Six Secret Service agents got a timeout after a gunman nearly turned a Donald Trump rally into a tragedy. The suspensions, handed down in February, followed a botched security operation in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024, that left one dead and several injured, as Fox News reports. No woke excuses here -- just accountability for a colossal failure.
On that fateful day, a shooter named Thomas Crooks opened fire at a Trump rally, killing firefighter Corey Comperatore and wounding others, including Trump himself. The incident, coupled with a second attempt weeks later in Florida, exposed the Secret Service’s operational weaknesses. This isn’t the diversity-quota-driven chaos of progressive fantasies; it’s a stark reminder of what happens when competence falters.
The attack unfolded as Crooks fired at the rally stage, grazing Trump’s ear and injuring two other men. A Secret Service sniper neutralized the gunman, but not before Comperatore, a 50-year-old father and husband, lost his life. The agency’s failure to prevent this preventable disaster sparked justified outrage.
Six agents -- supervisors and line-level -- faced unpaid suspensions ranging from 10 to 42 days. “We weren’t going to fire [our] way out of this,” said Deputy Director Matt Quinn to CBS News. Funny how “accountability” means no one loses their job in this bureaucratic shuffle.
The Secret Service insists the failure was systemic, not individual, so no agents were sacked. Instead, suspended agents returned to restricted roles with less responsibility. Sounds like a classic government sidestep -- punish, but not too much, lest the union cries foul.
Quinn told CBS News, “Secret Service is totally accountable for Butler.” Yet, the agency’s refusal to fire anyone suggests they’re more focused on optics than real reform. If this is accountability, it’s the kind that leaves taxpayers scratching their heads.
A bipartisan House task force dropped a 180-page report in December, calling the Butler incident “preventable.” Poor coordination with local law enforcement and shoddy planning were the culprits, not some mythical “right-wing conspiracy.” This isn’t about politics—it’s about professionals failing at their core mission.
The report pointed to leadership and training deficiencies that predate the incident. “Butler was an operational failure,” Quinn admitted to CBS News, promising to fix the “root cause.” Promising fixes after the fact is cold comfort when lives were lost.
Since Butler, the Secret Service has rolled out military-grade drones and mobile command posts to boost communication with local cops. Better late than never, but why weren’t these measures in place before a gunman got within striking distance of a former president? The agency’s reactive stance reeks of bureaucratic inertia.
Weeks after Butler, a second assassination attempt on Trump in West Palm Beach, Florida, was thwarted. The back-to-back failures forced then-Director Kimberly Cheatle to resign under pressure. Good riddance -- leadership that can’t protect a president doesn’t deserve the corner office.
Multiple investigations and congressional hearings followed, peeling back layers of Secret Service dysfunction. The agency’s been caught flat-footed twice, yet Quinn claims they’re “laser focused” on fixing the problem. Forgive the skepticism when the track record screams otherwise.
A Senate report on the Butler failures is due soon, which prompted the Secret Service to confirm the suspensions to Fox News. Transparency only when cornered? That’s not the bold leadership America needs from its elite protectors.
Quinn told CBS News the agency is zeroed in on “fixing the deficiencies” that led to Butler. But throwing drones and command posts at the problem feels like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken system. Real reform demands more than shiny new toys -- it requires a cultural shift away from complacency.
The Secret Service’s disciplinary process followed a federally mandated playbook, but the outcome feels like a slap on the wrist. Agents are back at work, albeit in lesser roles, while the public wonders if the next rally will be any safer. This isn’t about “woke” policies -- it’s about an agency failing its mission.
The Butler tragedy and its aftermath should be a wake-up call for the Secret Service. No more half-measures or bureaucratic dodging -- America deserves a security apparatus as relentless as the threats it faces. Anything less is an insult to Corey Comperatore’s memory and Trump’s survival.
Washington’s swamp just got murkier. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are now under FBI criminal investigations for their roles in the Trump-Russia probe, with allegations of lying to Congress and potential conspiracy, as Fox News reports. The probes signal a long-overdue reckoning for Obama-era intelligence shenanigans.
The FBI is digging into Brennan and Comey’s actions during the 2016 election, focusing on their handling of the discredited Steele dossier and the politicized 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). These investigations, sparked by CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s referral of evidence, aim to uncover whether the duo misled Congress or conspired to push a flawed narrative. Two sources called their interactions a “conspiracy,” opening a Pandora’s box of prosecutorial possibilities.
In July 2016, Brennan briefed Obama and top officials, including Comey, about a Hillary Clinton campaign plan to link Trump to Russia. Declassified notes reveal Brennan’s awareness of this political ploy, which aimed to distract from Clinton’s email scandal. Yet, the FBI launched its “Crossfire Hurricane” probe into Trump’s campaign just days later, raising questions about impartiality.
The Steele dossier, funded by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, became a cornerstone of the Trump-Russia narrative despite being riddled with unverified claims. CIA officials warned it was a mere “internet rumor,” but Brennan pushed for its inclusion in the 2017 ICA. His insistence, formalized in writing, ignored tradecraft principles and tainted the ICA’s credibility.
