple: stop the mutual destruction of energy assets, lower prices, and create space for real negotiations to end this war.

What happened? Within hours and days, the ceasefire was treated as optional. Reports came in of continued strikes on energy targets. Zelensky publicly said Ukraine had paused, then declared “we’re done” and resumed attacks on Russian refineries—hitting places like the Ryazan facility and others. He framed it as a response to Russian actions, and Trump himself noted there have been violations on both sides. But here’s the bottom line for Americans: Ukraine is not treating this as a binding commitment when it conflicts with its own strategy of trying to degrade Russian oil revenue.

That strategy may make sense from Kyiv’s perspective in a long war of attrition, but it directly conflicts with the energy stability Trump is trying to deliver for the United States and the world. When a partner ignores or quickly walks away from a ceasefire the U.S. President announces, that partner is telling us the relationship is transactional and one-way. Today Zelensky openly mocks Trump. We should take the hint.

This is not an isolated incident.

For years, the pattern has been the same: massive American support, escalating demands, and limited progress toward an end to the fighting. The war is now well into its fifth year. Every winter brings more strikes on power plants and heating infrastructure. Every summer and fall brings more long-range drone and missile exchanges. American taxpayers have been asked to underwrite this indefinitely while Europe talks a good game and still relies heavily on U.S. systems and intelligence.

Let’s talk numbers, because numbers don’t lie. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the United States has appropriated and committed enormous sums related to Ukraine and the region. Official oversight figures put total U.S. spending related to the war response in the range of roughly $180–195 billion when you include supplemental appropriations, replenishment of our own stocks, economic support, humanitarian aid, and associated costs. Security assistance alone—drawdowns from U.S. inventories, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and related financing—has exceeded $68 billion in committed defense articles and services through mid-2026, according to the Special Inspector General. Broader trackers from places like the Kiel Institute and others have put cumulative U.S. bilateral commitments in the $100–135+ billion range depending on exactly what is counted (military, financial, and humanitarian).

That’s not abstract. That’s money that could have gone to our own border, our own military readiness, infrastructure, debt reduction, or tax relief for American workers. Much of the equipment came out of U.S. stocks that then had to be replaced—sometimes at higher cost. Economic and budget support helped keep the Ukrainian government functioning, paying salaries and pensions while the war ground on. There has been no major new large-scale U.S. aid package since the big supplemental in April 2024. Under the current administration, the flow has slowed dramatically, and Europe has been forced to step up more. That’s the right direction, but it doesn’t erase what has already been spent or the open-ended commitment some still want to maintain.

And then there’s the corruption question—something that never fully goes away when you’re talking about large-scale American aid to Ukraine.

Start with our own side. In early 2024, the Pentagon’s Inspector General reported that the Defense Department had failed to properly track more than $1 billion in sensitive equipment sent to Ukraine—Javelin and Stinger missiles, night-vision devices, certain drones, and other items that by law require enhanced end-use monitoring. As of mid-2023, roughly 59 percent of the value of those high-risk items was still “delinquent” in the inventory systems. The report didn’t claim widespread theft, but it documented serious accountability gaps in a wartime environment. That’s American gear and American money with incomplete visibility.

On the Ukrainian side, the problems are more concrete. Classified government audits by Ukraine’s State Audit Service and the Defense Ministry’s own internal auditors—covering 2024 and 2025 and reported by The New York Times in September 2026—found that Ukraine lost about $1.2 billion in 2024 alone to fraud, waste, and mismanagement in defense procurement. Seven of the top ten military contractors kept winning new business even though they had open criminal investigations for fraud, had failed to deliver on earlier contracts, or had executives arrested or out on bail. One company was awarded a major mortar contract worth hundreds of millions while its director was already under investigation and out on bail; that same plant later supplied hundreds of thousands of defective mortar rounds. Auditors also flagged companies that never fulfilled a single prior contract yet received new ones, cases of rejecting lower bids and overpaying by roughly $126 million, heavy use of intermediaries who added markups, and disputed advance payments in the tens or hundreds of millions on deals that collapsed. These are Ukrainian government documents, not Western speculation.

Then there’s the energy sector. Ukraine’s own National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) has documented an alleged roughly $100 million kickback operation inside the state nuclear company Energoatom. Investigators say contractors were required to pay 10 to 15 percent off the top simply to get paid and stay on the supplier list—including on contracts for protective structures meant to shield nuclear facilities from Russian strikes. The alleged organizer is Timur Mindich, a longtime business partner of President Zelenskyy and co-owner of the Kvartal 95 production company that made Zelenskyy famous as an actor. The scheme involved wiretaps, charging documents, and a money-laundering operation; Mindich left the country before charges. The investigation has touched senior officials, led to searches and resignations (including around Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff), and produced charges against former energy and justice ministers and others. NABU is the independent anti-corruption body the United States helped create and train.

