President Donald Trump acknowledged on Friday that former President Barack Obama is likely to dodge accountability for his role in the Russian collusion hoax on account of the U.S. Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, immunity for official acts ruling in Trump v. United States.
Trump suggested, however, that the high court's ruling "doesn't help the people around him at all" — an allusion to those Obama cabalists who hatched, then perpetuated the Russian collusion hoax on the American people.
The FBI has, for instance, launched a criminal investigation into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey for perjury and potentially other crimes related to the Trump-Russia hoax. Former DNI James Clapper indicated he would "lawyer up" after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard referred damning documents detailing the genesis of the hoax's manufacture under Obama to the Department of Justice.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe hinted Sunday that twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton might also face the music over her apparent hand in what Gabbard has referred to as an alleged "treasonous conspiracy."
Ratcliffe ordered a review in May of the "procedures and analytic tradecraft employed" when drafting the January 2017 intelligence Community Assessment, a document created at Obama's urging that served as the cornerstone of the Russian collusion hoax and set the stage for arrests, impeachments, and years of politically expedient smears.
Late last month, Ratcliffe released the findings of that review, noting that there were "multiple procedural anomalies" in the production of the January 2017 ICA, including "a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads."
RELATED: Declassified report: Obama’s FBI failed to search key evidence in Clinton email probe
The memo noted further that the Obama administration sacrificed analytical soundness in the interest of "narrative consistency."
More has since been revealed about the genesis of the hoax thanks in part to Gabbard's publication of a damning House Intelligence Committee majority staff report.
The previously classified House report confirmed that: the ICA was a work of fiction drawn up by the Obama administration with the aim of kneecapping the democratically elected Republican president; credible evidence available in January 2017 contradicted the narrative advanced in the ICA; and that contrary to Brennan's suggestion in public and sworn testimonies, the Steele dossier — a political opposition research report paid for in part by the Clinton campaign — was included in the ICA.
Ratcliffe suggested on Sunday that additional documents link Clinton to the development of the Russian collusion hoax.
"Part of what came out last week was about how John Brennan, Clapper, Comey, they all pushed the known-fake Steele dossier into intelligence community assessments and as the basis for Crossfire Hurricane and all that," he told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. "But what hasn't come out yet, and what's going to come out, is the underlying intelligence that I have spent the last few months making recommendations about final declassification — and sent that to the Department of Justice. That will come out in the John Durham report classified annex."
'US intelligence intercepted Russian intelligence talking about a Hillary Clinton plan.'
The first Trump DOJ authorized federal prosecutor John Durham in 2019 to explore the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI's investigation into the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
RELATED: If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success
Durham, who was elevated to special counsel in December 2020, found that:
While a 306-page unclassified report detailing these and other conclusions was released in May 2023, there was a 29-page classified appendix that the public never saw.
A White House source confirmed to Blaze News that "the CIA is declassifying that report in the name of transparency."
The CIA director told Bartiromo, "In the summer of 2016, U.S. intelligence intercepted Russian intelligence talking about a Hillary Clinton plan — a Hillary Clinton plan to falsely accuse Donald Trump of Russia collusion; to vilify and smear him with what would become known infamously as the Steele dossier."
'They conspired against the American people.'
"This intelligence was so explosive that John Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, Jim Clapper, James Comey, the entire national security team, telling them about this Hillary Clinton plan," said Ratcliffe. "That was in August of 2016 and yet it wasn't until more than four years later, in October of 2020, when I found after an exhaustive search John Brennan's handwritten notes and the underlying intelligence behind it that revealed exactly what happened."
Rather than expose the "Clinton plan," which is taken up at length in the Durham report, the Obama administration apparently used it as a framework.
RELATED: Over target: Panicked liberal media attacks Gabbard's 'treasonous conspiracy' claim
Citing notes from Brennan, which Ratcliffe declassified in 2020 while serving as DNI, the Durham report indicated that intelligence agencies "obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee."
The report emphasized the Clinton plan intelligence was relevant for two reasons:
According to the Durham report, there was no evidence that the FBI disclosed the contents of the Clinton plan intelligence to the attorneys working on the FISA matters related to Crossfire Hurricane, to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or to numerous individuals working on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Ratcliffe indicated on Sunday that the declassified Durham report appendix will show that "part of this was a Hillary Clinton plan but part of it was an FBI plan to be an accelerant to that fake Steele dossier, to those fake Russia collusion claims by pouring oil on the fire, by amplifying the lie and burying the truth of what Hillary Clinton was up to."
The CIA director noted on Sunday that Clinton, like Brennan and Comey, testified on the subject under oath in recent years, and that "much of that testimony is, frankly, completely inconsistent with what our underlying intelligence that is about to be declassified in the Durham Annex, what that reflects."
Ratcliffe hinted at legal consequences for Clinton, noting, "Pam Bondi does have a strike force. It is a different Department of Justice, a different FBI, and an opportunity to look at how these people really did conspire to run a hoax, a fraud on the American people and against Donald Trump’s presidency."
The Department of Justice declined to comment.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the people that we just talked about conspired. They conspired against President Trump. They conspired against the American people," added Ratcliffe.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — one of the few people in Washington who still seems to believe public service means serving the public — has ignited a political firestorm with her latest move. In a stunning act of transparency and defiance, Gabbard declassified over 100 pages of intelligence documents she claims expose a “treasonous conspiracy” orchestrated by senior Obama-era officials to fabricate the false appearance that Russia helped elect Donald Trump in 2016.
Not only did she release these documents publicly, but she also referred the matter to the FBI and Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Her list of alleged conspirators includes former President Barack Obama, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
If the Justice Department doesn’t act, the deep state will be confirmed — not as a 'conspiracy theory,' but as a fact.
Gabbard says the documents prove what many Americans have suspected for years: The entire Russia collusion narrative was not only false but knowingly manufactured and politically weaponized. She claims the declassified assessments directly contradict the official narrative, showing analysts concluded Russia had neither intent nor capability to sway the election.
Instead, Gabbard says Obama and his top advisers cherry-picked and distorted intelligence to craft a narrative that could undermine Trump’s presidency before it began. That narrative, of course, fueled the Mueller probe, impeachments, FISA warrants, and years of media hysteria.
The significance of Gabbard’s referral can’t be overstated. It’s not just a political gesture — she’s handing real evidence to prosecutors and demanding real consequences. While most of D.C. hides behind process and posturing, Gabbard is doing what Congress refused to do: treat treason like treason.
She’s one of the only officials in Washington doing her job, regardless of party or personality. In Gabbard’s eyes, the rule of law applies to everyone.
Whether the Justice Department takes up the referral remains to be seen. The agency has confirmed receipt and reportedly assembled an internal strike force to assess the claims. That’s a notable development. But considering the department’s track record, expectations remain low. Many believe the department prioritizes preserving the status quo over seeking justice. If past trends hold, the smart money says they’ll delay, deflect, and ultimately decline to prosecute — and that outcome, by itself, would be a great shame.
I stopped by the Morning Glory Café in Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, on Thursday morning and struck up a conversation with the breakfast-counter regulars. Their reactions tell you everything you need to know about where the American people stand.
Betty K., retired schoolteacher: “Tulsi’s actually standing up to the swamp — for once. Americans deserve real justice, not cover-ups.”
Bob H., small-business owner: “If Hillary, Obama, Brennan really did conspire, then yes — charge them. No one can be above the law.”
Cindy M., nurse: “This is gut-wrenching. ... Our intelligence agencies turned on us. Gabbard is the first one who seems to want justice.”
A woman eating beside her husband, who asked to remain unnamed: “People want hangings.”
She didn’t flinch — and neither did anyone else.
RELATED: If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success
If this referral results in prosecutions, the consequences would be seismic: potential prison time, disgrace, and the end of political legacies. More importantly, it would send a chilling message to every bureaucrat and agency head: Abuse of state power and election interference will not be tolerated. It could begin to restore the fractured trust between the American people and their government — with one critical truth: No one, not even a president, is above the law.
If the Justice Department does nothing, then the opposite truth becomes undeniable: that intelligence agencies have become untouchable; that the deep state protects its own; that the law applies only to the powerless.
Our government would be confirmed as a hollow shell, run by unelected bureaucrats and political fixers. We wouldn’t just be losing faith in the republic. We’d be living in a managed illusion, where facts are fungible and truth belongs to whoever controls the narrative.
Americans are fed up. They don’t want another committee. They don’t want another special counsel. They don’t want another round of political theater. They want justice — and they’re not wrong.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. It does not say, “unless your name is Obama.” And yet, here we are, watching the slow-motion erosion of our legal system while those entrusted to defend it look the other way.
Tulsi Gabbard just threw down the gauntlet. Now, we get to see who in this government still has a spine. If the Department of Justice acts, it’s the beginning of a reckoning. If it doesn’t, the deep state will be confirmed — not as a “conspiracy theory,” but as a fact.
And the people? They’ll take that truth with them — to the ballot box, to the streets, and to every café counter in America.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard published a report on Wednesday that appeared to confirm the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference was a work of fiction comprising misquotes, unreliable reports, lies of omissions, and straight-out falsehoods.
Rather than admit fault or come to terms with the role it played in perpetuating an apparent hoax on the American people — one that set the stage for years of Russian-collusion smears, two congressional impeachments, multiple arrests, and greater tensions with a pre-eminent nuclear power — the liberal media is now desperately trying to both downplay the gravity of the newly declassified House Intelligence Committee majority staff report and spin the conclusions therein.
The House Intelligence Committee report is a product of congressional investigators spending over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports, conducting dozens of interviews, and comparing the ICA analytic tradecraft against well-established intelligence reports.
According to the report, the intelligence community had no credible evidence of Russia working to help Trump win.
What's more, the report — which Gabbard indicated provides evidence of a "treasonous conspiracy" — claimed that the ICA, which was released by the Obama administration just weeks before President Donald Trump's inauguration in 2017:
The report also indicates that the Obama administration leaked falsehoods from the ICA to the media, which publications like the Washington Post dutifully printed.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins did her apparent best on Wednesday to distract from the damning contents of the report by making its release about an imagined interpersonal drama between the president and his director of national intelligence.
'Who was saying that?'
Collins suggested in question form that Gabbard was "only releasing these documents now to improve [her] standing with the president after he said that [her] intelligence assessments were wrong," referencing Trump's assertion last month that Gabbard was wrong in suggesting there was no evidence that Iran was constructing a nuclear weapon.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt asked Collins, "Who was saying that?"
Leavitt later added, "The only people who are suggesting that the director of national intelligence would release evidence to try to boost her standing with the president are the people in this room, who constantly try to sow distrust and chaos amongst the president’s Cabinet, and it is not working."
The Washington Post, one of the chief proponents of the Russian collusion narrative, appears to have adopted a different strategy in attacking the report and its credibility.
Earlier in the week, the Post pushed an article asserting that Gabbard's "seditious conspiracy" claim is "based on thin gruel."
The article strategically assigned greater weight to the conclusions of previous investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee's multi-volume report on the ICA, which "found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election," and that "Moscow’s intent was to harm the Clinton campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process."
Sarah Bedford of the Washington Examiner noted that the problem with Democrats and the media using conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee report to contradict the newly declassified House report and Gabbard's corresponding claims is "it's not clear that the Senate had the same level of access to source material" that CIA Director [John Ratcliffe] now has."
"The conclusions about the Steele dossier not being a significant source for the ICA and about the CIA not wanting it included, for example, appear to come from interviews," continued Bedford. "Brennan just denied again that he wanted it in the ICA when the committee interviewed him in 2018. But Ratcliffe's memo is based on actual emails from 2016, which tell a completely different story."
Bedford was referencing the declassified memo released last month by Ratcliffe, which criticized the 2017 ICA and identified "multiple procedural anomalies" in its preparation.
— (@)
The Associated Press effectively told its readers not to believe their lying eyes in an article titled "Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents."
RELATED: If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success
Like the Post, the AP leaned on the Senate Intelligence Committee's report to suggest there were no politically motivated aspects in the Obama administration's assessments, but it also refuted arguments that Gabbard did not appear to be making.
Gabbard told Fox News that there "was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community’s assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously."
Gabbard was referencing how the ICA concluded in early January 2017 that Russia was trying to boost Trump — yet just weeks earlier, the FBI's director of counterintelligence and the DNI's national intelligence officer made no such claim in their briefing to Congress on Vladimir Putin's supposed leak operations.
The AP insinuated, however, that Gabbard was alternatively referring to the intelligence community's consistent view that there were Russian efforts to manipulate the vote count and concluded "there was no shift."
Despite the article's framing, the AP acknowledged that "the material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S."; however, the AP suggested that the dissent detailed in the House report was business as usual and glossed over the fact that the debate concerned violations of analytic tradecraft standards and the inclusion of unreliable or false information.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed evidence that the entire Russiagate hoax — a scheme to derail President Donald Trump’s first term — was manufactured by the outgoing Obama administration. At a press gaggle on Tuesday, Trump followed up by accusing Obama of “treason” for trying to rig the 2016 election and calling for severe consequences.
These revelations matter. But unless someone actually goes to jail, they won’t change anything.
MAGA supporters were furious over how the Epstein case was handled because they’re sick of elites skating free.
Democrats have shown they’re willing to jail political opponents — up to and including the president himself. Republicans, on the other hand, have proven utterly incapable of holding lawbreaking leftists accountable. Exposing treasonous acts is helpful, but if no one is punished, the corruption only deepens.
“Lock her up!” wasn’t just a chant at Trump rallies. MAGA supporters understood that the Clintons were deeply corrupt. They saw in Trump a candidate who might finally deliver justice. Elites gasped at the slogan, warning about the dangers of weaponizing the justice system. Then, with no sense of irony, they weaponized that very system against Trump to stop his re-election.
The lesson should have been obvious: Either cross the Rubicon, or don’t approach it at all. But don’t go fishing in it.
Americans are tired of watching the powerful get away with everything. In 2008, bankers crashed the economy and got bailed out. In 2020, Anthony Fauci and the biomedical regime imposed tyranny under the guise of public health. In 2020 and 2024, Joe Biden was propped up by a Democratic cabal that subverted the Constitution and jailed dissidents. The southern border was thrown open to reshape the electorate and lock in leftist power.
Kamala Harris nearly extended that reign — had she not turned out to be the dumbest, most tone-deaf, and most unlikable candidate ever smuggled onto a national ticket.
Yet through all of it, no one in power has paid a serious price for their crimes.
Major revelations come and go. But with no accountability, they become little more than distractions. There may have been a time when shame alone could bring a public reckoning — but our current ruling class is incapable of shame. They don’t resign in disgrace. They don’t retreat. They wait for the news cycle to move on.
The scandals pile up like grains of sand in a desert, each one indistinguishable from the next.
RELATED: Rule by the people? Not anymore in the Western world
In this environment, exposing corruption becomes just another way to tranquilize the public. People think, “At least the truth is out there — maybe voters will care.” But what if the scandal is about rigging the vote in the first place? If Democrats can open the border, fabricate intelligence, and collude with media to tip elections, then what good is the ballot box?
Exposure, without punishment, doesn’t deter. It emboldens.
The left doesn’t hesitate to jail its enemies. January 6 protesters were locked up for years — including some who never entered the Capitol. Trump officials like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were arrested and imprisoned. Pro-life activists got comically inflated sentences for silent protests. The FBI threatened parents who challenged school boards. Douglass Mackey was convicted for making memes. Trump himself faced fabricated charges that could’ve put him behind bars for life — all to stop his return.
So why are Republicans so cowardly?
If what Gabbard alleges is true, then Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe conspired to destroy the American electoral system. They manufactured intelligence for the express purpose of overturning a legitimate election.
That is treason, plain and simple.
If these people are allowed to walk, they’ll know they’re untouchable. And they’ll act like it. Again.
Trump seemed genuinely surprised and angered by the backlash to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files. Some speculated it was because Trump himself was implicated, but that was always unlikely. If real dirt on Trump existed, the people fabricating charges against him would’ve used it. Instead, Trump kept comparing Epstein to Russiagate — and now it’s obvious why.
RELATED: Why the Epstein story cannot be buried
He knew the Russiagate disclosures were about to drop and didn’t want them overshadowed by Epstein.
Still, the connection matters.
MAGA supporters were furious over how the Epstein case was handled because they’re sick of elites skating free. They’re sick of being ruled by people who break the law with impunity. Fauci. Epstein. The Clintons. Americans know they’re governed by some of the worst people on the planet, and they’re done pretending otherwise.
The country is crying out for justice.
But frankly, I don’t think the Trump administration will deliver it. I hope I’m wrong. But I doubt there will be any serious action taken against Obama or the rest of his old guard. Republicans talk tough but never follow through. Even after the left tried to jail and then attempted to assassinate the president, the GOP still wrings its hands over setting a bad precedent.
It’s a bad joke. And everyone knows it.
Revelations are fine. But none of this will matter until the Trump administration grows a spine and puts these people in prison where they belong.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment regarding imagined Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election set the stage for years of Russian-collusion smears, two congressional impeachments, multiple arrests, and a costly years-long investigation. It also helped further sour the relationship between the world's top two nuclear powers.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard published on Wednesday an eye-opening House Intelligence Committee majority staff report, which confirms the ICA was a work of fiction drawn up by the Obama administration with the aim of kneecapping the democratically elected Republican president — a fiction that Democrats like Sen. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and their friends in the liberal media were more than happy to treat as gospel truth.
Gabbard told reporters during Wednesday's White House press briefing that she has referred the documents to the Department of Justice and FBI so that they can "investigate the criminal implications."
Gabbard noted that the newly declassified report "exposes how the Obama Administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false, promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election."
"In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people, working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him," the director added.
Gabbard certainly did not oversell the damning nature of the report and its findings.
After comparing the ICA analytic tradecraft against well-established intelligence community standards, spending over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports, and conducting numerous interviews, congressional investigators concluded that the Obama administration's assessment:
The disparity between the raw intelligence available to the Obama administration at the time and what was ultimately presented in the ICA is jarring.
For instance, the 2017 assessment stated: "As early as February 2016, a Russian political expert possessed a plan that recommended engagement with [Trump's] team because of the prospects for improved U.S.-Russian relations, according to reporting from [redacted] government service."
'Critical information that undermined source credibility and veracity of key reporting was omitted from both the ICA text and the subsequent briefings.'
The ICA failed to mention that this supposed plan "was just an email with no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification."
The relevant raw intelligence came with this context warning: "The CIA can neither independently vouch for [redacted] vetting or validation of the ultimate source nor the ultimate source's access to the reported information. The document contains no classification. The document did not carry a specific date or identify the originator."
— (@)
The Obama administration was evidently so desperate to paint Trump as Putin's man that they apparently neglected to mention that:
"Significant reports cited in support of judgments of Putin's intentions were not quoted accurately, were not quoted in context, or were selectively quoted to omit evidence that undermined ICA major judgments," the report said. "Moreover, critical information that undermined source credibility and veracity of key reporting was omitted from both the ICA text and the subsequent briefings of the document to the President-elect, the U.S. Congress, and the White House staff."
Congressional investigators found some of the apparent lies of omission and flat-out lies in the ICA particularly egregious.
The report noted that in the case of the Steele dossier, the ICA "claimed the source 'collected this information on behalf of private clients' while failing to note those clients — the DNC and the Clinton campaign — were Candidate Trump's political opponents, information known to the FBI at the time."
In addition to this intentional omission "based on analysis of the testimony of Steele's FBI handler, Fusion GPS officials, and media exposures of the relationship," the ICA "also excluded that the political messaging firm that hired the dossier author, Fusion GPS, was also working on behalf of Russian interests to uncover information that was shared with the Kremlin, raising serious counterintelligence concerns over possible Russian influence on the dossier," the report said.
'To this day, our country is more polarized than ever before, and the Russia hoax played a role in that.'
In early December 2016, the FBI's director of counterintelligence and the DNI's national intelligence officer for Russia briefed Congress on Putin's supposed leak operations but made no mention of the foreign leader aspiring to elect Trump. However, Obama weighed in on Dec. 6, 2016, reportedly ordering a rewrite of the intelligence community's assessments.
A month later, Obama's underlings allegedly came up with a product Democrats would exploit nearly a decade.
Had Trump not retaken the White House, such findings may have never come to light, which might explain the fanatic support for Kamala Harris expressed by some of those implicated in the documents.
Gabbard, who underscored during the White House press conference the leading role former President Barack Obama took in this alleged "treasonous conspiracy," emphasized on X that "the Russia Hoax was a lie that was knowingly created by the Obama Administration to undermine the legitimacy and power of the duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump."
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), who is the current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in response to the report, "The Russia hoax will go down as one of the most troublesome events in U.S. history."
"A President of the United States was falsely accused, and a nation had to endure lies fabricated by rogue personnel within their own Intelligence Community," continued Crawford. "To this day, our country is more polarized than ever before, and the Russia hoax played a role in that."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Since the 1990s, federal agencies and the media have fed Americans a steady diet of panic about shadowy “right-wing militias” — usually ex-military guys obsessed with guns and ready to wage war against the government at a moment’s notice.
The panic went into overdrive after January 6, 2021. But now, in a staggering act of projection, the threat they’ve spent decades warning about has arrived — only it’s coming from the radical left. And still, the feds insist on looking the wrong way.
Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.
Despite years of breathless rhetoric, the supposed wave of “right-wing terrorism” never materialized. Jan. 6 was a chaotic security failure, not an insurrection. Most of the defendants were unarmed. Many walked through open rope lines. And yet the regime has used that day to smear millions of Americans and justify years of political prosecutions.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently called Jan. 6 “the culmination of a sustained effort to undermine our democracy.” But what sustained effort? Four years later, no mass violence, no uprisings. Nothing at all.
Now, compare that to what we’re seeing from the radical left.
After months of threatening Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Antifa terrorists launched a coordinated attack on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. This wasn’t a protest gone wrong. This was a planned ambush.
At least 11 people, dressed in black tactical gear, carried out the assault. First, they fired fireworks at the building, vandalized security cameras, and sprayed graffiti, including “ICE pig,” “traitor,” and other profanities on vehicles. The goal was to draw agents outside.
When two unarmed officers responded, one assailant opened fire from nearby woods, shooting a police officer in the neck. Another attacker, wearing a green mask, sprayed 20 to 30 rounds at the agents.
Authorities arrested 11 suspects. Ten were charged with attempted murder of a federal officer and firearms charges. One was charged with obstruction of justice. Police recovered AR-style rifles (one jammed), body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, radios, and Faraday bags to block phone signals.
Andy Ngo linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in Dallas-Fort Worth. It’s a miracle they failed. But what should alarm us is their level of funding, coordination, and willingness to kill.
On Thursday, during a raid in Camarillo, California, ICE agents again came under fire. There's a pattern forming, and it isn’t isolated.
The same ideology — radical leftism, anti-Americanism, Marxism, anti-Zionism — is fueling a wave of political violence that dwarfs anything seen on the right. Consider the past eight months:
Not all these incidents were organized by the same groups. But together, they show a dangerous trend: increasing sophistication, coordination, and lethality among left-wing militants.
This isn’t just protest culture gone too far. It’s a movement gearing up for war. They’re training. They’re arming. They’re radicalizing online and in activist spaces. And while conservatives have long viewed themselves as the only side armed, that’s no longer true.
Groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the John Brown Gun Club are producing radicals like Benjamin Song, a former Marine and the suspected ringleader of the July 4 ICE ambush.
Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.
Step one: Designate Antifa and its associated groups as domestic terrorist organizations. Trace their funding. Investigate every affiliated cell, especially those connected to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Step two: Ramp up law enforcement. Federal agents need to respond to ICE attacks with overwhelming force. Nonlethal crowd control won’t cut it.
Step three: Empower states. Legislatures should pass laws imposing serious penalties on those who interfere with immigration enforcement. If the feds won’t punish them, the states must.
Step four: Citizens must get serious. Stay armed. Stay trained. Sheriffs should follow the lead of Pinal County’s Mark Lamb and form citizen posses. It’s past time for more robust local defense.
For years, the corporate media and activist left warned you about “armed insurrectionists.” They told you the militia movement was coming. They said America would face domestic political terror.
Well, they were right.
But it wasn’t coming from where they said. It was coming from them.
Despite delays in mass layoffs ordered by a Clinton judge, the Trump administration has already managed some significant housecleaning at the U.S. State Department.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has, for instance, fired scores of contractors who supposedly worked abroad building up civil society and democratic practices, and shuttered the rebrand of both the censorious Global Engagement Center and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
These actions, coupled with Rubio's plan to can thousands of State Department employees, have enraged all the right people — including the Democratic lawmakers in Congress who claimed in a June 27 letter that large-scale reductions in force of America's diplomatic workforce would "leave the U.S. with limited tools to engage as a leader on the world stage during this critical juncture."
It appears that the changes have angered bad actors besides those in Congress — some of whom intend to respond with something more serious than sternly written letters.
'They've done a very foolish thing.'
A number of anonymous former USAID and State Department officials recently told the Allbritton Journalism Institute's publication NOTUS about their plans to undermine the Trump administration.
While it largely sounds like a revival of the "resistance" that undermined the first Trump administration, this group of would-be saboteurs appears keen on using nation-destabilizing tactics practiced abroad on their own government.
RELATED: 'Nothing to be proud of': State Department spits on USAID's grave following Bono, Obama eulogies
According to NOTUS, some jilted establishmentarians who were previously "stationed across the globe actively supporting opposition movements in autocratic nations" are now building a network of federal workers who are "willing to engage in even minor acts of rebellion in the office" — what BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre and other critics have alternatively characterized as "treason."
"They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions," a currently employed federal official told NOTUS. "But they've done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the office, it might have been safer to keep your regime."
Color revolutions — such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes.
Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, color revolutionaries were afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by nongovernmental organizations.
The Washington Post's David Ignatius described such efforts plainly in a 1991 column about successful efforts undertaken at the time in Russia, noting that instead of engaging in Cold War-style covert operations, overt operatives "have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private — providing money and moral support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist rule."
Although the current Republican administration was given a clear mandate by the American people to rule, it may have repeated the error made by other sovereign governments targeted by color revolutions: Its agenda is not aligned with that of a clique of unelected bureaucrats in the District of Columbia.
RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class
Those now plotting against the American government were once paid by the federal government to push Latin American militants to overthrow supposed dictators and to support African secessionist movements. They also apparently helped kick off "an ultimately successful uprising in the Middle East," according to the NOTUS report.
It's unclear whether that "successful" Middle Eastern uprising is the same one that resulted in both a civil war that claimed the lives of over 600,000 people and Islamic terrorists running Syria.
'Today it starts with four, but tomorrow it's 10.'
Former State Department officials told NOTUS that they are holding "noncooperation" training sessions, attempting to set the stage for a nationwide general strike, and circulating copies of the CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual, which notes that "acts of simple sabotage, multiplied by thousands of citizen-saboteurs, can be an effective weapon against the enemy" and will "demoralize enemy administrators."
The manual provides tips for interfering with organizations and productions, such as bringing up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible; haggling over the precise wordings of communications, minutes, and resolutions; advocating caution and generally slowing down processes by any means; demanding written orders; deliberately misunderstanding orders; waiting until current stocks of necessary materials are exhausted before ordering new materials; giving incomplete or misleading instructions to new workers; and holding "conferences when there is more critical work to be done."
Rosarie Tucci, the former deputy assistant administrator of the now extinct USAID Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, is apparently operating "in this space," co-leading a group called DemocracyAID with fellow USAID alumna Denielle Reiff. Their group is reportedly running workshops with those still employed by the federal government.
"The whole point of it is to start off slow," Tucci told NOTUS. "You're building up that muscle and that bravery, and you're building up your numbers. Today it starts with four, but tomorrow it's 10. We're helping them understand that is the organizing, and that is the process to get to a massive strike."
Blaze News has reached out to the State Department for comment.
White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to Blaze News, "It is inherently undemocratic for unelected bureaucrats to undermine the duly elected President of the United States and the agenda he was given a mandate to implement."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
John Adams believed America’s independence should be marked with “pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations.” He got his wish. Within a year of the Declaration’s signing on July 4, 1776, celebrations had become a colonies-wide tradition.
The reaction across the Atlantic, however, struck a very different tone.
This wasn’t just about taxes or trade policy. It was about the belief that free men could govern themselves.
The British response was not stunned disbelief or deep introspection. It was mockery — and, ultimately, a grave miscalculation.
The war didn’t begin with the Declaration. A year earlier, in August 1775, King George III had already issued a Proclamation of Rebellion. The crown had stopped viewing the dispute as a matter of political redress. It now saw open revolt.
But the Declaration shifted the terms. What landed in London by mid-August 1776 wasn’t a petition or compromise. It was a bold, philosophical argument for national divorce. In British eyes, it was treason.
British newspapers published the Declaration widely. The London Chronicle printed it, along with other major papers. But few took it seriously. To them, it was just another provocation from unruly colonials.
The elite mocked Thomas Jefferson’s talk of “unalienable rights.” Gen. William Howe, sent to crush the rebellion, called the Declaration “extravagant and inadmissible.” The British state responded accordingly.
RELATED: July 4 exclusive: What we love about America
Within weeks, more than 32,000 British troops — including 8,000 German mercenaries — sailed into New York Harbor. It was the largest overseas force Britain had ever fielded. Howe aimed to stamp out the uprising before year’s end.
The campaign nearly succeeded.
George Washington’s army suffered defeat after defeat, narrowly escaping destruction on Long Island. By autumn, the American position looked hopeless.
But while Britain saw a dying rebellion, France saw a chance to strike.
Even before 1776, French agents had begun quietly arming the colonists. The Declaration gave them a pretext to go farther. Though Louis XVI had no love for democracy, he did have a long memory — and Britain’s victory in the Seven Years’ War had come at France’s expense.
With the Declaration in hand, France could cloak strategic revenge in the language of liberty.
Formal recognition wouldn’t come until 1778, but the shift had begun. French arms, cash, and eventually troops transformed the conflict. What began as a colonial revolt became an international war.
Back in London, the American cause began to attract sympathy in Parliament.
In 1777, future British Prime Minister William Pitt took to the House of Lords to warn his colleagues: “You cannot conquer" America.
He was right.
What Britain failed to grasp was that America hadn’t simply declared independence. It had declared a new theory of government: one grounded in consent, not inheritance.
The crown mistook revolutionary conviction for rhetorical flourish. Britain's government believed the colonists would fold in the face of overwhelming force. But this wasn’t just about taxes or trade policy. It was about the belief that free men could govern themselves.
Ideas like that can stand up to empires — even the most powerful in the world.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe indicated that it may not be too late to prosecute players in the Russia collusion hoax on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. “There is no doubt in my mind that the people that we just talked about conspired. They conspired against President Trump, they conspired against the American people. … […]
"When you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document... [it] can only be described as a years long cue and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our Republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump's administration," she said.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com