A December 2016 email from a deputy CIA director to Brennan flagged the dossier’s inclusion as a threat to the ICA’s integrity. Despite this, the FBI’s senior leadership insisted on referencing it in a footnote. The dossier’s shoddy sourcing, later exposed by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019, fueled flawed FISA warrants against Trump aide Carter Page.
Brennan’s 2023 testimony to Congress, claiming he opposed the dossier’s inclusion, contradicts his earlier written stance. “The CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier,” Brennan said, a statement now under scrutiny as potential perjury. Such flip-flopping smells like a desperate dodge from accountability.
Ratcliffe, no stranger to calling out Brennan’s politicization, declassified a “lessons learned” review of the 2017 ICA last week. The review exposed a rushed process marred by “procedural anomalies” and deviations from intelligence standards. Career CIA officials admitted Obama-era appointees skewed the ICA for political ends.
The ICA’s claim that Russia aimed to boost Trump in 2016 leaned heavily on the dossier, despite its “limited corroboration,” as noted in a declassified footnote. Ratcliffe’s review confirmed the dossier’s inclusion ran counter to fundamental intelligence practices. This wasn’t analysis—it was narrative-crafting.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t mince words: “President Trump was right -- again.” She demanded accountability for what she called a “political scandal” that peddled lies to the American public. Her statement captures the frustration of millions who see the probes as justice delayed but not denied.
The FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, launched in July 2016, ignored a clear warning about Clinton’s political scheme. Special counsel John Durham later called this oversight “startling and inexplicable,” noting the FBI’s failure to scrutinize Clinton’s motives. The probe’s haste and bias set the stage for years of baseless Trump-Russia hysteria.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report found no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, debunking the dossier’s core claims. Yet, the damage was done -- public trust in institutions eroded by a politically charged investigation. Durham’s findings underscored how the FBI became a pawn in a Clinton-led manipulation.
Brennan’s handwritten notes from the July 2016 briefing, attended by Biden, Lynch, and Clapper, detailed Clinton’s plan to tie Trump to Russia. These notes, declassified by Ratcliffe, show the CIA flagged this as a Counterintelligence Operational Lead to the FBI. Comey’s silence on this intel raises red flags about his complicity.
The FBI and CIA have stayed mum on the ongoing investigations, and neither Brennan nor Comey responded to inquiries. Their silence speaks volumes, as the specter of criminal charges looms. The probes’ scope -- potentially including conspiracy -- suggests a deep dive into their coordinated efforts.
Ratcliffe’s referral of Brennan’s actions to FBI Director Kash Patel underscores the seriousness of the allegations. The CIA review criticized Brennan’s preference for “narrative consistency over analytical soundness,” a polite way of saying he cherry-picked intel to fit a story. Such hubris demands consequences.
These investigations could finally expose the rot in Obama’s intelligence apparatus, which weaponized flimsy evidence against a political foe. The American people deserve answers, not more bureaucratic stonewalling. If Brennan and Comey’s actions prove criminal, their fall will mark a victory for truth over partisan gamesmanship.
Los Angeles is paralyzed as ICE raids drive undocumented workers underground, stalling vital construction projects. The city, already battered by devastating wildfires, faces a labor crisis that threatens its recovery. This is what happens when federal enforcement clashes with local sanctuary policies.
Raids began in June, with ICE arresting over 1,600 people in Los Angeles, escalating tensions with Mayor Karen Bass and disrupting industries reliant on immigrant labor. On July 4, a 10-minute raid at a West Hollywood carwash detained two workers, while 37 Home Depot employees were taken into custody that week. By July 7, MacArthur Park saw armored tanks, horseback patrols, and heavily armed agents in a show of federal force.
Los Angeles’ economy leans heavily on its immigrant workforce, with 38% of workers born abroad, and one in 10 California workers reportedly undocumented. The Migration Policy Institute pegs Los Angeles County’s unauthorized population at 950,000. Raids have sent these workers into hiding, leaving job sites deserted and construction projects in limbo.
Anti-ICE riots erupted in early June, costing taxpayers $32 million. President Donald Trump responded by deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to protect federal property, a move California challenged in court as a violation of state sovereignty. Governor Newsom’s defiance only deepens the divide between state and federal priorities.
“This morning, I saw federal agents, military vehicles and federalized troops,” Bass lamented at MacArthur Park. Her outrage ignores the reality: unchecked illegal immigration strains public resources. Bass’s theatrics do little to address the chaos her sanctuary policies enable.
“What I saw today looked like a city under siege,” Bass continued. Siege or not, the raids expose a hard truth: Los Angeles cannot function without its undocumented workforce, yet refuses to cooperate with federal immigration law. Her rhetoric fuels division while offering no solutions.
With 14.5% of Los Angeles construction workers undocumented, the raids have crippled rebuilding efforts after wildfires destroyed 16,000 structures. The Urban Land Institute estimates 70,000 additional workers are needed by mid-2026 to rebuild, but fear keeps laborers away. Projects from Pacific Palisades to Altadena face delays, compounding $250 billion in damages.