None of this is “ancient history.” These are recent audits, Inspector General findings, and active Ukrainian investigations. Corruption concerns in Ukrainian institutions have never fully gone away, and the combination of poor tracking on our end and documented waste and alleged schemes on theirs is a serious problem when American taxpayers are writing the checks.

Supporters of continued aid will say this is about defending democracy, deterring aggression, and protecting the post-Cold War order. Those are serious arguments. But after years of aid, the front lines have not produced a decisive Ukrainian victory. Russia has absorbed sanctions, adapted, and continues to press. Ukraine has suffered terrible losses in manpower and infrastructure. Zelenskyy’s government has postponed elections under martial law which means the U.S. is backing a wartime leadership indefinitely.

When Trump suggested it might be time for Ukraine to consider new leadership more focused on a deal, it was blunt—but it reflected the reality that the current approach is not producing an end to the fighting.Zelensky has no interest in peace.

The energy ceasefire episode crystallizes the problem. Trump tried to de-escalate one of the most economically damaging aspects of the war for American consumers. Ukraine’s response—pausing briefly, then resuming strikes while accusing Russia of non-compliance—shows that Kyiv prioritizes its military strategy over the diplomatic off-ramp the U.S. is offering. Both sides have an interest in hurting the other’s energy sector. But the United States does not have an unlimited interest in funding that cycle. Our primary obligation is to American citizens facing higher fuel costs and a national debt that has already ballooned.

Cutting off further aid and ending open-ended support for Zelenskyy’s government is not “abandoning Ukraine.” It is recognizing limits. Europe has the proximity, the economic interest, and the capacity to take the lead on its own continent. American military stockpiles and intelligence remain valuable, but they should not be an unlimited credit line.

Nor is this about “democracy”. Ukraine has held no elections and freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion are not honored in Ukraine where the largest church in the country is outlawed, priests and pastors jailed along with journalists while newspapers and any media that does not support Zelensky is outlawed.

A policy of endless blank checks has not ended the war; it has prolonged it. A realistic assessment—acknowledging that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia outright with current support levels, that both sides have violated de-escalation attempts, that U.S. taxpayers have already shouldered a historic burden, and that serious accountability and corruption problems persist—points toward winding down the aid and pushing for negotiations that reflect battlefield realities.

President Trump has been consistent that this is not America’s war to fight forever and that deals should put American interests first, including energy prices.

The recent energy ceasefire attempt, the diesel arrangement, and the continued strikes show the gap between announcements and reality on the ground. When a partner repeatedly puts its own maximalist goals ahead of the practical steps the U.S. proposes—and when documented waste, tracking failures, and major corruption investigations surround the use of American support—the responsible response is to stop writing the checks. American security, American energy costs, and American fiscal health come first.

The radical left is no longer a faction. They are the life blood of the Democratic Party. Zohran Mamdani did not just take City Hall. In 2026 his slate knocked off incumbents and party favorites in races from the top to the bottom of the ticket in New York. DSA ranks in Congress are set to more than double.

House Democrats already whisper about a left-wing group styled after the House Freedom Caucus who could dictate policy for the entire caucus. The Democrat establishment is beholden to them, so they have gone into appeasement mode. They want to be radical enough to survive the next primary and respectable enough to cash the next foundation check. That is the pitiful and unfortunate task that has befallen the Roosevelt Institute.

The Building Up in 2029 report, released over the summer, is a 17-essay collection forming the basis for a broad Democrat coalition organized under far-left principles. The project is part of a “Project 2029”-type effort, “including adapting Donald Trump’s means to progressive ends.” In other words, they have no problem with the supposed “authoritarianism” of President Trump. They just want to be the ones pressing the buttons and shifting the gears of the federal colossus.

In one of the essays, K. Sabeel Rahman, describes how he wants the bureaucracy to be reconstructed. It begins with dismantling the Trump state, meaning the immediate reversal of all of his policy achievements. From there, they will warp institutions beyond repair. Rahman said: “The Supreme Court will have to be reformed, meaning “ court expansion, aggressive ethics requirements, and narrowing the jurisdictional reach” of the Court. This would effectively secure liberal dominance over politics in perpetuity.

Essayist Will Dobbs-Allsopp treats the Senate as a climate defect. The chamber, he says, over-represents fossil-fuel states and “minorities of the American population.” He argues to strip the Senate of power or reapportion its votes. The filibuster is a “counter-majoritarian chokehold.” Climate strategy, he argues, must merge with “fundamental democracy (and Senate) reform.” This would constitute an immense power-grab for dense population centers with the most corrupt governance of anywhere within our nation.

Other policies described in the report include establishing public equity stakes “in the public interest,” using TARP-era government ownership as a model of how industry can be nationalist. Another policy includes a National Investment Authority, including a federal investment institution, a homegrown sovereign wealth fund and a National Infrastructure Bank. States and cities are invited to open “public factories” for energy components. They called to rebuild USAID on steroids tied into financial institutions to more directly fund subversion throughout the world.

Building Up is a theory of permanent power. These are not prudent, good-faith reforms. Court expansion is not ethics reform. It is changing the umpire because the score is wrong. Senate reapportionment is not “democracy.” It is an attempt to unwind the deal small states made to enter the Union. A national investment authority with public voting stock is not a market. It is about making the state the controlling shareholder. A tax credit can be cut. A packed Court, a rewritten Senate, a sovereign investment vehicle, and a civil service hired for a generation of planning cannot.

The Roosevelt Institute hopes their manifesto will be enough to fend off the Radical Left. It is the left establishment bankrolled by corporate money led by former Biden officials. Donors and partners have included Ford, Hewlett, MacArthur and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Rising left-wing activists already treat that class as the enemy. A report that brags about borrowing Trump’s means will look, to them, like an establishment-backed triangulation attempt with an occasional crumb thrown their way. Why settle for crumbs when they are on the cusp of getting the whole loaf?

The establishment wrote this to look serious and keep the coalition intact. Their problem is their base is insatiable. Yesterday’s extremist take quickly becomes today’s moderate position. Mamdani’s allies just proved they can fire the old guard in safe seats. A think-tank menu that stops short of what they already say out loud will not quiet them. It will teach them the establishment is weak and can be bent to their will.

There is no remaining moderate faction large enough to stop that slide. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former National Security Adviser Tulsi Gabbard did not “become Republicans” for a lark. They left a party that no longer had a home for them. U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman is one of the last elected Democrats willing to deviate from the leftist-dictated script, and that has put him on the chopping block.

For many years it was a truism of sorts to call the two parties—Republican and Democrat—two wings of the same bird of prey. But after the rise of President Trump and the hostile socialist takeover of the Democrats, the two major parties are now offering diametrically opposed visions for what will constitute America’s future. The Republican Party is often weak, sloppy, and pitifully caters to the special interests it should be locking horns against. But we can root out this culture of failure in Republican primaries, which has already proven to be effective in many cases.

The project in Building Up in 2029 is in a different category altogether. This is a plan to rip up the Constitution, undo checks and balances and devastate the Republic as we know it. And that is the moderate proposal. What the Democrats will be unleashing will likely be far worse. No matter how frustrating the GOP may be, the alternative is to roll over as the worst atrocities of mankind are repeated on our shores. To do so is to spit on the graves of our historic ancestors. We have no choice but to crush the Democrats and thwart the leftist cancer before it metastasizes within our body politic.

Texas has emerged as the new frontline of the Culture War. As leftist pundits and elites still treat Islamification as a fever dream, the Lone Star State has been quietly infiltrated by Muslims who are forming enclaves and setting up a durable parallel culture that will morph into Sharia Law at some point. What is happening in Texas is bigger than a mere fight over social-studies standards. This is a line in the sand from Texans who have decided that their children will be taught the unsanitized historical record of Islam, including all of the gory details.

The numbers are not imaginary. Estimates of Texas Muslims now run from roughly 300,000 to as high as 500,000—still only about 1 to 2 percent of a state of more than 30 million, but concentrated where it matters: Houston and the Dallas–Fort Worth metro. Mosque counts tell the story of a pervasive infrastructure. The 2020 U.S. Mosque Survey put Texas third nationally with 224 mosques, a 35 percent jump from 2010. More recent tallies put the total nearer 300 to 330. In DFW counties, mosque numbers nearly tripled over two decades. International migration from Muslim-majority countries into the metro doubled in a decade. That is how Islam conquers—through population density, the erection of institutions and a patient long-term vision.

But perhaps these Muslims were not patient enough in Texas as a particularly audacious project drew concern and backlash. The East Plano Islamic Center’s planned 400-acre development near Josephine—first branded EPIC City, later recast as The Meadow—was sold as homes, a mosque, a K–12 Islamic school, senior living, and commercial space. Promotional language and political reaction treated it as something more: “the epicenter of Islam in North America.” Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton made it clear that Sharia Law is not allowed in Texas, nor are “Sharia cities,” nor “no-go zones.” State investigations, securities suits, plat fights, and a statute aimed at religiously segregated developments followed. Courts and developers dispute the motives, but the pattern is clear. When a mosque-led project of that scale appears in a booming red-state suburb, it is not “just housing.” It is a bid for permanence.

Education is where permanence is manufactured. In February 2026, Humble ISD buses carried more than 30 high-school students from Kingwood and Atascocita to Centro Islámico, a Spanish-language Islamic center tied to IslamInSpanish. The trip was framed as optional club activity: tour, halal lunch, midday prayer, presentation. The center’s own video celebrated students who “left changed” and teachers who wanted kids to see “a different side of the Muslims.” Parents who would never see a comparable taxpayer-funded pilgrimage to a Baptist sanctuary on a school day noticed the asymmetry immediately. That is how the Left uses “inclusion” as a one-way ratchet. Freedom of religion has been transformed from the right to worship to a cudgel far-left activists use to punish Christians and prohibit them from practicing their faith publicly.

Texas is the first state that is standing up boldly against the toxic status quo, and the State Board of Education’s 2026 rewrite is evidence of how serious the state has become in their efforts to root out Radical Islam. The Republican majority on the Board of Ed required high-schoolers to learn that the September 11 attacks were “motivated by radical Islam,” not merely by a handful of named operatives; to study early Islam through Muhammad’s “brutal military campaigns against Jewish and Christian tribes,” the normalization of slavery, and female captives taken as “harem slaves”; and to connect jihad teachings to the conquest of Christian lands and the later rise of groups from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS. A prior nod to Muslim contributions in algebra and astronomy was dropped. Bible literacy and Christianity’s imprint on the American founding were strengthened. Implementation begins in the 2030–31 school year. CAIR and allied witnesses called it prejudice. Board conservatives called it history with the long-overdue removal of politically correct drivel.

Critics shriek “Islamophobia.” They never explain why the same people who spent a generation stripping Christmas trees, Ten Commandments displays, and biblical literacy from public schools now demand that Islam receive the velvet glove. The Left understood curriculum as a weapon. It used it against Christianity for decades—recasting the faith that built hospitals, universities, the abolition movement and essentially built Western Civilization as evil and hateful, while treating alien religions and creeds as being worthy of triumph. There is no moral rule that says only one side may fight on that terrain. If Texas students can be required to memorize the alleged sins of Christendom, they can also be required to learn that Islam undeniably expanded by the sword, regulated slavery in law, and still produces a political theology that poisons nations worldwide.

Dearborn is the cautionary tale, not a carbon copy. Michigan’s dense Arab-Muslim city is not legally a caliphate but it has in effect been robbed of its American identity. Dearborn is a warning about what happens when numbers, institutions, and political will concentrate without the necessary steps to assimilate that made America into the vaunted melting pot that was once the pride of the world. Texas is not making those mistakes. They are drawing the line before the enemy can gain momentum. The underpinnings of Sharia Law, the manipulation of the curriculum and Muslim-dominated housing projects sold as the “epicenter of Islam in North America” should never be normalized. The people must express their righteous anger, and in Texas, they certainly have.

Remember the credo: “Don’t mess with Texas.” This time, Islam has bitten off more than it can chew. After all, Texas is still Texas because earlier generations refused to budge. Texans have never been known to back down from a fight. Republicans everywhere should take note. Any of them who believe that the stand by Texas against Radical Islam is unnecessary or extreme is a spineless RINO who has already lost the plot. This is the type of politician who is ill-equipped for the momentous occasion facing us. The Left has never apologized for fighting the culture war in the classroom. Neither should Texas. Neither should any conservative. Either we fight and win peacefully in these venues now, or we will assuredly be emptying our cartridge boxes later.

Former Watergate special prosecutor, Nick Ackerman often holds himself out on MSNBC as some type of non-partisan unbiased law enforcement official, when in fact he is a vicious, partisan, political hack.

During my own trial emanating from the Russian collusion hoax, Ackerman repeatedly accused me of being a Russian intelligence asset and a traitor to my country. No evidence ever emerged in my trial to support either claim, and in fact my own trial was an elaborate hoax designed to pressure me to testify against President Trump.

