WATCH: FBI whistleblower exposes corruption at shady agency in NEW interview



It’s been over two weeks since Trump’s near assassination, and we still don’t know how a 20-year-old with no military or law enforcement background was able to weasel his way around the Secret Service.

According to Steve Friend, a former FBI agent who’s now come forth as a whistleblower, the FBI won't produce a result in its Trump Assassination Attempt Probe because that's not the goal of the bureau.

“The FBI loves to hide behind ‘we can't reveal sources and methods,’ ‘it's an ongoing investigation,’ ‘we're just going to drag this out as long as we possibly can until people either lose interest or there's something else that we can get our hooks into that's going to do better for us in the headlines,”’ he tells Jill Savage and the “Blaze News Tonight” panel.

FBI Whistleblower EXPOSES Corruption at Shady Agency in NEW Interviewwww.youtube.com

“I don't have any confidence in them to actually carry forward an honest and forthright investigation of any kind because they've demonstrated themselves to be just a politically partisan organization, particularly as it pertains to Donald Trump,” he continues.

“Director Wray's testimony yesterday ... appeared to be more forthright than he's been in any previous congressional hearings,” says investigative journalist and Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker. “Did you get that impression, or do you see something else?”

Friend speculates that Wray’s increase in candor is likely due to the fact that the Secret Service is under fire this time rather than the FBI.

“I think there's a lot of attention really being thrown at the Secret Service at this point. I think he, at that point, gave a little bit of an exhale,” he explains. “By and large, Christopher Wray has just done the exact same thing all the time, and I think it's derivative of one, he's a politically partisan guy, but secondly, he's not an outcomes guy.”

The American people “want to see an effective investigation actually transpire, where we get all the answers. [Wray] doesn't see that as success; he's about the process — process itself is success.”

“How do you describe Christopher Wray?” asks Jill.

Wray “made $9.2 million a year before he was brought in as the FBI director, and he gave that up for a $200,000 a year job for a 10-year appointment where he'd have to live apart from his family,” Friend says. “That's what his sacrifice was for — ‘the cause’ — and the cause was bringing cultural Marxism to its full fruition within the FBI.”

“You can see it in the hiring standards. ... They're bringing in people, at this point, who are 50 pounds overweight describing themselves as woke, and then most recently, you had somebody hired by the Washington field office who is an actual heroin addict,” he explains.

“Do you think this is a lost cause at this point?” asks Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson.

“Well, the agency itself, I think, is a lost cause because the reforms that are necessary to bring it back from the brink are so drastic,” such as “[reducing] its footprint from a headquarter standpoint,” “[getting] rid of the intelligence branch entirely,” “[getting] back to actually doing criminal investigations” and “not [concerning] themselves with intelligence gathering on the American people,” says Friend.

But there’s one simple thing that the federal government could do to make the FBI effective again: “take the guns away.”

“The origin of the FBI was an unarmed investigative agency,” Friend explains. “It can return to that, and it can do what Christopher Wray says that it is always intending to do and that is aid local law enforcement.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the clip above.

Want more from Blaze News Tonight?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Reversal of FATE: Steve Baker’s update on January 6 prisoners is ‘a good sign’



January 6 started as a chance for Trump supporters to innocently protest and quickly turned into a day that would change their lives forever.

Now, however, things might be taking a turn for the better.

“One J-sixer is seeing a reversal of fate,” Jill Savage of “Blaze New Tonight” explains.

“John Strand is actually one of the more, let’s call it, infamous stories, certainly one of the more high-profile cases of all the January 6 defendants,” Steve Baker tells Savage.

Strand was friend and bodyguard of Simone Gold — a doctor and attorney who was the deplatformed founder of the Frontline American Doctors. Gold had been accused of “disinformation” for recommending alternative therapies that were not part of what Baker calls the “approved narrative” regarding COVID-19.

Gold was scheduled to speak on January 6 at one of the six legally permitted events scheduled on the Capitol property that day.

“By the time they got to the Capitol, everything had gone to hell in a handbasket, and so there was nothing but chaos by the time they arrived. The breaches had already taken place. John Strand and Simone Gold did not participate in violence, they did not participate in breaching the Capitol building whatsoever,” Baker explains.

However, their fatal flaw was going inside the Capitol peacefully.

“She actually decided to deliver her prepared remarks there in the Rotunda. She climbed up on the Eisenhower statue, with John standing guard beside her, she delivered her remarks there in the great Rotunda of the Capitol, and then they peacefully left, just as so many other hundreds and thousands of people did,” Baker says.

Both Strand and Gold were “handed that infamous 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding felony.”

The felony carried up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Gold ended up taking a plea deal and pled down to a single misdemeanor. Judge Christopher Cooper sentenced her to 60 days in prison.

“John Strand decided he was not going to take this lying down, that he was going to be a warrior, and he, despite the odds being horribly stacked against him, he was going to go to trial and he did that,” Baker explains.