“Papers or not, fear spreads quickly,” said Joshua Baum, a construction executive. His observation is spot-on, but the progressive obsession with shielding lawbreakers only prolongs the crisis. Protecting illegal workers over enforcing the law is a recipe for economic stagnation.
“When workers do not feel safe showing up to job sites, it slows down not only the pace of construction but also the willingness to propose new projects,” Baum added. This ripple effect threatens Los Angeles’ future growth. Sanctuary policies aren’t just impractical -- they’re economically disastrous.
West Hollywood officials declared, “Our immigrant communities are not threats -- they are vital contributors.” Sentimental, sure, but ignoring immigration law doesn’t rebuild a city. Their defiance of federal authority undermines the rule of law and invites further chaos.
President Trump’s lawsuit against Los Angeles, filed July 1, accuses the city of obstructing federal agents. Meanwhile, Bass’s demand that ICE “leave right now” during the MacArthur Park raid was pure grandstanding. Her priorities seem more about optics than fixing the city’s labor shortage.
“There are entire sectors of our economy that rely on immigrant workers,” Bass claimed. True, but her refusal to acknowledge the legal boundaries of immigration policy creates a vicious cycle of dependency and disruption. Leadership requires facing hard truths, not dodging them.
Arturo Sneider, a development CEO, admitted, “We don’t have enough people to staff the work.” His candor highlights the urgency of resolving this standoff. Los Angeles cannot rebuild without workers, and workers won’t return while raids continue.
Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary, quipped, “If there was any correlation between rampant illegal immigration and a good economy, Biden would have had a booming economy.” Her jab lands hard, exposing the fallacy of open-border idealism. Economic stability demands enforcement, not excuses.
Los Angeles stands at a crossroads: enforce immigration laws or cling to sanctuary status and watch the city stall. The raids, while disruptive, are a wake-up call for a city addicted to cheap labor and progressive posturing. Resolving this crisis requires cooperation, not confrontation, with federal authorities.
Democrats are facing a revolt from their base, who demand they ditch civility and embrace violence to resist President Trump. Liberal voters, furious at Congress’ minority status, are pushing lawmakers to break rules, storm federal agencies, and even risk getting shot, as Axios reports. This isn’t democracy -- it’s a tantrum dressed in righteous rhetoric.
Constituents at town halls and private meetings are berating House Democrats for not doing enough to thwart Trump’s agenda, Axios reports after interviewing over two dozen lawmakers. Many Democrats, speaking anonymously, describe a base consumed by anger and disdain for political norms. The progressive mob seems to think shouting louder equals legislative power.
Voters, particularly well-off white suburbanites, are demanding brute force tactics, with some suggesting Democrats should face violence to grab headlines. “Civility isn’t working,” one constituent told a lawmaker, urging preparation for bloodshed to “protect democracy.” Apparently, democracy now requires a body count.
Grassroots liberals have been at this for months, criticizing Democrats for their limited influence as the minority party. Some lawmakers have already tried stunts -- heckling Trump, pushing rogue impeachments, or clashing with law enforcement -- only to face indictments or physical takedowns. Yet the base wants more, oblivious to Congress’ actual constraints.
One House Democrat noted voters’ “fear and despair” are driving calls to abandon decorum. This isn’t principle -- it’s panic. The left’s obsession with spectacle over strategy reveals a deeper contempt for the institutions they claim to defend.
At town halls, constituents reject Democrats’ pleas to focus on winning Congress in 2026. “People who are angry don’t accept that,” said one lawmaker, describing voters’ refusal to think long-term. Short-term chaos, it seems, is the progressive drug of choice.
Some voters have gone further, suggesting Democrats should risk getting shot while confronting ICE or federal agencies. “What we really need to do is be willing to get shot,” one lawmaker was told. This isn’t courage -- it’s a reckless fantasy peddled by those safe in their upscale neighborhoods.
Another Democrat reported constituents saying “there needs to be blood” to draw media attention. The Roman Coliseum comparison by one lawmaker nails it: the base craves a circus, not solutions. Bloodlust isn’t a policy platform.
Online, the rhetoric gets crazier, with some urging Democrats to storm the White House. “People online have sent me crazy s***,” one lawmaker said. The internet’s unhinged echo chamber is now dictating liberal strategy.
The Democrat caucus, diverse with people of color, women, and LGBTQ members, faces unique risks in this push for arrests or violence. “We are disproportionately people who do not fare very well in prison,” one lawmaker pointed out. The irony: that privileged voters demand sacrifices from those least equipped to bear them.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) called impeachment efforts impractical, though they’re wildly popular among the base. “We’ve got people who are desperately wanting us to do something,” he said. Desperation isn’t a substitute for governing.
Some constituents even want Democrats to get arrested or attacked to spotlight Trump’s policies. This “strategy” assumes media sympathy and public outrage, but it’s more likely to backfire. Martyrdom doesn’t win elections.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) argued that revering the Constitution is the best counter to Trump’s actions. “The most effective pushback … is to model a reverence for the Constitution,” he said. Too bad his voters prefer torches to parchment.
