Son who reported J6 father to FBI now 'terrified' of what his dad might do to him after Trump pardons: 'I’ve picked up a gun'



Jackson Reffitt — who reported his father, Guy Reffitt, to the FBI after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots — told CNN's Erin Burnett in an interview Monday night that he's now "terrified" of what his dad might do to him in the wake of President Donald Trump's J6 pardons.

In fact, Reffitt's scared enough that he said he got himself a gun.

'I just cannot feel safe around him. I cannot feel safe around people he knows. I cannot feel safe around the people my mother knows.'

Burnett used the left's favorite word to describe the riots — "insurrection" — and then asked Jackson Reffitt for his reaction to Trump's pardons and sentence commutations, which presumably include his father's.

"I'm honestly flabbergasted that we've gotten to this point," he told Burnett. "I mean, I'm terrified. I don't know what I'm gonna do."

He also said he's "taken as many precautions as I could recently. I’ve picked up a gun, I’ve moved, and I’ve gotten myself away from what I thought would be a dangerous situation and staying where I thought my dad could find me — or [where] other people" also could locate him.

"People that are gonna feel so validated by these actions, by this pardon," he added. "I'm just so filled with paranoia about what could happen. I've been waiting all day [for] a call from the [Department of Justice] to just figure it out and know what to do next 'cause right now I don't."

Reffitt also told Burnett, "I don't even know what my father's thinking. I mean, I've talked to my father before, but I had thought it [had] gotten better, but it really hadn't. My dad is still involved with these militias, he still talks with ... a martyr's status. He has no change; he's more galvanized than ever that I've seen. My mom, too. My sisters are waiting outside the jail ... right now. And ... I feel for them, and I know who they are, and I love them, but I can't feel safe. ... And what could happen when they're released? I mean, who knows? ... My dad once called me a traitor, and he said, 'Traitors get shot.'"

Burnett suggested to Reffitt that January 6 "broke your family apart." Reffitt agreed.

“My father’s actions coming from the Trump presidency and [my dad thinking] what he was doing was right just destroyed [my family]," he said, adding, "I made a very, very disgusting decision to inform authorities about what he was doing, and I still feel horrible about it every day. My sisters are out there right now, and they’re rooting for him. ... I understand that. I come [from a place] of love toward that. I want to be there for them, but I can’t. ... It's hard."

Burnett then asked Reffitt whether he still loves his father — and he replied in the affirmative.

"Of course," Reffitt said. "I love him. I love him. I just cannot feel safe around him. I cannot feel safe around people he knows. I cannot feel safe around the people my mother knows. My mom has used my name to sit in front of a crowded room of these far-right Trump supporters, and whenever she brings up my name and what I've done, the crowd will just roar in ... anger about, like, 'What the hell did that kid do?' ... terrifying."

You can view the video of the interview here.

What else?

Blaze News reported that Guy Reffitt was the first Jan. 6 defendant to go to trial in March 2022. A D.C. jury found him guilty on all five charges, including transporting a firearm in furtherance of a civil disorder, obstruction of justice, hindering communication through force or threat of force, obstructing officers during a civil disorder, and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.

But U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich reduced Reffitt's prison time to 80 months from the original 87-month sentence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ordered a new sentencing based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Fischer v. United States, which greatly limits use of 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2) — a 20-year felony for obstruction of an official proceeding — in Jan. 6 prosecutions.

Newsweek said Jackson Reffitt — a key witness in the government's case against his father — first reported Guy Reffitt's political views to the FBI in December 2020, only days before the Capitol riots.

The magazine said Jackson Reffitt later forwarded text messages from his father to the FBI after Guy Reffitt attended Trump's rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6. Prosecutors read some of those messages and played audio of family conversations in court as part of their case against Reffitt, according to Newsweek.

Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker weighs in

Steve Baker covered Jan. 6 at the Capitol as an independent journalist and began writing investigative stories about that day for Blaze News in the fall of 2023. Despite only taking video while walking through the Capitol, Baker was arrested last year and pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor charges in November to "avoid the shaming exercise of the trial."

Baker was set to hear his sentence in March — but the DOJ has now filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him. The filing comes after President Donald Trump on Monday night gave around 1,500 January 6 defendants a promised pardon.

Baker also weighed in on Jackson Reffitt's CNN interview for Blaze News:

As I mentioned last night on BlazeTV, many families have been broken apart because of January 6. Divorces, children disowning their parents, and this tragedy in the Reffitt family. Many J6 defendants were turned in by family members, but also by members of their churches, neighbors, coworkers, and classmates. While there already may have been a strained father-son relationship in this case, I think you’ll find the common thread among those who "dropped a dime’" on family members to be a difference in their politics. Especially a hatred for Trump by the ones making those calls to the FBI.

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

Here Are The 37 Brutal Murderers Joe Biden Let Off Death Row

A rundown of the gruesome murders committed by the death-row inmates getting commutations by President Joe Biden.

College football player raped girl on family cruise, feds say — and allegedly asked her appalling 2-word question afterward



A college football player with a reported history of sexual assault was convicted of raping a teen girl while she was on a family cruise vacation.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland said in a statement that James Thomas Kelley, 22, was found guilty of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and assault in connection to a rape of a 17-year-old girl on a Carnival Cruise ship in 2023. Kelley faces a maximum sentence of life in prison in the federal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office stated.

'Kelley saw that [she] was intoxicated [by his own admission], realized she was vulnerable, and offered to take her to the bathroom.'

Federal prosecutors said Kelley raped the then-underage girl between Jan. 1 and Jan. 2, 2023.

Kelley met the teen girl after a party on the Carnival Legend cruise ship on the night of Jan. 1. Kelley took her to his cabin because she needed to use a restroom, according to court documents.

Citing court filings, The State reported that after the victim stepped outside the bathroom, Kelley pushed her on the bed "face first," and raped her.

After sexually assaulting the teen girl, Kelley allegedly asked the victim an appalling question.

Court documents stated: "After raping [her], Kelley asked, ‘You good?'"

The Carnival cruise ship returned to port in Baltimore on Jan. 2.

The victim and her family left the cruise ship and returned home to Virginia. Once home, the teen girl reported the rape to local police. She reportedly was examined at a Virginia hospital, where it was determined that she had bruises on her right arm and shins, as well as "vaginal abrasions, tearing and bruising," according to court docs.

In April 2023, FBI agents interrogated Kelley regarding the alleged sexual assault. At the time of the interview, Kelley was a redshirt junior running back for the Wingate University football team.

Kelley purportedly told investigators that he and the underage girl had kissed and touched each other outside of his room before he let her use the bathroom. Kelley allegedly said that he believed the teen was under the influence of alcohol.

"Kelley saw that [she] was intoxicated [by his own admission], realized she was vulnerable, and offered to take her to the bathroom,” prosecutors wrote in court documents. Kelley “took full advantage of the situation,” prosecutors stated.

FBI agents arrested Kelley at Wingate University on Sept. 20, 2023, according to the Wingate Triangle — the university’s student newspaper.

After news was released about the allegations of sexual assault on the cruise ship, a Wingate University student came forward to report him for raping her.

As of November 2023, there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Kelley for second-degree forcible rape out of Union County, North Carolina, according to The State.

Kelley also was convicted as a minor in a 2019 sexual assault case, prosecutors said.

During his two-week trial for the rape on the Carnival cruise ship, jurors heard testimony from six people accusing Kelley of other sexual assaults on separate incidents.

“Kelley has an alarming history of allegations of sexual assault from males and females spanning from early 2017 through September 2023,” prosecutors wrote in court documents according to the New York Post.

Carnival Cruise Lines didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from The State.

"We will never stop working to serve justice for the victims of predators like Mr. Kelley, no matter where the crime occurs,” said Erek L. Barron — U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. "Today’s conviction reflects the unwavering resolve of the FBI to protect our communities and keep Americans safe."

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

Missouri AG suing New York over Alvin Bragg's 'unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump'



Despite their routine concern-mongering about threats to democracy, Democrats have worked hard in recent months to eliminate President Joe Biden's rival from contention ahead of the 2024 election. Some have referred to this effort to deny voters a choice and thereby decide the election by undemocratic means as "lawfare."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) revealed Thursday that such attacks will not go unanswered.

Bailey noted on X that he would be "filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump. It's time to restore the rule of law."

According to the Republican, the efforts of "rogue prosecutor" New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg to "take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail ... sabotages Missourians' right to a free and fair election."

Last week, Bailey testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He noted in his written statement that the "left has prioritized its hatred of President Trump above the rule of law."

'The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error.'

"Government officials at the federal and state levels have censored President Trump, filed civil suits in order to sanction him, illegally removed him from the ballot, and perverted the law in order to prosecute him," wrote Bailey.

The Missouri AG indicated further that Bragg's prosecution of Trump, in particular, "represents one of the most morally abhorrent volleys in the left's on-going barrage of lawfare. The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error."

Among the issues Bailey highlighted with Trump's prosecution in New York — which are likely to be raised in his forthcoming lawsuit — were:

  • Bragg's "disqualifying impropriety," reflected in part by his refusal to recuse himself despite an obvious self-interest in the case;
  • the indictment charges' "reference to an unspecified and unidentifiable other crime," which altogether "constitutes a deprivation of due process by denying the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the crimes with which he is charged";
  • the prosecutor's efforts to have Trump silenced with an "unconstitutional gag order";
  • Bragg's perversion of "the law to meet the facts rather than objectively apply the facts to the law," namely through the expansion of the charges beyond the text of the statute at issue in order to criminalize "that which he does not like rather than that which the law forbids"; and
  • Bragg's failure to "correct the Court's error in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required as to the predicate offense that forms the basis for the fallacious charges."

Bailey further highlighted in his testimony the apparent "collusion" between the Biden Department of Justice and the New York District Attorney's Office regarding the initiative to take Trump off the board.

Bailey's office expects that lawsuit will go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and will be titled "Missouri vs. New York," reported Fox News Digital.

Extra to announcing that Missouri would be suing New York Thursday, Bailey filed an amicus brief with 23 other red states urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which is overseeing Trump's classified documents case, to reject Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's request for an "unconstitutional gag order" on Trump.

Smith asked Judge Aileen Cannon that the conditions permitting Trump to await trial outside of jail should be updated to include a gag order, prohibiting him from commenting about details of his case, particularly about the raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Trump's attorneys said in a filing last week, "Like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Smith seeks to restrict President Trump’s campaign speech as the first presidential debate approaches at the end of this month," reported CNN.

The amicus brief filed by Bailey and other Republican attorneys general, stressed that fair and free elections "depend on candidates' ability to speak about important issues of the day."

"When agents of one candidate seek a court order to muzzle discussion on matters relating to important electoral issues, that restraint raises even more fundamental First Amendment concerns," continued the brief.

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

Calif. Innocence Project director may have established romance with murderer to free another alleged murderer



The director of a California organization that attempts to help the supposedly wrongfully convicted is now accused of establishing a romantic relationship with one convicted murderer to help free another, according to the San Francisco Standard.

The case

The complicated case relates to two friends who grew up in the projects of San Francisco as well as a woman who died because of a drug deal gone wrong. In 1991, a jury found Maurice Caldwell, a local drug dealer, guilty of fatally shooting the woman, and he was soon afterward locked away in prison.

That same year, Caldwell's childhood friend Marritte Funches, who was allegedly present at the time of the shooting, was convicted of a separate murder in Reno. Funches was then sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

During that time, city attorneys in San Francisco began reinterviewing some of the witnesses identified by Funches and found inconsistencies in their stories. In court documents, they even accused Kaneb of 'manipulating the facts.'

In 2007, 16 years after Caldwell and Funches were convicted of those respective murders, Paige Kaneb joined the Northern California Innocence Project — an organization that is based out of Santa Clara University and is independent of the more widely known Innocence Project established in New York City in 1992 — to advocate on behalf of Caldwell.

Three years later, Kaneb met Funches in the Nevada prison where he was then incarcerated. The two developed a friendship of sorts, and Funches eventually began making suggestive comments to Kaneb in letters and in some of their phone conversations. Kaneb reciprocated some of his romantic overtures, the Standard said, though whether she ever used explicit language with him at that time is unclear.

In 2010, the NCIP was ready to take Caldwell's case to a judge after Kaneb secured statements from several witnesses, including Funches and others identified by him. At the time, Kaneb and Funches reportedly made an agreement that these witnesses could remain anonymous. However, Kaneb then released their names to the public, prompting Funches to end his relationship with her.

The legal ploy worked, though. Funches claimed that he and another associate had killed the woman during the drug deal and that Caldwell was innocent. As a result, a judge granted Caldwell a new trial, determining that he had received inadequate counsel in the original.

In March 2010, Caldwell walked out of prison after serving nearly 19 years. A city attorney later declined to retry him.

Several years later, Caldwell unsuccessfully attempted to have the courts declare him factually innocent. During that time, city attorneys in San Francisco began reinterviewing some of the witnesses identified by Funches and found inconsistencies in their stories. In court documents, they even accused Kaneb of "manipulating the facts."

They also discovered the previous infatuation between Kaneb and Funches and found that Kaneb may have offered Funches legal and medical aid or even passed along money to his daughter. Kaneb later denied rendering him legal aid. She also reportedly insisted that her efforts to help Funches did not cross any ethical lines.

In 2021, even with the inconsistencies in the witnesses' stories and Caldwell's failed attempts to secure legal innocence, San Francisco agreed to pay Caldwell an $8 million settlement.

The flame burns hot once again

In 2023, two years after Caldwell reached the settlement with the city, Kaneb and Funches reconnected, and their romantic relationship rekindled in earnest. Between March and December 2023, the two exchanged nearly 9,000 messages that included videos and pictures.

'I love you too. Always have, always will.'

In one message, Kaneb admitted to Funches that on their first meeting, she was jealous that he seemed to pay more attention to her female colleague. "I wanted you to look at me — I’ve never admitted that before ... I remember when she left for a few minutes. It was like my chest would explode. And we began talking ... ❤" she reportedly wrote.

In his messages, Funches frequently described Kaneb as "beautiful" and claimed he wanted to "protect" her.

"I love you. I always have. Never stopped. Always will," he apparently wrote last July.

"I love you too. Always have, always will," she reportedly replied.

Several weeks later, she sent him a few racy photos. In one, she is wearing a thin wrap. She wrote in the attending message that she had "nothing" on "underneath." He assured her in his reply that his "imagination was going crazy."

Kaneb sent at least one other selfie that suggested she was wearing minimal clothing. She also sent multiple videos that included a virtual kiss, the Standard report shows.

The Standard reviewed many of the former couple's messages as well as many of their recorded phone calls. The outlet claimed these messages and phone calls "corroborate many aspects of Funches’ relationship with Kaneb and the aid he claims Caldwell promised him."

'Your career is done': Apparent blackmail leads to another break-up

Last December, their relationship soured once again after Funches began hinting that Caldwell was actually guilty. "Maurice isn’t everything you think he is," he told Kaneb. Kaneb insisted she believed the case involved "an innocent person."

Funches also allegedly began blackmailing Kaneb, demanding $2 million in exchange for his silence about their relationship. "I recorded every phone call, kept every text. And copies of every video," he allegedly warned her in an email.

"You can try to clean it up. But you'll never practice law again. Your career is done."

Funches then went to the Standard. In statements with the outlet, Funches claimed that he and Caldwell "shot two people" in 1990. He also added that Kaneb engaged with him only so that he would help her on Caldwell's case.

"She pretended to take a personal interest in me. We began a romantic relationship," he wrote to the Standard. "It was the art of seduction at its finest. All to get me to finally help Mr. Caldwell."

Response to the accusations

California law does not expressly prohibit romantic relationships between lawyers and witnesses, but the experts whom the Standard consulted indicated that the courts would've disregarded much of the evidence brought to assist Caldwell, had they known about Kaneb and Funches' communications.

'It’s the most compelling case for innocence that I’ve ever seen.'

An NCIP spokesperson from Santa Clara University countered that Kaneb, who is now the legal director of the NCIP, began sexting Funches only last August, more than a decade after Caldwell was released from prison.

"As with any unit of the university, when we receive any allegations of inappropriate conduct by an employee, we refer the matter to the university for investigation," the spokesperson said. He also claimed that Caldwell's exoneration remains safe.

However, a statement from city prosecutors indicates they are "looking into the matter" as it relates to Caldwell's settlement. "We take this information seriously," the statement said.

Neither Kaneb nor Caldwell responded to the Standard's "repeated" requests for comment.

"Maurice has always proclaimed his innocence," Kaneb said of Caldwell in 2021. "It’s the most compelling case for innocence that I’ve ever seen."

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

Lacrosse coach FIRED for congratulating the ‘real woman who won’



In the name of transgender rights, women’s rights — as well as free speech — continue to take a beating.

The latest blow comes from Oberlin College, where administrators fired Kim Russell from her position as women’s lacrosse coach because she dared to voice the most controversial opinion: that men don’t belong in women’s sports.

In March 2022, Russell had shared an Instagram post congratulating Emma Weyant as the “real woman who won” the NCAA 500-yard freestyle, after Weyant had placed second to Lia Thomas, a man who identifies as a woman.

At the top of the post, Russell left comments: “What do you believe? I can’t be quiet on this…I’ve spent my life playing sports, starting & coaching sports programs for girls & women...”

A student had reported her comments to college authorities, prompting Oberlin’s athletic director to demand that Russell write a letter of apology.

Russell refused.

Pat Gray jokes that Russell is obviously “a danger to society," but Oberlin College isn't joking.

“It’s acceptable to have your own opinions, but when they go against Oberlin College’s beliefs, it’s a problem for your employment,” Creg Jantz, senior associate director of athletics at Oberlin College, reportedly said.

“So you don’t really believe that it is important or acceptable to have your own opinions,” Gray says, calling it “incredible.”


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Stu Burguiere: Trump’s conviction is an example of how to ‘rig a trial’



Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial has been celebrated by leftist politicians and the media all week long.

The New York Times has joined in, with a headline reading: “Trump Convicted on All Counts to Become America’s First Felon President,” while Joe Biden has also begun happily calling his opponent a convicted felon.

Stu Burguiere believes that headline “conveys two possible things.”

“Trump is worse than every other president we’ve ever had. That is one way you can read that headline. Another way you can read that headline is that never before in the history of this great country, over 200 years, has any political party attempted to do this to their opponent,” Stu says.

“The rules were set up against Donald Trump ever getting to a fair trial,” he continues, adding, “The trial itself was a rigging.”

“This was a misdemeanor that was beyond the statute of limitations. That means this is over, right?” he adds. “They went after every little technicality to try to get him to convert this past the statute of limitations and into a felony by charging it in conjunction with another felony.”

“That in and of itself is freaking crazy,” Stu says. “This is how you quote unquote ‘rig a trial.’”

“After all this goes down, they tell the jurors that not only do you not have to convict him on one of these other felonies, you don’t even have to know which one it is. Let me give you a few options and if you disagree on which one it is, well that’s ok too,” Stu continues.

“It’s like me calling into work and saying, ‘Well, I can’t come to work, I’ve got the flu or cancer or leprosy. Pick one.'”


Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump's 'banana republic' conviction won't be Democrats' last — unless there is 'retaliation in kind': UC Berkeley law prof



UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo made clear this week that President Donald Trump's conviction before a Democratic judge in a Democratic enclave on charges brought by a Democratic prosecutor effectively obliterates any remaining pretense that the justice system is a means for resolution and restitution. The courtroom is now instead apparently a vehicle for seeking retribution and political advantage.

With this transformation, Yoo says its high time for "retaliation in kind" by Republican district attorneys.

Ahead of President Donald Trump's conviction, Yoo noted in National Review that it was abundantly clear the hush-money case was built around "farcical charges" and aimed not at delivering justice but at protecting a decrepit Democratic president from facing his top competitor in November.

"The superficiality of the facts and the vagueness of the crimes magnify the harm that Democrats have inflicted on our political norms," wrote the former deputy assistant attorney general. "Make no mistake, Democrats have crossed a constitutional Rubicon."

Yoo issued a note of caution: The "weakness of the case against Trump lowers the bar for prosecuting future presidents below that for prosecuting garden-variety criminals in New York City."

'Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents.'

"Regardless of the trial's outcome, its consequences will have a profound effect on the presidency. The weaker the Trump cases are, the more open the invitation is to future prosecutors of presidents of the opposite party," wrote Yoo. "After this Trump trial, any city, county, or state prosecutor might be encouraged to prosecute any federal officer for conjured violations of a state's criminal law or other patently partisan reasons."

To remedy "this breach of constitutional norms," Yoo indicated that Republicans' only recourse is to observe the Golden rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents."

For instance, a Republican district attorney will have to do the work the Biden Department of Justice appears unwilling or at the very least incapable of doing: Hold Hunter Biden to account for one of his various alleged crimes.

"Another Republican DA will have to investigate Joe Biden for influence-peddling at the behest of a son who received payoffs from abroad," continued Yoo. "Only retaliation in kind can produce the deterrence necessary to enforce a political version of mutual assured destruction; without the threat of prosecution of their own leaders, Democrats will continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint."

"We must rely on Republicans to threaten an escalation of banana-republic politics in order to prevent actually becoming a banana republic," concluded Yoo.

Early in its critique of Yoo's argument, New York magazine admitted that "the Alvin Bragg prosecution is weak. That's not to say Trump is innocent, but that it's a borderline case that did not need to be charged."

Time will tell whether Republican district attorneys will rise to the challenge. In the meantime, several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate have indicated that bipartisanship under the current regime is over.

Republican Sens. Michael S. Lee (Utah), J.D. Vance (Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) issued a statement Friday, noting, "The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways. As a Senate Republican conference, we are unwilling to aid and abet this White House in its project to tear this country apart."

"To this end, we will not 1) allow any increase to non-security related funding for this administration, or any appropriations bill which funds partisan lawfare; 2) vote to confirm this administration's political and judicial appointees; and 3) allow expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people," said the statement.

The original eight invited other senators to join them in taking a stand in the wake of the unprecedented conviction of Biden's political opponent.

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