Anita Dunn’s testimony just dropped a political bombshell, revealing Biden’s team dodged a cognitive test for pure political optics, the Daily Caller reported on Thursday.
The former senior advisor’s closed-door session with the House Oversight Committee exposed a calculated move by Biden’s inner circle, prioritizing image over transparency. This isn’t leadership—it’s stage management.
Dunn, a longtime Biden confidant, admitted during Thursday’s testimony that the president’s team saw no “political advantage” in a cognitive test. This followed weeks of scrutiny over Biden’s mental sharpness, intensified by a lackluster debate performance. Critics argue this decision fuels public distrust in the administration’s candor.
In her leaked opening statement, Dunn insisted Biden was “fully engaged” in their interactions. Her claim reeks of damage control, as public perception paints a different picture. The House Oversight Committee’s probe into Biden’s capacity isn’t buying the spin.
“It’s no surprise Anita Dunn is telling the American people not to believe their own eyes,” a House Oversight spokesperson quipped. The jab cuts deep, highlighting a disconnect between Biden’s loyalists and a skeptical public. Dunn’s testimony seems more about loyalty than truth.
Dunn’s statement, leaked before she even spoke, claimed Biden’s sharpness never wavered. Yet, her assertion that she only learned of Biden’s stutter in 2020—despite knowing him since the 1980s—strains credulity. This convenient ignorance undermines her credibility.
Bruce Reed, another Biden advisor, testified Tuesday that Biden’s debate flop was due to his stutter, not cognitive issues. The excuse feels like a recycled talking point, deflecting from deeper concerns. Voters aren’t fooled by this rhetorical sleight of hand.
Dunn’s testimony revealed Biden’s team skipped a Super Bowl interview, citing fallout from the February 2024 DOJ Special Counsel Robert Hur report. The report’s findings, which questioned Biden’s mental acuity, clearly rattled the administration. Opting out of high-profile moments suggests fear of exposure, not strength.
“While I observed that President Biden aged physically during his time in office, he remained fully engaged,” Dunn claimed. Her words clash with public moments where Biden appeared confused or disoriented. The contrast fuels accusations of a carefully curated facade.
Dunn’s role as a senior advisor to the Biden-Harris campaign included shaping messaging and debate prep. Her influence makes her defense of Biden predictable but unconvincing. The American public deserves unfiltered truth, not polished narratives.
“His ability to probe, to find the weakness in an argument, did not change,” Dunn told the committee. This rosy portrayal ignores growing concerns about Biden’s leadership capacity. It’s a classic case of elites dismissing what voters see plainly.
Two other aides, Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon, also testified last week, offering hours of closed-door insights. Their accounts likely echo Dunn’s, forming a unified front to shield Biden. This coordinated defense raises more questions than it answers.
“I did not observe White House staff making key decisions without President Biden’s knowledge,” Dunn insisted. Her statement aims to quell rumors of a shadow presidency but feels like a rehearsed line. The public’s trust hinges on actions, not assurances.
“The President made it clear that decisions rested with him,” Dunn declared. Yet, the decision to avoid a cognitive test suggests a team more focused on optics than accountability. Transparency, not deflection, would better serve the nation.
Dunn’s past as a senior advisor to Obama’s campaign and White House Communications Director shows her knack for narrative control. Her expertise in spin makes her testimony less about facts and more about protecting Biden’s legacy. The American people see through the playbook.
“I believe strongly today that Joe Biden was an effective President,” Dunn proclaimed. Her loyalty is admirable, but the refusal to address cognitive concerns head-on undermines her praise. The House Oversight Committee’s investigation will keep pressing for answers, and voters should demand the same.
The Supreme Court’s latest case could reshape America’s electoral map. A challenge to Louisiana’s congressional districts, drawn to favor minority voters, has sparked a constitutional showdown with massive implications for the 2026 midterms, as Just the News reports. Republicans, smelling opportunity, are ready to pounce.
The court will scrutinize whether race-based districts, rooted in the Voting Rights Act’s anti-discrimination legacy, violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This case, centered on Louisiana’s map, could upend redistricting across Southern states like Texas and Florida. GOP-led legislatures are already plotting mid-decade map redraws to tilt the playing field.
Race-based districts emerged during the civil rights era to combat voting discrimination against black Americans. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, enacted to prevent minority vote dilution, spurred the creation of majority-minority districts in the 1980s. But critics argue these districts now risk becoming racial gerrymanders, prioritizing skin color over equal protection.
Louisiana’s saga began when a lower federal court struck down its map for having only one majority-minority district, despite black voters comprising a third of the population. The court ordered a second such district, but non-black residents cried foul, claiming it violated constitutional guarantees. Last Friday, the Supreme Court demanded briefs on whether this redrawn map breaches the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.
A lower court labeled Louisiana’s new map an “impermissible racial gerrymander.” “The Voting Rights Act protects minority voters against dilution,” a three-judge panel noted, but “the Equal Protection Clause applies strict scrutiny to redistricting” based on race. This tension -- balancing anti-discrimination with colorblind fairness -- lies at the case’s core.
The Supreme Court’s own precedents add fuel to the fire. In 2013, Shelby County v. Holder gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, freeing states from federal preclearance for voting law changes. The 2021 Brnovich decision further tightened the screws, making Section 2 violations harder to prove, despite liberal justices’ dissent.
Texas, where Republicans dominate all government branches, is charging ahead with mid-decade redistricting. The Trump Justice Department, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, flagged four Texas districts as unconstitutional “coalition districts” that lump multiple minority groups together. A 2023 Fifth Circuit ruling struck down such districts but upheld those where a single minority group holds a majority.
Dhillon, in a letter to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, called coalition districts legally dubious. “You can combine multiple minority groups,” she told Just the News, but the Fifth Circuit demands “a single minority” dominate. Texas’s proposed map, filed last week, could net Republicans five new seats.
Texas Democrats, desperate to block this, fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum. Govs. J.B. Pritzker, Kathy Hochul, and Gavin Newsom cheered them on, but Texas’s sergeant at arms was authorized to issue arrest warrants. Attorney General Paxton vowed to seek judicial orders declaring absent Democrats’ seats vacant if they miss the House speaker’s deadline.
Florida, Indiana, and Missouri are also mulling redistricting to bolster GOP seats. Florida, like Texas, enjoys Republican control over its government, making map changes a tempting prospect. Indiana’s exploration signals a broader GOP strategy to capitalize on any Supreme Court ruling against race-based districts.
Alabama’s ongoing legal battle mirrors Louisiana’s. A 2023 federal court ruled Alabama’s map violated the Voting Rights Act by not reflecting its growing black population, ordering a second minority district. The state legislature’s refusal keeps the case in limbo, highlighting the stakes of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Republicans argue the current system distorts fair representation. Vice President JD Vance blasted California’s map, where Republicans win 40% of the vote but hold only 17% of congressional seats. “How can this possibly be allowed?” he posted online, pointing to a gerrymander that mocks voter intent.
A Supreme Court ruling against race-based districts could unlock over 10 Southern districts for redistricting. States like Texas and Florida stand to gain the most, with GOP legislatures eager to redraw maps before 2026. The Voting Rights Act’s noble intent, critics say, has morphed into a tool for partisan advantage.
The court’s decision will hinge on whether race-based districts violate constitutional protections against racial discrimination. Louisiana’s case, with its dueling mandates of fairness and equality, encapsulates the broader debate. A ruling could either entrench or dismantle decades of redistricting precedent.
Republicans, frustrated by the 2020 census outcomes, see a golden opportunity. If the Supreme Court sides against race-based maps, the GOP could reshape Congress without firing a shot. The 2026 midterms loom as the ultimate prize in this high-stakes constitutional chess game.
The House Oversight Committee's latest Epstein probe oddly sidesteps Alex Acosta, raising eyebrows. The committee’s aggressive move to subpoena 10 high-profile figures across four administrations suggests a deep dive into Epstein’s shadowy deals, but Acosta’s absence is glaring, as the Daily Caller reports. His role in Epstein’s sweetheart 2008 plea deal screams for scrutiny.
The House Oversight Committee, led by chair James Comer, expanded its Jeffrey Epstein investigation Tuesday, targeting big names with subpoenas. Figures like Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and Merrick Garland face demands for testimony. Yet, Alex Acosta, the man behind Epstein’s cushy 2008 plea, remains untouched.
Back in 2007, Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for Southern Florida, met Epstein’s lawyer at a Marriott 70 miles from his office. That meeting birthed a plea deal that downgraded Epstein’s charges to two state-level prostitution offenses. A potential life sentence vanished, replaced by a 13-month county jail stint with work-release perks.
Epstein’s 2008 deal, orchestrated by Acosta, was a masterclass in legal leniency. A federal judge later ruled it violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, as victims were kept in the dark. This secrecy shielded Epstein while his victims were left voiceless.
Acosta’s assistant U.S. attorney claimed they “bent over backwards” to accommodate Epstein. That phrase, from a 2007 letter, paints a cozy picture of negotiations. It’s hard to see how bending over backwards for a predator serves justice.
Alberto Gonzales, who served as U.S. attorney general from 2005 to 2007, had an overlapping tenure with Acosta, and he has received a subpoena. His successor, Michael Mukasey, who took over in September 2007, didn’t make the subpoena list. The committee’s selective targeting raises questions about its focus.
Comer’s subpoenas, approved by a bipartisan voice vote, hit heavyweights across political lines. “Both Republicans and Democrats… approved a motion… directing the Chairman to issue targeted subpoenas,” a committee spokesman told the Daily Caller. The list spans Clinton-era figures to Trump’s William Barr, showing no partisan favoritism.
Rep. Scott Perry’s motion drove the subpoena push, and Comer followed through swiftly. “Chairman Comer has now issued the subpoenas,” the spokesman confirmed. But Acosta’s exclusion feels like a deliberate sidestep, given his central role in Epstein’s escape from federal charges.
Acosta served as Trump’s Labor Secretary until 2019, resigning amid Epstein-related backlash. His 2008 deal let Epstein dodge a trial that could’ve exposed powerful connections. That history makes his absence from the subpoena list baffling.
The 2008 plea deal’s fallout still stings, especially for Epstein’s victims. A federal judge’s 2017 ruling confirmed that the deal’s secrecy broke federal law, robbing victims of their rights. Acosta’s fingerprints on that injustice make his free pass curious.
While Gonzales faces scrutiny for his time as Attorney General, Acosta’s role as the deal’s architect goes unquestioned. The committee’s probe seems laser-focused on political heavyweights but misses a key player. This gap fuels suspicion of selective accountability.
Epstein’s 13-month sentence, with work-release privileges, was a slap on the wrist. Facing life in prison, he walked free to continue his predatory ways. Acosta’s deal enabled that, yet he’s not in the hot seat.
The Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee’s bipartisan vote signals broad agreement on digging into Epstein’s case. Republicans and Democrats united behind Perry’s motion, a rare show of unity. But ignoring Acosta undermines the probe’s credibility.
Subpoenaing figures like Comey, Lynch, and Holder suggests a wide net, yet it’s oddly selective. Acosta’s 2007 Marriott meeting with Epstein’s lawyer screams for investigation. Why let him skate while others face the spotlight?
The Epstein saga demands truth, not political theater. Comer’s probe could expose how power protects predators, but skipping Acosta risks missing the mark. Justice for Epstein’s victims deserves better than a half-hearted reckoning.
Former President Joe Biden’s White House allegedly orchestrated a legal onslaught to cripple Donald Trump’s campaign. Six major lawsuits, four criminal and two civil, were designed to drain Trump’s time, money, and focus, forcing him to campaign from courtrooms, as Breitbart reports. The conservative base sees this as a blatant abuse of power, not justice.
Biden’s inner circle believed Trump would be behind bars before voters could choose him. The strategy, tied directly to the White House, involved high-profile cases meant to jail or bankrupt Trump. This alleged scheme reeks of election meddling, not law and order.
In October 2024, Biden reportedly declared, “We gotta lock him up,” about Trump. Those words expose a chilling intent to weaponize the legal system. Conservatives view this as a desperate progressive tactic to silence a political rival.
The so-called “hush money” case, led by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, wasn’t about illegal payments but falsifying business records. Bragg, backed by George Soros’s funding, falsely claimed to have sued Trump over 100 times before his election. This smells like a politically motivated setup, not a pursuit of justice.
Judge Juan Merchan, a Biden donor, presided over the case, raising ethical red flags. His daughter, Loren Merchan, runs a leftist consulting firm that raked in $93 million for Democrats. Trump called this “the greatest conflict of interest of all time,” and conservatives agree.
Bragg’s lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, left a senior DOJ role to join the case, a move likened to a four-star general enlisting as a private. Colangelo’s demotion, suspiciously timed after Biden’s November 2024 press conference, suggests White House coordination. The conservative base smells a rat.
Fulton County, Georgia, D.A. Fani Willis pushed a RICO case against Trump, appointing her boyfriend, Nathan Wade, as prosecutor despite his inexperience. Wade’s eight-hour meetings with White House counsel in 2022 scream political collusion. This isn’t justice; it’s a progressive power play.
Willis herself met Vice President Kamala Harris for five hours in February 2023, months before Trump’s indictment. A former Biden aide, Jeff DeSantis, acted as a liaison between Willis’s office and the White House. Conservatives see this as a coordinated effort to kneecap Trump’s campaign.
Biden could have halted these cases, but didn’t, fueling suspicions of his involvement. The lack of accountability for these lawfare tactics infuriates Trump supporters. Congress and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel are urged to investigate this alleged abuse immediately.
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate Trump in November 2022. Smith’s team, stacked with Biden and Obama donors, was later deemed unconstitutional, and his office was shuttered. Conservatives cheer this as a rare win against politicized prosecutions.
Smith’s team leaked information during the election season, a move seen as blatant interference. Trump supporters argue this proves the left’s willingness to bend rules to hurt him. The collapse of Smith’s probe only deepens distrust in the system.
The E. Jean Carroll defamation case, funded by Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman, was another blow. Hoffman, who visited the Biden White House five times in 2022, bankrolled the case through his nonprofit. Conservatives call this a clear case of buying justice to smear Trump.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned on destroying Trump, accused him of inflating assets with no victims or damages. She visited the White House three times between 2022 and 2023, raising questions about coordination. Her crusade feels more like vengeance than a call to accountability for conservatives.
Judge Arthur Engoron and his clerk, Allison Greenfield, hit Trump with a nearly half-billion-dollar judgment. Greenfield, photographed with Sen. Chuck Schumer and a Democratic donor, was accused by Trump of controlling the case. He claimed she eyed a federal judgeship if Biden won, a charge that resonates with his base.
These six cases, all tied to Biden’s White House, aimed to derail Trump’s campaign through legal warfare. The absence of accountability for these tactics fuels conservative outrage. Immediate investigations are necessary to expose this alleged abuse of power before it has a chance to happen again.
Jeanine Pirro, a fiery former Fox News host, clinched Senate confirmation as Washington, D.C.’s U.S. attorney, as NBC News reports, proving loyalty to Trump pays off. Her 50-45 party-line vote on Saturday cements another MAGA win in reshaping federal power. Democrats’ whining about her past only highlights their fear of a prosecutor who won’t bow to woke dogma.
Pirro, serving as interim U.S. attorney since May, was tapped by President Trump to replace conservative activist Ed Martin. The Senate’s decision followed a tense Saturday session, with Republicans outmuscling Democrat attempts to stall Trump’s nominees. This victory underscores Trump’s knack for elevating fierce allies who share his disdain for progressive overreach.
The vote split cleanly along party lines, with 50 Republicans backing Pirro and 45 Democrats opposing. Absent senators included Mitch McConnell, Roger Wicker, Tim Scott, Peter Welch, and Ruben Gallego. Their no-shows didn’t derail the confirmation, as GOP unity held firm against Democrat foot-dragging.
Pirro’s resume boasts real grit, starting as an assistant district attorney in Westchester County, New York. She made history as the first woman elected Westchester district attorney, launching the nation’s first domestic violence unit. That’s the kind of tough-on-crime record the left conveniently ignores while clutching pearls over her Fox News stint.
Before D.C., Pirro hosted two Fox News shows, earning a loyal following for her unapologetic conservatism. She stood by Trump through thick and thin, including after the 2020 election when she pushed claims about voting irregularities. Critics call it a conspiracy; supporters call it asking hard questions the establishment dodges.
Dominion Voting Systems dragged Pirro into a $787.5 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which was settled in 2023. The left loves weaponizing lawsuits to silence truth-tellers, but Pirro’s confirmation shows that those tactics failed to dim her star. Her resilience only strengthens her appeal to MAGA faithful.
Trump’s appointment of Pirro fits his pattern of elevating Fox News talent to high office. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, both former Fox personalities, prove that the network is a breeding ground for America First warriors. The left’s outrage over this trend reeks of hypocrisy when their own media darlings often skate into power.
Pirro’s political ambitions aren’t new; she ran for Senate in 2005 against Hillary Clinton but fell short in the Republican primary. A federal probe derailed a later bid for New York attorney general into her then-husband’s alleged infidelity. These stumbles only honed her resolve, making her a battle-tested pick for D.C.’s top prosecutor.
Democrats tried every trick to slow Trump’s nominees, demanding extra procedural votes to gum up the process. Their stalling tactics crumbled Saturday evening when Republicans brokered a deal to fast-track a slew of confirmations before the August recess. Chuck Schumer’s crew got outmaneuvered, plain and simple.
Senate Republicans aren’t done; they’re eyeing rule changes in September to streamline future confirmations. Democrats will likely cry foul, clinging to their obstructionist playbook. But with MAGA momentum building, the GOP is poised to keep steamrolling the progressive agenda.
President Donald Trump hailed Pirro as a “powerful crusader for victims of crime” on Truth Social. He’s right -- her domestic violence unit alone saved countless lives. The left’s obsession with her Fox News past only distracts from her proven record of locking up bad guys.
Trump also fired a shot at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, telling him to “GO TO HELL!” on Truth Social. That’s the kind of no-nonsense leadership that resonates with Americans tired of D.C.’s spineless status quo. Schumer’s pandering to the radical left won’t stop the MAGA train.
Pirro’s confirmation isn’t just a win for Trump; it’s a middle finger to the woke elite who despise her. Her Fox News tenure made her a lightning rod, but that’s precisely why she’s perfect for the job. Washington needs prosecutors who won’t cower before the progressive mob.
Critics point to Pirro’s election fraud claims as disqualifying, but they’re just rehashing old talking points. The Dominion lawsuit settled without admitting fault, and Pirro’s questions about 2020 deserve answers, not censorship. The left’s selective outrage ignores their history of election skepticism.
As D.C.’s U.S. attorney, Pirro will bring her signature tenacity to a city plagued by crime and corruption. Trump’s choice signals a return to law and order, not the left’s soft-on-crime experiments. With Pirro in place, expect justice to hit harder than a prime-time monologue.
The Secret Service just slammed the door on Kimberly Cheatle’s attempt to keep her top-level security clearance. The former director, who resigned in disgrace after a catastrophic security failure, won’t be trusted with sensitive information anytime soon, as the Daily Caller reports. This move signals a no-nonsense shift under new leadership.
The agency halted Cheatle’s clearance renewal after her July 2024 resignation, spurred by objections from Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and criticism over her mishandling of the Butler, Pennsylvania, attempt on Donald Trump's life. Current Director Sean Curran, appointed by Trump, is shaking up the agency’s intelligence operations. His decision reflects a broader push to limit access for former officials.
Cheatle stepped down one day after a contentious House Oversight Committee testimony. Her exit followed intense scrutiny over the Butler assassination attempt, which exposed glaring security lapses. Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, part of a joint investigation, didn’t mince words about Cheatle’s failures.
“Kim Cheatle disgraced the Secret Service by failing to prevent a horrifying attempt on President Trump’s life,” Blackburn declared. Her sharp critique underscores the conservative outrage over Cheatle’s tenure. The senator’s involvement in the Butler probe keeps the pressure on.
Blackburn didn’t stop there. “Not only did she oversee one of the greatest security failures in our nation’s history, but she also stonewalled congressional oversight,” she added. Such defiance from Cheatle fuels the argument that she shouldn’t touch classified materials again.
Sen. Ron Johnson echoed Blackburn’s sentiments. “I see no reason for her security clearance to be reinstated,” he said, pointing to the Butler debacle. His opposition reportedly triggered the agency’s pause on Cheatle’s clearance process.
Director Curran is wasting no time reshaping the Secret Service. An agency spokesman noted, “Director Curran has been modernizing the intelligence apparatus within the agency.” This overhaul includes a hard look at who gets to keep clearances post-tenure.
Not every former director needs ongoing access, Curran decided. The agency’s statement emphasized that clearances for ex-officials exist to ensure “formal and protected communication” on sensitive matters. But Cheatle’s track record clearly didn’t justify that privilege.
RealClearPolitics broke the story on August 1, 2025, citing multiple sources familiar with the matter. The outlet’s questions about Johnson’s objections reportedly prompted the Secret Service to hit the brakes. This swift action suggests Curran’s team isn’t playing favorites.
The Butler incident remains a dark stain on Cheatle’s legacy. Blackburn’s ongoing investigation with the Judiciary Committee keeps the issue alive. Conservatives see Cheatle’s clearance bid as an audacious overreach given her failures.
Johnson’s blunt assessment cuts through the bureaucratic fog. His stance reflects a broader GOP push to hold accountable those who fumble national security. Cheatle’s attempt to retain her clearance only reignited their ire.
The Secret Service’s decision aligns with a conservative demand for competence over cozy insider deals. Curran’s leadership signals a break from the status quo. His team’s focus on “knowledgeable advisors” hints at a merit-based approach.
Cheatle’s resignation didn’t erase her accountability, as Blackburn’s scathing remarks make clear. Stonewalling Congress while dodging questions sealed her fate. Her clearance bid was a step too far for an agency under new scrutiny.
The agency’s spokesman clarified that clearances aren’t a lifetime perk. “Potentially sensitive classified matters” require trust, which Cheatle squandered. Curran’s reforms ensure that only those who earn it keep access.
This saga underscores a conservative truth: failure has consequences. Cheatle’s fall from grace is a warning to bureaucrats everywhere. Under Curran, the Secret Service is charting a path that prioritizes security over sentiment.
Declassified documents have exposed a calculated plot by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to smear Donald Trump with allegations of Russian ties, a plan led by then-Vice President Joe Biden, as Just the News reports. The Durham report’s 2023 appendix unveils intercepted intelligence revealing this strategy, painting a grim picture of political manipulation. It’s a stark reminder of how far the left will go to cling to power.
In late July 2016, Biden spearheaded efforts to tie Trump to Vladimir Putin, aligning with a Clinton campaign plan approved on July 26, according to Durham's work. U.S. intelligence intercepted communications suggesting Clinton’s team aimed to vilify Trump by falsely linking him to Russian interference. The timing of Biden’s attacks during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) raises eyebrows about coordinated political theater.
Biden’s public offensive began at the DNC, where he claimed Putin preferred Trump over Clinton in an ABC News interview on July 26. “I’ve traveled over a million miles ... Putin doesn’t want a united NATO,” Biden told George Stephanopoulos, framing Trump as a Kremlin ally. The accusation, dripping with innuendo, set the stage for a narrative the left hoped would stick.
On July 27, Biden doubled down on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, suggesting that Trump’s actions served Putin’s goal of weakening NATO. He scoffed at Trump’s NATO stance, claiming, “I don’t think he knows what Article Five is.” This wasn’t policy critique -- it was a deliberate jab to paint Trump as a Russian puppet.
That same day, Biden’s DNC speech escalated the rhetoric, accusing Trump of “embracing dictators like Vladimir Putin.” The line, meant to inflame, ignored Trump’s actual positions while pushing a fear-driven narrative. It’s the kind of hyperbole that thrives in a woke echo chamber but crumbles under scrutiny.
Intercepted communications, including emails from a George Soros ally at the Open Society Foundations, hinted at Clinton’s team plotting to amplify this narrative through the FBI. A source familiar with the intelligence confirmed some intercepts’ authenticity using classified tools. Yet, Leonard Benardo, a Soros associate, denied writing the emails, calling the claims “malicious disinformation.”
The Durham report notes that the Intelligence Community received this Clinton Plan intelligence in late July 2016. Then-CIA Director John Brennan’s handwritten notes reveal he briefed Biden, then-President Barack Obama, and then-FBI Director James Comey in early August about Clinton’s alleged approval of the smear. The fact that events unfolded as predicted in the intercepts lends credibility to the intelligence, despite some CIA officials calling it a “composite.”
Clinton campaign advisors, like Julianne Smith, were knee-deep in the effort. On July 25, Smith texted about seeking Biden’s office and intelligence community input on the DNC hack investigation. Her July 27 email pushed for a bipartisan statement slamming Trump’s NATO stance, proving the campaign’s intent to weaponize the Russia narrative.
By July 28, Obama joined the fray, claiming in his DNC speech that Trump “cozies up to Putin.” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest backed Biden’s dictator label, citing a State Department report on Russia’s authoritarian system. The coordinated pile-on reeks of a script designed to bury Trump in suspicion.
Clinton’s DNC speech on July 29 avoided directly naming Trump but emphasized standing against Russia, keeping the narrative alive. Her campaign’s fingerprints were all over the effort, with text messages showing advisors looping in Biden’s office. Jake Sullivan, another top administration advisor, dismissed the Durham allegations as “ridiculous,” but the evidence suggests otherwise.
In mid-August, Biden campaigned with Clinton in Scranton, Pennsylvania, outrageously claiming Trump “would have loved Stalin.” The hyperbole was laughable, yet it fueled the media’s Trump-Putin obsession. It’s the kind of overreach that exposes the left’s desperation to control the narrative.
Biden’s late August Latvia visit saw him reaffirm NATO commitments while dismissing Trump’s statements as unserious. “We have pledged our sacred honor ... to the NATO treaty,” he declared, subtly jabbing Trump. The trip was less about diplomacy and more about keeping the Russia smear front and center.
By mid-October, Biden told Meet the Press the U.S. would respond to Russia’s alleged hacking at its choosing. The vague threat kept the Russia-Trump connection simmering, with no concrete evidence tying Trump to cyberattacks. It was a masterclass in innuendo over substance.
On Oct. 31, Clinton tweeted about a supposed covert server linking Trump’s organization to a Russian bank, backed by Sullivan’s statement calling it a “secret hotline.” The claim, later debunked, shows how far the campaign went to sell the lie. The media lapped it up, proving their complicity in the smear.
The Durham report’s revelations expose this Trump-Putin narrative as a political dirty trick, orchestrated by Clinton’s team and amplified by Biden. While some FBI analysts doubted the intercepts, the CIA’s 2017 assessment deemed them credible. The left’s playbook -- smear, amplify, repeat -- relied on a compliant media and a public too distracted to question the truth.
Declassified documents have revealed a bombshell, namely, that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign orchestrated a fake Russia scandal to smear Donald Trump, as Just the News reports.
In summer 2016, intelligence surfaced that Clinton approved a plan to falsely tie Trump to Russian interference, aiming to distract from her email scandal. The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chuck Grassley, is set to unveil this via a declassified appendix to John Durham’s 2023 Russia report. This appendix will expose the FBI's knowledge of Clinton’s scheme and internal campaign communications plotting the hoax.
By late July 2016, the CIA intercepted foreign intelligence about Clinton’s plan. Then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama, noting Clinton’s approval on July 26, 2016, to vilify Trump with Russian collusion claims. The CIA passed this to FBI Director James Comey, highlighting Clinton’s intent to shift focus from her private email server.
Durham’s 2023 report confirms the Intelligence Community knew of the “Clinton Plan” by July 2016. Brennan alerted top officials, including Joe Biden, yet the Obama administration pushed the Trump-Russia narrative anyway. This suggests a deliberate choice to amplify a known falsehood.
On July 26, 2016, during the Democratic National Convention, Clinton allegedly greenlit the plan. That same day, Clinton ally Alexander Downer tipped off the FBI about Trump associate George Papadopoulos, triggering the Crossfire Hurricane probe. Coincidence? Hardly -- it smells like a setup.
The Clinton campaign, through lawyer Marc Elias, hired Fusion GPS, which enlisted Christopher Steele to craft the infamous Steele Dossier. Elias admitted to meeting Steele and knowing about plans to push anti-Trump stories to reporters. Clinton herself approved spreading false Alfa Bank claims, tweeting about them on Oct. 31, 2016.
Shockingly, the Clinton Plan intelligence never reached Justice Department attorneys handling Crossfire Hurricane’s FISA matters. It wasn’t disclosed to the FISA court either, tainting the investigation’s legitimacy. Some FBI officials, blindsided by Durham’s findings, expressed dismay at being kept in the dark.
Former FBI General Counsel James Baker told Durham he was unaware of the Clinton Plan. Had he known, he said he’d have viewed the Steele Dossier and Alfa Bank claims “in a much more skeptical light.” This admission exposes a fractured FBI, where key players were either complicit or clueless.
A source familiar with the evidence told Just the News, “foreign enemies believed that the FBI would fully participate in the plan.” This chilling claim suggests the FBI wasn’t just duped -- it may have been an active accelerant in Clinton’s scheme. So much for impartial law enforcement.
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook authorized Elias to dig into Trump’s Russia ties, receiving regular updates on Fusion GPS’s work. Yet top aides like Jake Sullivan and John Podesta called the Clinton Plan allegations “ridiculous” when grilled by Durham. Their denials ring hollow against the declassified evidence.
Clinton herself dismissed the intelligence as “Russian disinformation” and “sad,” telling Durham’s team, “you have to go down every rabbit hole.” Her flippant response reeks of deflection, especially since she personally pushed the Alfa Bank narrative. The lady doth protest too much.
Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s communications director, outlined the Russia-Trump strategy in a post-election Washington Post piece, conveniently omitting Clinton’s role in the dossier or Alfa Bank claims. Palmieri also called the Clinton Plan allegations “ridiculous.” Funny how everyone’s singing the same tune.
Brennan’s creation of a CIA “Fusion Cell” in 2016 to probe Russian meddling likely stemmed from the Clinton Plan intelligence. His lawyer confirmed Brennan shared the intel at a National Security Council meeting, yet the FBI pressed forward with Crossfire Hurricane. This smells like a coordinated effort to weaponize a lie.
Rep. Claudia Tenney told Just the News that the Clinton Plan was a “calculated effort to obstruct” Trump’s presidency after his unexpected 2016 win. She argued it aimed to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power—ironic, given Democrats’ later accusations against Trump. The hypocrisy is thicker than a D.C. fog.
Bobby Charles called it “an attempted takedown of the United States government,” likening it to a pre-Civil War crisis. He labeled it a “genuine conspiracy,” a prosecutable crime with no historical precedent. If true, this isn’t just politics -- it’s a betrayal of democracy itself.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is flirting with a bold leap from Pentagon power to Tennessee’s political stage. Sources close to him have revealed serious talks about a potential gubernatorial run next year, stirring intrigue in conservative circles, as NBC News reports. This move could shake up the Volunteer State’s open gubernatorial race.
Hegseth, who took the Pentagon’s helm in January, has discussed running for Tennessee governor with two confidants, focusing on campaign logistics and his odds of victory. These conversations, one within the last three weeks and another since his appointment, signal a calculated ambition. Yet, Department of Defense rules would force him to resign if he pursues elected office.
Tennessee’s governor’s race is wide open, but Hegseth’s path is fraught with hurdles. Public records show he has lived in suburban Nashville for only about three years, potentially falling short of the state’s seven-year residency requirement for governor. Republican Party bylaws, demanding votes in three of the last four statewide primaries, could also block his candidacy, as they did for Morgan Ortagus in 2022.
Hegseth’s time as Defense secretary has been anything but smooth. Allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct, and alcohol issues dogged his confirmation, all of which he denied. Since then, critics have slammed his abrupt staff firings and alleged chaos at the Pentagon.
A Pentagon inspector general’s report, due as early as August, probes Hegseth’s sharing of sensitive Yemen operation details in an unsecured Signal chat. This blunder has fueled accusations of recklessness. Still, President Donald Trump publicly backs him, though private frustrations have surfaced, per NBC News.
Politico insists that Trump’s inner circle remains loyal to Hegseth. Yet, his clashes with top generals over personnel and partisan priorities, reported by the New York Times on July 26, paint a picture of discord. Hegseth’s suspension of Ukraine aid -- thrice reversed by the White House -- further muddies his record.
Tennessee’s gubernatorial race is heating up with big names. Rep. John Rose, self-funding his campaign with $5 million, is a formidable contender. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, mulling a run, plans to clarify her intentions by August 2025.
If Blackburn wins the governor’s seat, her Senate post would open in 2027, triggering an appointment until a special election. Tennessee requires Senate candidates to have three years of residency, a mark Hegseth likely meets. However, Blackburn hasn’t discussed appointing him, and sources close to her deny any such talks.
Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, a Blackburn ally, could be tapped for her Senate seat if she ascends. Hegseth’s name hasn’t surfaced in those conversations. Scott Golden, Tennessee Republican Party chairman, last spoke with Hegseth on election night 2024 and hasn’t heard of concrete campaign plans.
Golden, who visited the White House in April, dismissed Hegseth’s rumored run as speculative. “Nobody has called to talk about this as a reality,” he said. His skepticism suggests Hegseth’s plans may be more talk than action.
A Republican operative in Tennessee echoed Golden’s doubts, noting no buzz about Hegseth’s candidacy. Another source, speaking with Hegseth last week, claimed he flatly denied political ambitions, calling them “totally off the table.” Such denials clash with the serious discussions reported earlier.
A longtime Trump adviser also poured cold water on the idea, insisting Hegseth won’t run. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell doubled down, stating, “Hegseth’s focus remains solely on serving under President Trump.” Parnell’s jab at “fake news NBC” for pushing the story reeks of deflection, but it underscores Hegseth’s loyalty narrative.
Hegseth’s political history includes a failed 2012 Senate bid in Minnesota, from which he withdrew after losing the support of the GOP. Minnesota’s open Senate seat in 2026 might tempt him, but his Tennessee focus suggests a new chapter. Still, eligibility roadblocks could derail his ambitions before they start.
If Hegseth resigns, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll or Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby could step in as acting Defense secretary. Both are Senate-confirmed and ready to fill the void. Hegseth’s potential exit would cap a turbulent Pentagon stint marked by controversy and bold moves.
Tennessee’s conservative voters crave a strong, America First leader, but Hegseth’s baggage and residency issues could stall his campaign. His Pentagon tenure, riddled with missteps, might not inspire confidence on the stump. For now, Hegseth’s political dreams remain a tantalizing “maybe,” as Golden put it, leaving patriots watching closely.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team is fighting tooth and nail to undo her 2021 conviction, claiming a Florida deal should shield her from federal consequences. Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, filed a renewed plea with the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing that a non-prosecution agreement tied to Jeffrey Epstein should nullify her federal conviction, as NBC News reports. The Justice Department, predictably, wants no part of it.
Maxwell was convicted in 2021 for her role in recruiting and grooming teenage girls for Epstein’s sexual abuse from 1994 to 1997. Markus insists a 2007 Florida non-prosecution agreement, covering Epstein’s crimes from 2001 to 2007, should extend to Maxwell’s case across all federal jurisdictions. This filing responds to the Justice Department’s push to keep the Supreme Court out of the fray.
Markus first approached the Supreme Court in April, seeking to overturn Maxwell’s conviction. Federal courts are split on whether non-prosecution agreements apply only to the signing U.S. Attorney’s office or nationwide. The Justice Department argues the agreement is limited to southern Florida, a view upheld by Judge Alison Nathan during Maxwell’s trial.
Judge Nathan ruled that the Florida agreement didn’t include special promises to shield Maxwell from prosecution outside that region. The agreement, tied to Epstein’s actions, doesn’t cover Maxwell’s earlier conduct from 1994 to 1997. This technicality is at the heart of Markus’ legal battle.
“This case is about what the government promised, not what Epstein did,” Markus declared. His argument hinges on the idea that plea deals should bind the government strictly, rather than being reinterpreted to suit prosecutors’ whims. Yet the Justice Department seems eager to dodge its handshake.
Markus accuses the government of seeking a “blank check” to rewrite its promises. Plea agreements, he argues, should be ironclad, not subject to prosecutorial sleight of hand. This claim might resonate with those skeptical of government overreach, but it’s a tough sell against a firm judicial ruling.
Maxwell’s team isn’t stopping at the Supreme Court; they’re also eyeing a political lifeline. Markus is appealing to President Donald Trump, hoping for a pardon or sentence commutation. “President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal,” Markus said, tugging at Trump’s deal-making persona.
Markus’ plea to Trump paints Maxwell as a scapegoat for Epstein’s crimes. He argues it’s “profoundly unjust” to punish her when the government allegedly promised immunity. This narrative might appeal to Trump’s base, who often see federal prosecutors as playing fast and loose with justice.
The Supreme Court, now on summer recess, won’t touch Maxwell’s case for months. This delay leaves her fate hanging, as Markus pushes both judicial and executive avenues. The court could order a new trial, but that’s a long shot given Nathan’s ruling.
The Justice Department’s response earlier this month urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the matter. Government attorneys argue the Florida agreement is geographically limited and doesn’t cover Maxwell’s earlier actions. Nathan’s ruling, backed by a Justice Department review, found no evidence of broader protections for Maxwell.
Markus’ latest filing counters the Justice Department’s stance, doubling down on the nationwide scope of the agreement. He’s not just fighting for Maxwell but challenging the government’s ability to reinterpret deals at will. It’s a bold move, but the odds are stacked against him.
“We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court,” Markus said, “but to the President himself.” He frames Maxwell’s prosecution as a betrayal of government promises. This rhetoric might stir sympathy among those wary of prosecutorial power, but it’s a hard case to make stick.
Maxwell’s conviction stems from her actions over a decade, luring vulnerable girls into Epstein’s web. The New York case focused on 1994 to 1997, outside the Florida agreement’s 2001 to 2007 window. This timeline gap is a hurdle Markus must clear to win over the courts or Trump.
The disagreement over non-prosecution agreements reflects deeper tensions in federal law. If Markus succeeds, it could set a precedent for how plea deals are enforced nationwide. For now, though, the Justice Department holds the stronger hand.
Maxwell’s fate rests on a legal long shot and a political Hail Mary. Markus’ dual appeal to the Supreme Court and Trump shows desperation but also strategy, banking on either judicial clarity or executive mercy. With the woke legal establishment circling, Maxwell’s team is fighting an uphill battle against a system that seems all too eager to close the book.