He was convicted on all counts, and he was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

“Now what’s happening is that because of the Supreme Court’s overturning the 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding charge against 355 defendants, him being one of those,” Baker says, “they’re shortening their sentences or letting them go.”

If they haven’t gone to trial yet, they’re not charging them with it.

“It’s especially a good sign because the Department of Justice has already announced that they want to figure out how to continue with that charge,” Baker explains. “But the point being, is it appears that the judges are pushing back against the DOJ.”

“We’ll take this as a good sign,” he adds.


Judge who ordered newspaper man to court for exposing trans shooter's manifesto didn't want to hear his defense



Michael Patrick Leahy, the CEO of Star News Digital Media and the editor of the Tennessee Star, drew the ire of a low-level Democratic judge for publishing documents the FBI wanted suppressed or possibly even destroyed: the suicide note and deranged writings of the radical transvestite who murdered three children and three adults last year in a Nashville Christian school.

After Stacy Cameron, a reporter for a local Fox News affiliate, effectively snitched on the Tennessee Star for doing what mainstream media outlets refused to do, Judge l'Ashea Myles of the Tennessee 20th Judicial District Chancery Court ordered Leahy to court for a show cause hearing.

The stated aim of the hearing was "to determine why the alleged publication of certain purported documents by Petitioners Star Digital Media and Michael Leahy, as the Editor-in-Chief, does not violate the Orders of this Court subjecting them to contempt proceedings and sanctions."

The suggestion was that by allegedly publishing writings under the judge's in-camera review, Leahy and the Tennessee Star's parent company may have interfered with their lawsuit seeking the full release of the trans killer's writing by the Metro Nashville Police Department.

According to Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker, who was in the courtroom Monday, it quickly became clear that Myles "wished she had not called the hearing."

"It seemed like she was trying to get out of it," said Baker. "She initiated something that was over her head, over her pay grade — something that was out of bounds with the law."

While the hearing was supposed to be centered on Leahy, neither he nor his counsel Daniel Horwitz were able to get out more than a few words. Instead, Myles appeared keen on leaning on the other parties present to express their grievances and concerns, effectively filibustering her own proceeding by proxy.

"The judge allowed everybody else to speak except for the one guy the hearing was called for," said Baker. "Michael Leahy's attorney — every time he got up, which was twice, she interrupted him and cut him off mid-stream. She told him that she was not going to hear any arguments today in regards to the case."

"She actually said these words: 'Your arguments are not yet ripe,'" continued Baker.

The Star indicated that Myles reimagined the purpose of the hearing to get a feeling for the "landscape" of the situation.

While Baker will detail some of the more absurd and shocking aspects of the hearing in a forthcoming piece for Blaze News, he has nevertheless made clear it was a gong show.

"What in the hell did I just witness?" Baker said Monday on "The Michael Patrick Leahy Show." "As soon as the court adjourned ... I went, 'What the you-know-what?'"

"She wanted to understand everybody's position. She reiterated over and over again that she wasn't the investigator: 'I'm just the judge. I'm not the prosecutor. I'm just the judge and I'm just here to get understanding.’ And she did wrap it up at the end and said, 'Okay, now I understand.' When court was adjourned ... I said, 'Does she understand what an airhead she is?'" said Baker.

Baker suggested to Blaze News that Myles likely realized in the days leading up to the show cause hearing "she had made a mistake" and didn't want the matter to end up going to an appeals court.

"She set the wheels in motion, then realized, 'I blew it here. I should not have done this,'" continued Baker. "She was covering her ass."

On his show Monday, Leahy reflected on the outcome of the show cause hearing, saying, "She didn't allow me to show cause nor did she allow my lawyer to show cause why I shouldn't be held in contempt. She changed the purpose of the meeting."

While none of the attorneys who spoke at the hearing Monday reportedly argued that Leahy broke the law, the newspaper man indicated she may still assign a special prosecutor to go after him for publishing the shooter's journal.

"So let me give you the bottom line on all this. I thought there'd be two outcomes or possibilities. Either [Myles] was going to set up a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute us, or she was going to take it under advisement and then issue an order later," said Leahy. "So that's what she did. She said, 'I'm going to take all of this under advisement and I'll issue an order.' She didn't say when. If that order is to set up a special prosecutor, I will still be in legal jeopardy. That's my take on it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Reps. Loudermilk and Johnson announce release of 5,000 hours of Jan. 6 footage following arrest of Blaze Media's Steve Baker



House Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced Friday the release of 5,000 hours of CCTV footage of the Jan. 6, 2021, protests. This release coincides with Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker's FBI-compelled surrender in Dallas over his Jan. 6 reporting.

According to the Republican congressmen, this release is but a trickle compared to the coming flood, as far more footage will be released in the coming weeks and months. Additionally, at the direction of Johnson, faces will not be blurred in the footage in the interest of "getting this work completed as responsibly and efficiently as possible."

Already, the footage Loudermilk made available to Steve Baker has served to greatly undermine the Jan. 6 narrative advanced by Democratic lawmakers and their allies in the media.