Ackerman once said on MSNBC, “we knew that Nixon approved the Watergate break-in. We could just never find proof of it.” Yes, he is mentally deranged

Now, however, with overwhelming evidence from unsealed and declassified documents proving that Nixon was railroaded, denied due process, and that Ackerman himself knew about the CIA foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in and did nothing about it, this vicious partisan is unable to mount a cogent defense of the Watergate myth created by the Washington Post and furthered by the corrupt Watergate special prosecutors.

James Rosen, now of Newsmax, put Ackerman in his place in a New York Times opinion piece, which must be re-printed here:

“In a closed-door meeting at the Justice Department last month, senior officials with the Office of Professional Responsibility spent two hours reviewing 78 PowerPoint slides relating to — of all things — Watergate.

The presentation focused on longstanding allegations of misconduct by the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, the team of young Ivy League lawyers whose investigation helped bring down President Richard Nixon and secured criminal convictions of his top former aides.

After The Wall Street Journal broke news of the session this month, Nick Akerman, one of the task force’s few surviving staff lawyers, denounced the presentation in an essay titled “I Helped Investigate Watergate. The D.O.J.’s Attempt to Reframe Nixon as the Victim Is Extremely Dangerous.” Mr. Akerman dismissed the presenter — a graduate, like him, of Harvard Law School — as the peddler of a “bonkers conspiracy theory” asserting that Mr. Nixon was ousted in a “plot.”

The Journal’s headline — “Decades After Watergate, Justice Department Reviews Whether Nixon Got a Raw Deal” — fueled skepticism by suggesting that Mr. Nixon, long assigned the role of irredeemable historical villain, might have been treated unfairly.

Mr. Nixon, of course, got a great deal: pardoned a month after his resignation for all crimes he committed or may have committed during his presidency. He went on to publish best-selling books, serve his successors as consigliere and travel the world as an elder statesman.

But what about all the president’s men? Did they get a raw deal?

According to a raft of scholarly work, the answer, unequivocally, is yes. By fabricating witness testimony, suppressing exculpatory evidence and colluding with the presiding judge, the Watergate prosecutors railroaded the former attorney general John Mitchell, the former White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman and the former domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman. This does not mean these convicted officials were innocent. But it does mean they did not receive the due process that even the men around Mr. Nixon deserved.

Mr. Akerman and others suggested that the Justice Department officials convened the meeting because they hoped, indirectly, to exculpate President Trump. If the Watergate prosecutions could be exposed as corrupt, the argument goes, then so, too, could the investigation led by Robert Mueller that looked into possible ties between Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

This misses the point. The role of the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, itself a post-Watergate creation, is to review any information that suggests a department employee might have violated the law, regulations or standards of conduct.

With its political animus and early use of computers, the Watergate investigation is indeed the grandfather of lawfare. One of the jurors who pronounced judgment on Mr. Nixon’s cabinet officials described Watergate as “war between the ins and the outs.”

A case in point, omitted from the recent presentation: On Feb. 6, 1974, a task force staff lawyer, Peter Rient, sent a colleague a three-page memo titled “Material Discrepancies Between the Senate Select Committee Testimony of John Dean and the Tapes of Dean’s Meetings With the President.”

Mr. Nixon was then six months away from resigning. Mr. Dean was the young White House counsel who admitted to having managed the Watergate cover-up until, fired by Mr. Nixon, he negotiated partial immunity from the Senate Watergate committee and cooperated with the prosecutors. In exchange for leniency, Mr. Dean gave damning testimony against the president and his men.

The existence of Mr. Nixon’s secret taping system was publicly disclosed 17 days after Mr. Dean concluded his televised Senate testimony. The remaining year of Mr. Nixon’s presidency was spent litigating access to his tapes. When their contents tumbled out, the press, the courts and scholars all concluded the recordings vindicated Mr. Dean’s proclaimed “astounding memory for detail.” With his brown comb-over and owlish eyeglasses, the ex-wunderkind became, in Walter Cronkite’s words, “an all-purpose Watergate witness.”

The Rient memo was never released to the news media. The public was kept in the dark about acute problems that Watergate prosecutors had identified in the Senate testimony of their star witness.

Likewise, the Rient memo was withheld from defense counsel in U.S. v. Mitchell, the Watergate cover-up trial in which Mr. Dean’s testimony proved decisive. Having ironed out all the material discrepancies from his sworn Senate appearance, the prosecutors used Mr. Dean’s new testimony to secure convictions of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman, once among the most powerful men in government.

A material discrepancy, in criminal procedure, means it is significant enough to affect the outcome of a case. Criminal convictions routinely get overturned after disclosure of prosecutorial misconduct less egregious than this. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman, now dead, all served prison terms.

The Rient memo remained undisclosed until 1997, when I revealed its contents in National Review. Also disclosed in that article was a memo by the Watergate prosecutor George Frampton dated July 22, 1974 — 10 weeks before jury selection in the Watergate cover-up trial began — outlining “significant discrepancies between Dean’s anticipated trial testimony” and “that of other government witnesses or evidence.”

Mr. Frampton’s analysis showed that one meeting Mr. Dean testified to “apparently didn’t take place.” The prosecutor advised, “We probably would do well simply to omit Dean’s testimony about this.” Mr. Dean later acknowledged the discrepancies, testifying that he and the prosecutors cleaned them up before the Mitchell trial.

The Frampton memo showed that the prosecutors’ concerns extended beyond the problems that the Nixon tapes posed for their star witness. Like the Rient memo, the Frampton memo was hidden from the news media and the defense counsel in U.S. v. Mitchell.

As the Watergate prosecutors must have known, withholding these memorandums trampled the constitutional rights of their prosecutorial targets. Had lawyers for Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman had access to these analyses, they could have used them for cross-examination and probably demolished what little credibility the disbarred Mr. Dean still possessed.

It was Geoff Shepard, a veteran of Mr. Nixon’s defense team and a leading Watergate scholar, who delivered last month’s briefing. In 2013, Mr. Shepard published an article in The Atlantic that made use of previously unpublished task force memorandums to chronicle how prosecutors repeatedly met privately with Judge John Sirica, the chief judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. He had presided over the Watergate break-in trial and was determined to sit as well on Mr. Mitchell’s trial. No defense lawyers were included in these meetings — a major violation of federal criminal procedure.

Judge Sirica had a problem: Approaching 70, he would soon be forced, under rules then in place, to resign as chief judge, surrendering his power to assign cases. Mr. Shepard found memos by Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor whose work helped secure the convictions in the Mitchell case, showing he had allowed Judge Sirica to orchestrate the contents and timing of the indictments so he could assign the case to himself.

Mr. Shepard’s findings shocked the bar. At a 2015 panel event at George Washington University Law School, the law professor Stephen Saltzburg, a former clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall and one of the nation’s most renowned experts on criminal procedure, declared that the prosecutors’ concealment of exculpatory information in the Mitchell case and the conduct of Judge Sirica constituted “as gross misconduct as you could possibly get.”

If the Trump Justice Department officials demonstrate the courage to revisit the Nixon years, whose mythologies remain foundational to mainstream media and elite academia, they can expunge the tainted convictions secured during Watergate.

Their chief problem could be whether the rogue Watergate prosecutors are covered by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Certainly, Judge Sirica was not; any official review of his misconduct must occur elsewhere. And there is good reason to question whether the Watergate task force was ever part of the Justice Department. In 1974, Antonin Scalia, an assistant attorney general at the time, complained in writing that “the special prosecutor’s briefs are not reviewed in the department” and therefore the Justice Department would not endorse “the positions adopted by the special prosecutor.”

These are technicalities. Official review of the crooked convictions in Watergate is rooted in a wealth of newly declassified evidence and is long overdue. One need not be a supporter of Mr. Trump — or of any other target in the various investigations he has faced — to agree with Santayana’s maxim that those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”

On June 28th, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, was a surprise witness in the January 6th committee hearings. Although heavily hyped as a “surprise witness” with startling “new information” much of what Cassidy said was both eagerly reported as “fact” by the mainstream media and just as quickly debunked by more objective news organizations.

I won’t recount here how quickly disproved Cassidy’s second-hand claim that President Trump, irate that his Secret Service detail would not take him to the Capitol, sought to grab the wheel of his Presidential Limousine and assaulted a Secret Service Agent. Even NBC News reported that Secret Service Officials are prepared to testify under oath that neither of these things happened.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney induced Hutchinson to say it was her “understanding” that “President Trump instructed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to call Roger Stone and General Michael Flynn on the evening of January 5th” and that it was Hutchinson’s “understanding” that these calls were completed on the evening of January 5th.

Cheney would later speculate that the purpose of these calls on January 5th was “to find out what was going to happen on January 6th. Once again USA Today, would report this falsehood without any effort to confirm its accuracy.

Rolling Stone, USA Today, MSNBC, Yahoo News, Miami-Herald, and others almost immediately reported Hutchinson’s claim as if it were a fact. If any of these “news outlets” had bothered to call for comment, they would have learned that Hutchinson’s claim was unequivocally false; I received no such call from Mark Meadows on January 5th. In fact, although I met him once in the green room at FOX in 2019 when he was still a Congressman, I have never spoken to him by phone or in person on any other occasion.

General Flynn tells me that he didn’t speak to Mark Meadows on January 5th and neither has he ever had any phone conversation with Meadows. To their credit, ABC News was the only media outlet to request a comment on Hutchinson’s baseless claims and accurately report my denial.

Hutchinson went on to say that Meadows wanted to attend a “briefing in a war room set up in the Willard Hotel.” Hutchinson said that Meadows was persuaded not to attend this briefing in person but that he participated in the briefing “with Roger Stone and General Flynn” by phone.

Here’s how NPR reported it:

Once again, there never was any such telephone briefing. That of course did not stop USA Today or the New York Times from gleefully recycling this canard without contacting me or my attorney for comment. Nor was I aware of or involved with any “war room” within the Willard Hotel.

In fact, the Washington Post has reported accurately that “The Willard attracted many pro-Trump figures around that time, including “Stop the Steal” provocateur Roger Stone. Stone was not part of the Giuliani team at the Willard and did not participate in the team’s efforts, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.”

I continue to believe that the “Stop the Steal” effort to bring public attention to the anomalies and irregularities as well as very real evidence of fraud in the results of the 2020 election, constitutes an act of Constitutionally protected free speech and that the legally permitted and peaceful events on January 5th and 6th are Constitutionally protected under the 4th amendment. At no time did I, Ali Alexander, or Alex Jones publicly or privately advocate violence or lawlessness. There has been a concerted effort by the Democrats and their allies in the fake news media to insist otherwise.

It is sad that I must reiterate it, but any assertion, claim, or even implication that I was aware in advance of, involved in, or condoned any illegal activity at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th or any other date is categorically false. Nor was I involved in any legal effort to delay the certification of the results of the electoral college. There is no witness, email, text message, encrypted message, or individual that proves otherwise. Unfortunately, since this assertion is never reported by the fake news media, false claims about my actions on January 5th and 6th are constantly recycled, including today by the Miami-Herald.

The favored tactic of the left, in this case, is “guilt by association.” Because the off-duty D.C. police officers who had provided paid security for me and my family during my January 2020 Trial in Washington D.C. were unavailable; the Oath Keepers organization provided security for me on January 5th. I do know individual members of the Proud Boys. I am a 41-year friend and supporter of President Donald Trump. None of these facts proves anything whatsoever.

Hutchinson’s Cheney-induced assertions about me were the source of a tsunami-like wave of hatred and vilification on Twitter. This exposes the true purpose of the baseless attacks on me; to associate me falsely with actions I was not involved in and had no involvement in, to drive up the cost of lawyers that I require to defend myself, and to drag my name through the mud one more time. Sadly, I am the Trump Supporter that woke leftists love most to hate.

Of course Congresswoman Liz Cheney suborned Hutchinson’s perjury, coaching her to lie and should also be prosecuted but she has a auto-pen signed pardon from Joe Biden.

There is an old rule in politics: words matter. There is an even older rule in a courtroom: sworn words matter even more.

That distinction is essential in understanding what seems to be the extraordinary reconciliation between President Donald Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen — and the increasingly widespread claim that Cohen has now “recanted” the testimony he gave against Trump.

He has not.

Perhaps I am particularly sensitive to this question. Charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s thugs and pressured to give false testimony against President Trump in return for leniency in sentencing for the contrived process crimes I had been convicted for in a DC Soviet style show trial, I refused.

Michael Cohen chose a different path He told Trump’s persecutors what they wanted to hear.

President Trump has understandably seized upon Cohen’s alleged about-face regarding the prosecutors who pursued him. In January, Cohen accused the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James of pressuring him to provide testimony useful to their cases against Trump. Cohen wrote that he “felt pressured and coerced” to provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to convict Trump.

I’m not sure President Trump understands that Michael Cohen has not recanted or withdrawn any of his testimony against Trump in the so-called hush money case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. But saying “I felt pressured and coerced” is not the same thing as saying “my testimony was false.”

Cohen himself has gone out of his way to make precisely that distinction.

When Cohen appeared with Dan Abrams on SiriusXM and was directly asked whether his allegations of prosecutorial pressure meant his previous testimony was untruthful, Cohen answered unequivocally: “No, to the exact contrary.” He then said that nothing about his allegations of pressure should suggest that the information he provided was anything other than “truthful and accurate”

There is simply no intellectually honest way to describe that as a recantation. A recantation means taking back a previous statement. It means saying, in substance: What I told you before under oath was not true.

Cohen has not done that. In fact, he has specifically done the opposite.

This distinction became glaring during Cohen’s remarkable August reunion with President Trump on WABC. Trump repeatedly praised Cohen for supposedly recanting his testimony. “You took it back,” Trump told him, adding, “I wouldn’t even be talking to you right now if you didn’t, to be honest.” Cohen did not correct the President. That’s because he has taken nothing back. He said nothing.

That silence undoubtedly helped create the impression that Cohen had withdrawn his allegations against Trump. But silence is not a recantation.

And when Cohen was subsequently confronted directly with the question, he stood behind his sworn testimony. The New York Times, got this narrow but important factual point right: Cohen “has not taken any of it back.”

This presents a rather obvious contradiction that neither Cohen nor many of those celebrating his supposed recantation appear anxious to address. If prosecutors pressured Cohen to provide testimony designed to secure a conviction against Donald Trump, what exactly did Cohen say because of that pressure that was untrue?

Name it. Which statement? Which allegation? Which material fact? What part of his sworn testimony does Michael Cohen now withdraw?

Thus far, the answer is: none of it.

Cohen testified for Bragg in the Manhattan criminal prosecution that ultimately resulted in Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. He also testified in Attorney General James’s civil fraud case. His testimony was not incidental to either proceeding, although it was also not the only evidence presented against Trump.

Those were not television interviews. They were not podcasts. They were not Substack posts. They were sworn testimony in legal proceedings.

Cohen now says the prosecutors behind those cases were politically motivated and that he felt pressured and coerced by them. Yet he simultaneously maintains that what he told the courts was truthful and accurate. Both statements can theoretically be true. A witness can believe prosecutors exerted enormous pressure upon him while still maintaining that the testimony he ultimately gave was truthful.

But if that is Cohen’s position, then it is not a recantation.

The distinction is particularly important because Cohen himself appears acutely aware of it. When CNN’s Jake Tapper characterized Cohen as saying he had been “pressured and coerced” into testifying against Trump, Cohen corrected him. The comment, Cohen explained, was that he “felt pressured and coerced.” Cohen then added: “And I think the distinction is extremely important.”

Indeed it is.

Cohen is an attorney. He knows the difference between alleging prosecutorial pressure and admitting that sworn testimony was false. He also knows the potential consequences of admitting that testimony he gave under oath was knowingly false. Perhaps Cohen understands that to recant his sworn testimony now could open him to new State charge of perjury. Perhaps those encouraging Cohen to recant his sworn testimony understand they could face charges of obstruction if Cohen was given anything in return for his new claims.

This is not to minimize what Cohen has said. His accusations against Bragg and James are extraordinary precisely because he was one of the government’s most important cooperating witnesses. According to Cohen, prosecutors approached their investigations determined to build cases against Trump and pressured him to provide information useful to those cases. Those allegations deserve scrutiny on their own merits.

But they should not be embellished into something Cohen himself refuses to say.

There is another fascinating dimension to all of this. Michael Cohen spent years attacking Donald Trump in the most viciously personal terms imaginable. He wrote two anti-Trump books. He became a fixture in the anti-Trump media. He testified against his former boss. According to the Times, Cohen sought a pardon from President Joe Biden and, after failing to obtain one, subsequently resubmitted his pardon application with Trump’s name in Biden’s place.

Criticism of Alvin Bragg is not recantation. Criticism of Letitia James is not recantation. Saying prosecutors pressured you is not recantation. Calling the system politically weaponized is not recantation. Even seeking a presidential pardon is not recantation.

Taking back your sworn testimony is recantation.

Michael Cohen has conspicuously refused to do that.

Perhaps Cohen will someday say explicitly that material testimony he gave against Donald Trump was false. If he does, that will be major news, and it will raise profound questions about the prosecutions themselves as well as Cohen’s own conduct under oath.

But he hasn’t said it yet.

Instead, when finally asked the question directly, Cohen said exactly the opposite: the information he provided was “truthful and accurate.” President Trump has claimed that Cohen “fully RECANTED his testimony.” But the first half of that proposition is contradicted by Cohen’s own public statements. And it raises the question that Cohen has still declined to answer:

What, specifically, did Michael Cohen testify to about Donald Trump that was not true?

But there has not been a recantation.

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.