One lawmaker recounted a meeting where they suggested calming tensions, only for a constituent to retort, “Have you tried gasoline?” This isn’t activism -- it’s arson. The left’s flirtation with violence betrays their supposed love for democracy.
The expectations, as one Democrat put it, “aren’t just unreal. They’re dangerous.” When your base demands you become a punching bag or a felon, it’s time to question their grip on reality. The Constitution deserves better than this mob mentality.
Texas hospitals are sounding alarms as unauthorized migrants strain the state’s healthcare system, as Breitbart reports. In 2024, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law mandating hospitals to ask patients about their legal residency status, a change that yielded the new data. The move sparked fierce debate, with conservatives cheering the transparency and progressives decrying it as divisive.
By February 2025, over 108,000 patients admitted to being unauthorized migrants, while Texas spent $434 million on their care, though incomplete reporting and refusals to answer residency questions suggest higher costs. The law, aimed at quantifying the financial toll of illegal immigration, revealed 2.3% of patients as non-residents, with 617,000 others dodging the question. Critics argue this exposes a hidden burden, while opponents claim it unfairly targets vulnerable communities.
Abbott’s law doesn’t force patients to answer, yet 12.9% refused, fueling suspicions many are concealing their status. “Texans should NOT have to foot the bill,” Abbott declared, pointing fingers at federal border policies. His rhetoric, while fiery, sidesteps the complexity of healthcare access in a state with a 17% uninsured rate.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission reported $434 million spent on unauthorized migrant care. That figure, likely low due to non-responses, has conservatives fuming over taxpayer costs. Meanwhile, Texas hospitals shelled out $8.1 billion in 2023 for uninsured patients’ charity care, a broader crisis progressives prefer to highlight.
Only Texas and Florida have such hospital reporting laws, with Florida reporting $660 million in unpaid bills from unauthorized migrants in 2025. The comparison underscores a regional push to quantify immigration’s impact. Yet, the data’s incomplete -- 140 Texas hospitals, or 22.9%, failed to comply with reporting rules.
Government officials suspect most of the 617,000 non-responders are unauthorized migrants. This assumption, while plausible, lacks hard proof, inviting accusations of bias. Still, the sheer volume of refusals raises eyebrows among fiscal hawks.
“Texas has reliable data on the dramatic financial impact,” said Abbott’s press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris. He credits the law with exposing a long-ignored issue, but detractors argue it vilifies migrants without addressing root causes. The anti-woke crowd sees this as a win against progressive denialism.
Mahaleris also praised President Donald Trump’s border crackdown, claiming it slashed illegal crossings. “His efforts to remove those who entered unlawfully may cause these healthcare costs to decline,” he said. Such optimism assumes deportations will neatly solve a multifaceted problem -- a gamble at best.
The law’s intent was to spotlight costs, not deny care, yet non-compliant hospitals muddy the waters. With 22.9% of facilities ignoring the mandate, the data’s gaps frustrate policymakers. Transparency, it seems, is easier ordered than achieved.
Texas’s 17% uninsured rate, the nation’s highest, looms large over this controversy. Charity care costs, already astronomical, dwarf the migrant-specific figures, suggesting a deeper systemic failure. Focusing solely on immigration, critics argue, distracts from broader healthcare reform needs.
The $434 million price tag, while hefty, is a fraction of the $8.1 billion spent on charity care. Progressives seize on this, accusing Abbott of cherry-picking data to inflame tensions. Conservatives counter that every dollar counts when taxpayers are on the hook.
Abbott’s executive order directing cost collection was a bold stroke, but its execution falters. Non-compliant hospitals risk skewing the narrative, leaving both sides cherry-picking numbers. The truth, as usual, lies in the messy middle.
Florida’s $660 million in unpaid bills hints at a regional trend, but Texas’s incomplete data hampers comparisons. If non-compliant hospitals reported, the financial picture could shift dramatically. For now, conservatives wield the numbers as a cudgel against open-border policies.
The law’s voluntary nature -- patients aren’t forced to answer -- limits its reach, yet still yields staggering figures. With 108,581 admitting illegal status, the scale of unauthorized migrant healthcare use is undeniable. But solutions remain elusive amid partisan gridlock.
Abbott’s fight to recoup costs from federal coffers remains a long shot. As Texas grapples with its uninsured crisis, the migrant healthcare debate risks becoming a political football, not a path to reform.
Hamas is teetering on a 60-day ceasefire deal, with Donald Trump declaring their decision looms within 24 hours, as the Daily Mail reports. The proposal, backed by Israel and the U.S., aims to halt Gaza’s bloodshed, but skepticism runs high given past failures. Trust in Hamas’ commitment feels thinner than a Gaza aid package.
Israel greenlit the ceasefire terms first, offering a phased withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for hostages, while mediators from the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt push for a permanent end to the conflict. A prior ceasefire collapsed when Israeli strikes were said to have killed over 400 Palestinians, proving promises of peace often dissolve faster than woke talking points. The deal hinges on Hamas releasing living and deceased Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners.
Trump’s optimism, touting a “done deal” on Truth Social, smells of bravado when Hamas’ track record suggests defiance. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee echoed the sentiment, pinning hopes on Hamas’ unlikely cooperation. Their faith in terrorists playing nice ignores the chaos since October 2023.
Hamas’ Oct 7, 2023, assault on Israel, killing 1,200 and snatching 250 hostages, sparked Israel’s relentless military response. Over 56,000 Palestinians are said by some estimates to have died since, with large proportions of Gaza residents displaced, per Gaza’s Health Ministry. The progressive chorus cries “genocide,” but Israel is defending its survival, not chasing headlines.
Israel’s blockade after a March 2024 ceasefire collapse choked off Gaza’s aid, leaving humanitarian conditions in tatters. Expanded military operations followed, with strikes on Jan. 30, 2025, killing dozens more. Bleeding hearts may wail, but Hamas’ rockets don’t exactly scream “peace.”
Since May 2024, thousands of Palestinians are said to have perished in Israel’s campaign, a grim toll fueling accusations of war crimes Israel firmly denies. Netanyahu’s vow on Jan. 30 to retrieve all hostages resonates with Israelis tired of Hamas’ games. Public support for ending the war surged, especially after Israel’s strikes on Iran.
“I feel a deep commitment,” Netanyahu told Nir Oz kibbutz residents, promising to bring every hostage home. His resolve, backed by Israel’s military might, contrasts with Hamas’ stalling tactics. The prime minister’s upcoming Washington meeting with Trump signals a unified front against terror.
Trump’s earlier pitch for a U.S. takeover of Gaza, slammed as “ethnic cleansing” by the UN and rights experts, haunts the ceasefire talks. “I want the people of Gaza to be safe,” he told reporters, dodging the controversy with less grace than a DNC spin doctor. His focus now is on sealing the deal, not rehashing old fights.
The ceasefire’s 60-day window, mediated by Qatar and Egypt, promises a pause in Israel’s Gaza operations. Trump’s Truth Social post hailed their efforts, urging Hamas to accept or face worse. Yet, expecting Hamas to prioritize peace over propaganda is like waiting for a woke campus to embrace free speech.
Trump’s Jan. 30 White House meeting with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman touched on expanding the Abraham Accords. “A lot of people are going to be joining,” Trump boasted, eyeing broader Middle East stability. The Saudi’s subsequent call with Iran’s military chief hints at backchannel maneuvering.
Hamas’ decision, due within 24 hours, holds Gaza’s fate in the balance, Trump warned. “We’ll see what happens,” he told reporters, his confidence masking the region’s volatility. Betting on Hamas to choose reason over rockets feels like a long shot.
Israel’s phased withdrawal plan, tied to hostage releases, aims to de-escalate while mediators chase a lasting ceasefire. Past betrayals, like the March 2024 collapse, loom large. Hamas’ history of breaking accords makes this deal as fragile as a Gaza ceasefire itself.
Netanyahu’s pledge to retrieve all hostages aligns with Israel’s high public demand for peace. His Jan. 30 comments, “We will bring them all back,” carry weight amid rising domestic pressure. Yet, Hamas’ intransigence could derail hopes faster than a CNN fact-check.
Trump’s push for the ceasefire, coupled with his Abraham Accords expansion, paints a vision of the Middle East as calm. Critics may scoff, but his deal-making grit outshines the hand-wringing of globalist elites. Still, Hamas’ next move remains the wildcard.
Gaza’s residents, displaced and starving, need more than promises, but Hamas’ grip ensures misery persists. The 60-day ceasefire, if accepted, could ease their plight, but only if both sides ditch the usual double-cross. For now, the clock ticks, and the world waits on Hamas’ verdict.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe just dropped a bombshell, exposing the shoddy tradecraft behind a key 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment, as Just the News reports. His scathing review, released on this week, rips into then-CIA Director John Brennan for including the unverified, anti-Trump Steele dossier in the report. It’s a stark reminder of how narrative-driven agendas can taint intelligence work.
Ratcliffe’s eight-page “lessons learned” document, mostly declassified, dissects the 2016 assessment claiming Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The review, ordered by Ratcliffe and conducted by the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis, found that the dossier’s inclusion violated basic intelligence principles, thus undermining the longstanding Democrat claim that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win.
The 2016 assessment, crafted under intense time pressure, was a mess of procedural flaws and limited data sharing. Senior CIA and FBI leaders, including Brennan and James Comey, pushed hard to include the Steele dossier despite objections. Ratcliffe tweeted on June 24, 2025, calling the process “atypical & corrupt” under Brennan’s politically charged leadership.
Brennan’s insistence on the dossier ignored warnings from seasoned CIA Russia experts. Two senior leaders from the CIA’s Russia mission center argued it failed basic tradecraft standards. Yet Brennan, fixated on a consistent story, brushed off their concerns, as the review bluntly notes.
The dossier ended up as a two-page addendum with a disclaimer that it didn’t shape the report’s conclusions. But a sneaky reference in the main body propped up the shaky claim that Putin “aspired” to help Trump. This sleight of hand, the review says, gave unverified gossip undue weight.
Former FBI brass, including Comey and Andrew McCabe, tied their participation in the assessment to the dossier’s inclusion. They lobbied for days to weave it into the main text, facing pushback from the NSA and others. The review calls this a blatant compromise of analytical integrity.
The assessment’s “high confidence” that Putin aimed to boost Trump didn’t hold up. Then-NSA Director Mike Rogers, sticking to “moderate confidence,” pointed out the lack of solid sourcing. The review agrees, noting the judgment leaned heavily on one CIA report while ignoring conflicting data.
Some intelligence suggested Putin was ambivalent about the election’s outcome, but this was conveniently left out. The review faults the authors for not addressing uncertainties in their sources. Rogers later testified in May 2017 that the “aspire” claim lacked the robust evidence of other judgments.
Two CIA Russia mission center leaders emailed Brennan in December 2016, calling the “aspire” judgment weakly supported. They warned it wasn’t even necessary for the report’s core findings. Brennan, undeterred, prioritized his narrative over their expertise, the review reveals.
The dossier’s inclusion risked the entire assessment’s credibility, warned the CIA’s then-deputy director for analysis in a 2020 email. Brennan’s response? He doubled down, writing that the dossier “warrants inclusion” despite its flaws.
By January 2017, Brennan, Comey, and Rogers briefed President-elect Donald Trump on the election meddling findings at Trump Tower. Comey lingered to whisper about the dossier’s salacious allegations, a move that reeks of political theater. The review underscores how such antics eroded trust in intelligence work.
The dossier, largely declassified in 2020, peddled baseless claims of Trump-Kremlin collusion. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 2023 report found no such conspiracy, and John Durham’s later probe slammed the FBI’s dossier handling. Yet in 2016, Brennan and Comey treated it as gospel, the review laments.
Durham’s 2023 report uncovered a Clinton campaign plan, greenlit by Hillary Clinton herself in July 2016, to tie Trump to Putin. Brennan briefed Obama and Biden on this scheme, and the CIA flagged it to the FBI in September 2016. The review doesn’t say if this influenced the dossier’s push, but the timing raises eyebrows.
A 2020 Senate report defended the 2016 assessment, claiming no political pressure, while a 2018 House report criticized its tradecraft. The truth, as Ratcliffe’s review lays bare, is that Brennan’s dossier obsession skewed a critical intelligence product. It’s a lesson in keeping agendas out of analysis.
Ratcliffe’s report is a wake-up call for an intelligence community too often swayed by progressive narratives. The Steele dossier’s inclusion wasn’t just a mistake -- it was a deliberate choice to prioritize politics over facts. Americans deserve better from those tasked with guarding the truth.
Declassified FBI emails reveal a shocking cover-up of China’s alleged 2020 election meddling. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley dropped a bombshell this week, exposing internal FBI correspondence that suggests the bureau buried intelligence about a Chinese plot to sway the presidential race, as Just the News reports. The truth, it seems, was less important than protecting the FBI’s image.
Grassley’s release of 47 pages of partially redacted FBI emails from fall 2020 shows the agency ignored a raw intelligence report about China’s plan to use fraudulent mail-in ballots to boost Joe Biden. The report, originating from the FBI’s Albany Field Office, detailed a scheme involving counterfeit U.S. driver’s licenses to create thousands of fake votes. Yet, the FBI chose to sit on this explosive intel, raising questions about its priorities.
In summer 2020, a confidential human source tipped off the FBI counterintelligence about China’s election interference intentions. The Intelligence Information Report, titled with alarming specificity about fraudulent licenses and mail-in votes, was disseminated in August but recalled in September. The recall, ordered by FBI Headquarters, reeks of political maneuvering.
The recall was spearheaded by FBI officials Nikki Floris and Tonya Ugoretz, who cited the need to reinterview the source. An Albany office official noted on Sept. 25, 2020, that the report was “coordinated and disseminated in textbook fashion.” So why pull it? Because it clashed with then-FBI Director Christopher Wray’s congressional testimony.
Wray told Congress in September 2020 that foreign meddling wasn’t a significant threat, focusing instead on disinformation as the primary concern. “We have not seen coordinated national voter fraud,” Wray claimed to the House Homeland Security Committee. The IIR’s claims of a Chinese ballot scheme would have exposed his assurances as hollow.
Albany staff warned that suppressing the report for political reasons was “dangerous.” One official wrote on Sept. 25, 2020, that the IIR was getting attention across the FBI Headquarters. Yet, the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) refused to reissue it, citing vague concerns about “authoritativeness” and potential disinformation.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported in July 2020 that it seized 19,888 counterfeit U.S. driver’s licenses from China and Hong Kong at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. While CBP didn’t directly link these to voter fraud, the timing aligns with the IIR’s claims. The FBI’s failure to investigate this connection is a glaring oversight.
The source, deemed reliable by the FBI, provided additional context after reinterviewing, yet Headquarters still refused to republish the report. “The reporting will contradict Director Wray’s testimony,” a redacted official noted on Sept. 30, 2020. Protecting Wray’s narrative trumped national security.
Grassley didn’t mince words: “These records smack of political decision-making.” He accused the Wray-led FBI of prioritizing its image over investigating credible intelligence. The senator’s push for transparency under new FBI Director Kash Patel signals a much-needed reckoning.
Albany staff expressed frustration, warning that suppressing field-generated intelligence could starve other agencies of critical data. The FITF, led by Laura Dehmlow in October 2020, dismissed the IIR as potentially part of China’s disinformation campaign. This knee-jerk skepticism smells more like deflection than diligence.
An email from a redacted official on September 28, 2020, labeled the recall a “substantive” move, driven by Floris and Ugoretz. The FITF’s China Unit Chief reiterated on October 8, 2020, that the report wouldn’t be reissued due to its alleged lack of authority. Conveniently, this kept Wray’s testimony unchallenged.
Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino alleged in June that prior FBI leadership hid evidence of China’s plot. Patel turned over the IIR to Congress last month, confirming it was shared with U.S. intelligence agencies on Aug. 24, 2020, before its recall. The public deserves to know why this was buried.
Wray’s September 2020 testimony downplayed China’s role, focusing on Russia as the primary threat. “The intelligence community’s consensus is that Russia continues to try to influence,” he told the House. Meanwhile, the IIR’s allegations of Chinese meddling were quietly shelved to avoid contradicting him.
Trump called it out in 2020, tweeting that China posed a “far greater threat” than Russia and warning about mail-in ballot vulnerabilities. Wray’s dismissal of such concerns now looks like a deliberate sidestep. The FBI’s new leadership must restore trust by confronting these failures head-on.
Grassley’s release, backed by FBI Assistant Director Marshall Yates’ summary, exposes a bureau more concerned with optics than truth. “Intelligence must be fully investigated,” Grassley demanded this week. Americans can only hope Patel’s FBI will finally put national security above political games.
President Donald Trump just unshackled Syria from decades of U.S. sanctions. On Monday, he signed an executive order lifting most restrictions that have choked the nation since the 1970s, as Axios reports. This bold move signals a new chapter for a country clawing its way out of civil war.
Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former Islamist rebel, toppled the Assad regime in December 2024, prompting Trump to meet him in Saudi Arabia in mid-May to discuss sanction relief. The executive order also eyes removing Syria’s “state sponsor of terrorism” label and could suspend the Caesar Act, which targeted Assad’s war crimes. Sanctions on Assad himself, now hiding in Moscow, and his cronies remain untouched.
“Good luck Syria. Show us something very special,” Trump declared in Saudi Arabia. That’s a tall order for a nation in ruins, but it’s a chance to rebuild without Uncle Sam’s boot on its neck. Al-Sharaa’s plea for relief to reconstruct after 14 years of war seems to have swayed the dealmaker-in-chief.
The order also considers delisting Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, once led by al-Sharaa, as a terrorist group. This is no small pivot -- HTS’s rebrand under al-Sharaa’s leadership is a gamble Trump’s willing to take. It’s a pragmatic nod to Syria’s new reality, not a woke capitulation to chaos.
Meanwhile, Israel’s watching closely, wary of a Syria unshackled but eager for a deal. After Assad’s fall, Israel obliterated Syria’s air force, navy, and missile systems in December 2024, seizing the buffer zone and Mount Hermon. These occupied territories are bargaining chips Israel won’t relinquish without a full peace deal.
Netanyahu, in early June, told Trump’s Syria envoy, Tom Barrack, he’s ready to negotiate a modernized 1974 disengagement accord with Syria’s post-Assad government. Phased agreements could lead to normalization, but Israel’s not naive. They want ironclad assurances, not empty promises from a regime still finding its feet.
“It’s a benefit for Syria to lean toward Israel,” a U.S. official said this week. Sure, but Syria’s not rushing to hug its old foe -- al-Sharaa’s playing a long game. Trump’s team sees a Syria-Israel deal as a win-win, but they’re not holding their breath.
Israel’s history with the Assad clan was pure hostility, so Netanyahu’s interest in a security agreement is a seismic shift. The Golan Heights, captured in 1967 and recognized as Israel’s by Trump, remains non-negotiable, per Foreign Minister Gideon Saar’s Monday statement. Syria’s old demand for a Golan pullout? Dead on arrival.
Four Israeli channels -- national security, Mossad, foreign ministry, and military -- are quietly engaging Syrian officials below al-Sharaa’s level. No leaders’ summit is planned, and a senior U.S. official called these talks “like unwrapping an onion.” Translation: don’t expect a peace treaty by next week.
“We are peeling,” the same official told Axios, describing the delicate dance of diplomacy. That’s code for slow and steady, not the woke rush to paper over deep mistrust. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are backing this effort, but they’re not micromanaging every syllable.
Israel is pushing for a stronger U.S. role to nudge Syria toward the table. “We hope to see the Trump administration pushing more assertively,” an Israeli official told Axios. They’re right -- America’s clout could tip the scales, but Syria’s got to want it.
Tom Barrack’s been chatting with Syrian officials since June, laying groundwork for formal talks. A U.S. official shrugged to reporters, “It’s up to them, not up to us.” Classic Trump: set the stage, then let the players decide their fate.
Israel’s minister for strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, is in Washington this week to hash out the Syria deal. Netanyahu himself will hit the White House on July 7 to dig into this and other regional headaches. The stakes couldn’t be higher for a region perpetually on edge.
Israeli officials grumble that Trump lifted sanctions too soon, losing leverage to force Syria’s hand on normalization. They’ve got a point -- sanctions are a stick, not a carrot, and Syria’s got less reason to play nice now. Still, Trump’s betting that al-Sharaa’s desire to rebuild will outweigh old grudges.
This Syria reset is Trump at his dealmaking best: bold, risky, and unapologetic. Whether it leads to peace or just another Middle East mirage depends on al-Sharaa and Netanyahu finding common ground. For now, the sanctions are gone, and the ball’s in Syria’s court.
Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina’s Republican stalwart, shocked the GOP by announcing he won’t run for re-election in 2026, as Politico reports. His decision follows a weekend of blistering attacks from President Donald Trump, who branded him a “talker and complainer” on Truth Social. The MAGA base, fed up with half-measures, likely cheers this exit.
Tillis, a two-term senator, revealed his retirement plans Sunday after Trump’s public broadsides over his vote against the "Big, Beautiful" megabill. The 64-year-old faced a tough 2026 race in North Carolina, a swing state where GOP loyalty to Trump runs deep. His departure opens a contentious primary battle, promising a fiercer conservative contender.
Last week, Tillis privately warned Senate Republicans that the megabill’s Medicaid provisions could tank his re-election. He joined Kentucky’s Sen. Rand Paul as the only Republicans voting against debating the bill, citing concerns over clean-energy tax credits and healthcare. Such defiance, while principled, drew Trump’s ire, exposing the senator’s shaky standing.
Trump’s pressure campaign intensified Friday with a last-minute call urging Tillis to back the megabill. Tillis, unmoved, stuck to his reservations, a move that sparked Trump’s weekend Truth Social tirade. The president’s “NOT A DOER!” jab underscores the GOP’s demand for unwavering allegiance.
“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” Tillis said. This sanctimonious nod to bipartisanship ignores the reality: Voters crave fighters, not fence-sitters. His claim of independence feels like a dodge from accountability.
Tillis had already leaned against running, planning to decide by August, but Trump’s attacks fast-tracked his exit. He confided doubts about GOP leadership support and Trump’s tolerance for his maverick streak. Senate leaders’ minor tweaks to the megabill ignored his warnings, leaving him politically stranded.
Trump gloated Sunday, calling Tillis’ retirement “Great News” and claiming he “hurt the great people of North Carolina.” The president’s Saturday post noted “numerous people” eager to primary Tillis, with meetings planned soon. This signals a MAGA-fueled scramble to replace him with a loyalist.
“Not a hard choice” between family time and “six years in the political theatre and partisan gridlock,” Tillis quipped. Yet, his reluctance to endure another term reeks of capitulation to the progressive swamp he claims to oppose. North Carolinians deserve a senator who relishes the fight, not one eyeing the exit.
Tillis notified allies of his decision over the past day, with four insiders noting that they were expecting the Sunday announcement. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, informed of the move, called it “unfortunate” but admitted Tillis had mulled it for a while. Thune’s tepid response hints at the party’s readiness to move on.
Tillis’ retirement sets the stage for a crowded, competitive GOP primary in North Carolina. Rep. Pat Harrigan, a Trump ally, and Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, are potential contenders. A fresh face, unburdened by Tillis’ bipartisan baggage, could dominate the general election.
“As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven’t exactly been excited about another term,” Tillis admitted. This ambivalence, paired with his support for Biden-era infrastructure and gun control bills, alienated the base. His half-hearted Trump loyalty sealed his fate.
GOP insiders argue a candidate free of Tillis’ moderate record stands a stronger chance in 2026. Sen. Tim Scott, National Republican Senatorial Committee chair, vowed Republicans would hold the seat, citing their decade-long dominance in North Carolina. His confidence reflects the party’s bullish outlook.
Democrats, smelling blood, view Tillis’ seat as a prime pickup opportunity. Former Rep. Wiley Nickel and ex-Gov. Roy Cooper are gearing up for the race, with Cooper eyeing a summer decision. Polls showing Tillis’ unpopularity fuel their optimism, but they’ll face a reinvigorated GOP.
Tillis’ occasional breaks with Trump, like vetoing a Justice Department pick and questioning Pete Hegseth’s Defense secretary nomination, irked MAGA purists. Yet, he ultimately backed Hegseth, revealing his inconsistent spine. Such waffling explains why the base demanded a bolder champion.
North Carolina’s Senate race now promises a high-stakes showdown. Republicans, energized by Tillis’ exit, aim to field a candidate who embodies Trump’s agenda without compromise. Democrats, meanwhile, plot to exploit the chaos, but they underestimate the GOP’s resolve to dominate.