Weeks after uncovering various damning irregularities in the story told by and about U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, Baker confirmed in January — on the basis of Jan. 6 footage — that the so-called passerby who discovered the pipe bomb at the DNC happened to be a United States Capitol Police plainclothes officer.

In his continued deep dive, Baker also found troubling indications that something was off about the pipe bomb investigation from the outset.

On the basis of closed-circuit TV video footage made available to him by Loudermilk, Baker noted how three cameras controlled by the U.S. Capitol Police and customarily pointed at the DNC office building were strangely turned away from the scene just after the discovery of the alleged explosive device. Despite the cameras' averted gazes, Baker nevertheless highlighted curious details about various law enforcement agencies' responses to the discovery of the pipe bombs as well as about the investigation that followed.

The release of additional vantages on the Jan. 6 protests and the incidents in the surrounding area may serve to lend additional insights into what actually took place on that fateful day.

Videos have been uploaded and now appear on the House Subcommittee on Oversight's Rumble page. Subsequent releases will similarly be reviewed to ensure that footage does not contain sensitive security information.

— (@)

"House Republicans again commend Chairman Loudermilk and the entire Committee on House Administration for their ongoing commitment to ensuring that there is full transparency surrounding the events of January 6," Johnson said in a statement obtained by Blaze News.

Last year, Johnson indicated he would release 44,000 hours of footage from the Jan. 6 protests, noting that doing so would "provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations, and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials."

In his statement Friday, Johnson stressed that the "ongoing work is especially necessary considering the deeply flawed prior investigation conducted by the partisan January 6 select committee, which instead of delivering transparency, has contributed to defendants, public interest groups, and the media having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials."

"My subcommittee's investigation has always been about providing the American people with full transparency and complete accountability about what really happened on January 6, 2021," said Rep. Loudermilk. "As such, we have been working tirelessly to make public all U.S. Capitol Police CCTV footage from that day."

Loudermilk lauded Johnson for his continued support of the subcommittee's efforts and for his "resolute commitment to full transparency for the American people."

"Today's decision will significantly expedite CCTV footage releases, all of which will be made available to the American public within the next few months, without blurring or editing," added the Georgia congressman.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'A First Amendment victory': Christian baker can refuse to make a cake for lesbian wedding, California court says

'A First Amendment victory': Christian baker can refuse to make a cake for lesbian wedding, California court says



A Christian baker can refuse to make a cake for an event, such as a same-sex wedding, that conflicts with her religious beliefs, a California judge has determined.

In 2017, Cathy Miller — the owner of Tastries Bakery and Boutique in Bakersfield, California — was approached to bake a customized cake for an upcoming lesbian wedding. Because the event conflicted with Miller's Christian beliefs regarding the nature of marriage, she refused to lend her artistry to a customized cake. However, she did offer the couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-del Rio, two alternatives: She could bake them a generic, pre-made cake that would not require her personal artistry, or she could recommend to them other bakeries which could accommodate their request.

Miller's attorneys at the Thomas More Society claim that after this "polite refusal," Miller was then "targeted by gay activists" and sued for discrimination by the state Department of Fair Housing and Employment.

In multiple lawsuits, the DFHE argued that, by denying the lesbian couple a customized cake, Tasteries and Cathy’s Creations, Inc. had violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a California law passed in 1959 and since expanded to protect consumers against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion.

Paul Jonna, TMS special counsel and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP, noted that there is "a certain irony ... that a law intended to protect individuals from religious discrimination was used to discriminate against Cathy for her religious beliefs."

And, based on excerpts of cross-examination from the civil trial held in July, it appears that the state's attorneys did indeed "discriminate against Cathy," probing her about the depth and sincerity of her Christian beliefs. According to a statement from TMS, attorney for the state Gregory Mann even asked Miller whether she adhered to Old Testament dietary laws "in terms of not eating pigs, not eating shellfish, et cetera" in an effort to cast doubt on Miller's testimony that she does her "best" to follow "everything that the Bible says."

Despite the state's best legal efforts, Judge Eric Bradshaw of the Superior Court of California in Kern County ruled in favor of Miller. The DFHE "is barred by defendants' rights to Free Speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from enforcing the Unruh Civil Rights Act to compel or prohibit defendants' speech," Bradshaw's ruling said in part.

TMS, which provided legal counsel to Miller pro bono, has celebrated the ruling as "a First Amendment victory."

"The freedom to practice one’s religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, and the United States Supreme Court has long upheld the freedom of artistic expression," said Charles LiMandri, special counsel at TMS and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP.

Miller has always insisted that she never meant to discriminate against anyone. She wanted only to run her business in accordance with the precepts of her religion. Back in 2017, she told news reporters, "Here at Tastries, we love everyone. My husband and I are Christians, and we know that God created everyone, and He created everyone equal, so it's not that we don't like people of certain groups. There is just certain things that violate my conscience."

The Associated Press reported that the Rodriguez-del Rios expect the decision to be appealed.

Below is a news segment from July about the civil trial: