GOP saboteurs join Democrats to derail Trump’s justice agenda



One of the biggest political fights of Donald Trump’s early second term just ended — and not in his favor.

The country didn’t rally behind Ed Martin, the president’s nominee for U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., because of his résumé. And the fight was never about Martin alone. It was about the first real clash between two irreconcilable political forces that had managed a brief post-election détente.

The Senate took its first scalp — and it was a big one.

After Trump’s big victory, most of his Cabinet picks cleared the Senate with some turbulence but no real roadblocks — except for Matt Gaetz at the Justice Department. That era just ended. The honeymoon is over.

After weeks of public drama, the Senate — with Republican help — forced Trump to pull Martin. Trump reassigned him to duties inside the Justice Department that don’t require Senate confirmation. He named Judge Jeanine Pirro in Martin’s place, a figure seemingly more palatable to senators who either opposed Martin outright or refused to defend him. The administration cast this as a “double down.” In reality, the Senate won.

The consequences go far beyond who runs the D.C. office. Martin’s defeat sends a clear message: The Senate will challenge Trump’s ability to govern. That includes the looming budget reconciliation battle, judicial confirmations, and the future of the America First movement.

Traitorous Thom Tillis

With no filibuster-proof majority, Trump’s window to act remains narrow — and shrinking.

Martin’s supporters and opponents split along familiar lines. On one side stood the Democrats: Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Sen. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), and House attack dog Jamie Raskin (Md.). They had help from establishment Republicans and anti-Trump legal elites. Senator Thom Tillis led the GOP sabotage effort, backed quietly by the Wall Street Journal editorial board and the usual anonymous gang of Republican senators who prefer to knife the president in private.

On the other side stood Trump, his team, and a bloc of loyal senators including Mike Lee (Utah), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), and Rand Paul (Ky.). Law enforcement organizations backed Martin, as did nearly every Republican state attorney general (except three) and Jewish leaders who stood up for him after a failed smear campaign falsely branding him anti-Semitic. Martin had prosecuted Hamas — unlike his Biden-era predecessor.

This was more than a nomination fight. It was a battle between the GOP’s old guard and its future. The result will shape whether Trump can deliver on his second-term agenda — or get strangled by the same Beltway forces that worked to undermine his first.

The calendar never favored Martin. His 120-day term would expire May 20. For a confirmation to happen, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) needed to notice a hearing by Monday, move him out of committee by Thursday, and schedule a floor vote by May 19. Tillis waited until the last minute to air his “concerns” — and only met with Martin that Monday.

The meeting reportedly turned hostile, with Tillis mocking the death of Ashli Babbitt. Grassley then declined to notice Martin’s hearing. The swamp knew exactly what it was doing. With the clock running, Martin’s nomination began to wither.

Lukewarm Republicans had always hoped for this outcome: let Martin “time out” without casting a vote. But grassroots support surged, and the base refused to stay quiet. The plan collapsed. To avoid giving Judge James Boasberg the power to name a successor, Trump replaced Martin himself.

Protecting ‘norms’? Not exactly

Democrats played this masterfully. Schumer, Durbin, and Schiff funneled opposition research to legacy media and pliable Republicans. The smears didn’t stick — neither the false anti-Semitism claims nor the soft attacks on Martin’s legal ethics — but the damage was done. “Controversial” became the tag.

Democrats understood the moment. Post-Cabinet, pre-reconciliation, and perfectly timed to fracture the Senate GOP. They sent Martin 561 written questions — more than some Supreme Court nominees get — and then whined to the press when they didn’t like his answers. They told Republicans to protect Senate “norms.” And like clockwork, some did.

Many of these same Republicans voted without hesitation for Biden’s most extreme picks during the last evenly divided Senate. Back then, they claimed to defend “institutional norms.” Now, they enable Democrats to shred them.

Democrats knew the political impact of blocking a president’s U.S. attorney pick for D.C. It’s usually a voice vote. Martin’s predecessor, Matthew Graves, coasted through. So did Eric Holder under Bill Clinton. Blocking Martin wasn’t normal — it was a deliberate strike.

What happens next will determine whether the Senate helps or hinders Trump’s agenda. If Tillis emerges stronger from this, Republicans will reward a man openly working against the president. He’s up for re-election, most likely facing former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D), and faces no GOP primary challenge. If he keeps swinging left, he could stall confirmations for judges and Justice officials and block efforts to fight the lawfare campaign against Trump.

That this situation is even possible shows how broken the Republican Senate remains. No one worries that a Democrat would do this. Remember: Even Joe Manchin, the so-called “independent,” voted to protect Biden Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas from impeachment — just to spare fellow Democrats from a tough vote.

Patriots who backed Martin must recognize the cost of this defeat. The Senate took its first scalp. The White House swapped staffers. But the message was unmistakable: Sabotage works.

If the America First movement fails to hold the saboteurs accountable — and simply moves on — the Senate will do this again. And again. Until nothing of the agenda remains.

We can’t let that happen.

Inside Trump’s plan to make the FBI great again



From its founding more than a century ago, the FBI has been regarded as the premier law enforcement agency in the world. But during my time as an acting section chief at FBI headquarters, I saw firsthand how the bureau lost its way over the past four years, weaponizing against law-abiding American citizens solely based on their politics.

Now, with President Donald Trump’s return to the White House and a new FBI director in charge, the bureau has a chance to reclaim its legacy. Here’s how.

Kash Patel’s focus on getting back to basics and focusing on the mission is exactly what the FBI needs.

Under Joe Biden, FBI leadership turned the bureau into a political weapon, sacrificing public safety in the process. Top officials redirected personnel and resources away from genuine threats, including foreign terrorism and Chinese espionage, and toward prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants.

While violent crime surged across the country, the FBI prioritized ideological targets. Agents scrutinized traditional Catholic services, harassed parents who spoke out at local school board meetings, and carried out Attorney General Merrick Garland’s unprecedented order to raid President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago.

No more waste

Most FBI employees serve the public with integrity. But Director Kash Patel needs to act swiftly to fire the bad actors who damaged the bureau’s credibility in recent years. He should also dismiss any career personnel who resist or slow-roll President Trump’s tough-on-crime agenda.

The Department of Government Efficiency is reviewing every agency to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse — and it must make a long stop at the Hoover Building. Patel should cut unnecessary travel and rein in wasteful spending, especially inflated payments to confidential human sources.

The bureau — or the DOGE — should also conduct a full audit of contracts with outside organizations, just as other agencies have already begun to do.

Get out of DC

But more than just overspending on unnecessary travel, the FBI can be reorganized to promote more efficiency — not just for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars, but for the sake of ensuring speed and effectiveness in enforcing the law. For instance, the Bureau could easily do without the intelligence branch and merge its personnel and mission into other FBI units.

The FBI is not an intelligence agency. It is, rather, a law enforcement agency that uses intelligence. The bureau should not try to be a domestic version of the CIA.

Any reorganization should also move FBI headquarters out of Washington, D.C. Right now, about one-third of FBI personnel work in the Washington area. That’s a terrible idea.

Threats to our country are not concentrated in and around the District of Columbia. FBI headquarters should be moved to Huntsville, Alabama, Quantico, Virginia, or to other established FBI locations outside the Beltway. This would save taxpayer money, refresh the culture at the bureau, and enhance the quality of life for FBI personnel and their families.

Revive merit-based hiring

For future hiring and recruitment, Patel should ensure the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the bureau and reinstate merit-based hiring. The bureau’s DEI office was shut down after President Trump’s election in November, but Patel must make sure that the diversity scourge does not return under a different name.

We need the best and the brightest at the FBI — regardless of what they look like — so that they can protect every American of every race, color, and creed.

Director Patel has already brought about a sea change at the bureau. Applications for new agents are breaking records, signaling renewed public trust in the bureau. a The FBI has already apprehended three of the top 10 most wanted criminals in just three months — after finding zero in total last year. The FBI has also brought to justice one of the terrorists who killed 13 Americans during President Biden’s abandonment of Afghanistan.

These results show that Patel’s focus on getting back to basics and focusing on the mission is exactly what the FBI needs.

The road ahead

More work remains — not just over the next four years, but well beyond. Long-term reform requires congressional action. Lawmakers must strengthen legal penalties for FBI employees who abuse their positions, whether for personal gain or to serve a political agenda.

Congress also has a duty to impose serious oversight. Without it, the bureau will repeat the abuses of the recent past.

The FBI remains one of America’s most powerful institutions, with a long record of service and sacrifice. With strong leadership and sound policy, it can rebuild trust — and become better than ever.

Why I trust Dan Bongino — no matter our differences



Dan Bongino and I have been business partners since 2020. We have worked closely together, especially during 2020. I have had the opportunity to know Dan in a way not many others have. He and I are frequently not ideologically aligned, so I am not writing this from a perspective that we are ideological kinsmen. We are not.

Dan keeps his word in a world where not enough people do.

I can, however, tell you about Dan the business partner. Dan always kept his word. Always. Dan always put the needs of the business first and never brought an ego to the table. He knew his strengths and cooperated with everyone. He was the ultimate team player. Dan believes in the Constitution. Dan believes in duty. Dan believes in fairness. Dan has never judged anyone because of ideology. He is passionate about his own. As I am about mine.

I trust Dan Bongino. I trust his fairness. I trust he understands the duties involved in whatever he does. I trust his sense of integrity. Everyone enters public office with a set of ideological beliefs and preferences. The question is whether they understand that when entering public office, with power comes responsibility and to mete out justice fairly and neutrally. Dan understands the sanctity of the oath of office and the solemnity of those words.

Whatever Dan’s personal beliefs are, I trust without hesitation that Dan will act with fidelity to the oath of office he takes. Dan keeps his word in a world where not enough people do.

Bondi has the power to take down Goliath — will she use it?



I spent 20 years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia, including 12 years as U.S. attorney from 1981 to 1993. During that time, I worked with five attorneys general across President Reagan’s two terms and President George H.W. Bush’s term. I also spent an additional six months working with the Clinton administration.

When I was first named U.S. attorney, the situation was very different. However, many of the challenges recently confirmed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi will face in Washington, D.C. — including issues related to drugs, organized crime, and immigration — are similar to those I confronted during my tenure. For instance, we dealt with the invasion of Jamaican criminal “posses” in cities across the country, including Martinsburg, West Virginia. Today, the United States faces a comparable threat from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

America has spoken. Now, Pam Bondi must answer the call by reshaping the Department of Justice into a David willing to take on Goliath, rather than a Goliath victimizing countless Davids.

Maybe times haven’t changed as much as we think.

During my time as U.S. attorney, I pioneered the use of multi-jurisdictional task forces. These teams, composed of federal, state, and local law enforcement, worked together to take down criminals who had previously been untouchable. For Bondi, building and maintaining that kind of interdepartmental cooperation and communication is crucial — especially with the Trump administration’s focus on addressing illegal immigration. The more local and state law enforcement officials she enlists, the smoother the process will be. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true.

I also strongly advise the attorney general not only to allow but also to encourage each individual U.S. attorney’s office across the country to operate independently, without fear of reprisal or interference.

The best attorney general I ever worked under was Ed Meese. He gave us the freedom to pursue the cases and criminals we deemed most important. He never imposed marching orders or pushed us to follow any agenda other than what was best for our districts. U.S. attorneys excel when they pursue their own agendas.

I would urge Bondi to continue her efforts in the vigorous fight against the opioid epidemic. This crisis continues to devastate thousands of lives across the country every year. Recognizing the urgent need for action, Bondi’s efforts in Florida led to substantial settlements that provided much-needed resources for addiction treatment and prevention programs, including medication-assisted treatment. We need that same approach on the national level. I can think of no one better equipped to lead the charge in winning the war on drugs than this administration, with Pam Bondi at the helm.

I also hope Bondi prioritizes the fight against human trafficking nationwide, as she did in Florida. The initiatives she championed in the Sunshine State — increasing awareness, improving victim services, and enhancing law enforcement’s ability to combat trafficking — should be emulated across the country.

Similarly, her work in Florida against mortgage and financial fraud is just as important on a national scale. Her dedication to consumer rights and commitment to holding powerful entities accountable is more critical now than ever, especially after four years of misguided policies.

Most importantly, we must rely on Bondi to avoid the judicial overreach of her predecessor, Merrick Garland, who allowed special counsel Jack Smith to run roughshod over the Department of Justice. Independence should not have meant that Smith could disregard traditional judicial norms and practices, undermining the very system he was supposed to uphold while investigating former President Trump.

America has spoken. Now, Pam Bondi must answer the call by reshaping the Department of Justice into a David willing to take on Goliath, rather than a Goliath victimizing countless Davids. And she will have more than just a slingshot at her disposal to achieve victory.

Rubio to Latin America: No more US dollars for lawfare



Over the last four years, America has watched as the Biden administration engineered a campaign of lawfare against Biden's political opponents. Fortunately, President Donald Trump was elected with an overwhelming mandate to end the weaponization of the federal government.

In his inauguration speech, President Trump promised, “Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents,”and within hisfirst 24 hours in office, he delivered. The executive order titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government” directed his new administration to review the activities of all federal agencies and ensure that federal programs are reoriented to follow the rule of law instead of inflicting political pain.

The United States has a new leader, and we will no longer tolerate the corruption festering just beyond our borders.

This is a critical step, but the administration must set its gaze on how Biden’s lawfare and corruption extend far beyond our borders and have been exported internationally as well. Foreign assistance managed by the State Department is ground zero.

Thankfully, Trump signed another order that calls for an immediate 90-day pause in U.S. foreign aid while the administration undergoes a thorough review of all assistance programs. But officials are not going to like what they find.

Throughout the world, American taxpayer dollars are being routed toward programs that export Biden’s lawfare overseas through groups like the Judicial Studies Institute. The brainchild of Democratic Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, the JSI is the chief propaganda facility that trains hundreds of judges from dozens of countries in Latin America.

Funding for the program comes from the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, which oversees nearly $1.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars appropriated for foreign assistance. INL’s funding is then routed to the Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training, which in turn runs the JSI in coordination with the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan. But a 2019 inventory of inter-government programs lists OPDAT’s total funding at more than $20 million through “interagency transfers,” meaning none of it was appropriated by Congress and raising serious questions about oversight and accountability.

While Merrick Garland’s Justice Department ran a School of the Americas in Puerto Rico, Justice Sotomayor herself continues to regularly address JSI conference participants and has lauded the program for its role in “transforming Latin American justice.” And transform Latin American justice it has.

One needs only to take a cursory look at which countries have sent judges to participate in JSI training to see how Biden’s lawfare is taught and then implemented.

Colombia — which is no stranger to using the American court system for lawfare — sent its jurists to learn at the JSI before returning home to do the bidding of leftist President Gustavo Petro. So has the Dominican Republic. With the Dominican's proximity to San Juan, it’s no surprise that hundreds of Dominican jurists are regularly among the converts at the JSI.

The Biden administration previously praised the Dominican Republic as a “democratic bright spot” for “combatting corruption” and sent senior administration officials to visit with President Luis Abinader. Yet since he’s come into office, Abinader has instigated five investigations under the guise of “anti-corruption” that have all targeted the opposition party.

Of course, none of these investigations have produced any convictions. Instead, Abinader’s goons — with the JSI’s support — have been waging a campaign of lawfare against his political opponents. Naturally, though, none of Abinader’s allies faced any similar level of scrutiny, even though Biden’s own Justice Department indicted his deputy for trafficking heroin.

JSI graduates also hail from Honduras. This is similarly fitting since Honduran President Xiomara Castro, like Abinader, has targeted her opponents under the guise of anti-corruption while she herself is tied to the country’s criminal networks. Yet again, Biden turned a blind eye — sending Vice President Kamala Harris for a visit — while Castro circumvented the rule of law to unilaterally handpick the nation’s attorney general.

Enough is enough. Abinader is no friend of the United States.

The decision by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt funding of this program is prudent, and he has the opportunity to end the JSI completely. Furthermore, his trip to the region this week sends a message to leaders like Abinader: It’s time to end the weaponization of the state against your political opponents.

The pause on foreign assistance is just the beginning. The United States has a new leader, and we will no longer tolerate the corruption festering just beyond our borders. As we right the ship in America, it’s high time for our neighbors to clean up their act as well.

Why some senators are so afraid of confirming Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard



For years, the FBI and CIA have run Congress like an op. Forget the “secret squirrel” stuff. Many of their top officials have committed felonies in broad daylight with no accountability. By nominating Kash Patel as FBI director and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, President Donald Trump intends to change all that.

The shrill opposition to having tough, contrarian leaders clean out the intelligence community’s litter box has betrayed the secret. Some senators are afraid.

Congress has allowed the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community to become a state within a state that neither Congress nor the president can control.

For nearly half a century, Congress has shrugged off its duty to oversee the ever-growing central investigative and spy apparatus that it funded.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) famously admitted in 2017 that any elected leader who challenges the intelligence community will be destroyed and that Trump, first assuming the presidency that month, was a fool even to try.

"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC. “So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

Gabbard last week reminded the Senate of Schumer’s warning.

More than anyone in Washington, Schumer would know. He was elected to Congress before Tulsi Gabbard was born.

Schumer sat on the House Judiciary Committee with oversight of the FBI from 1981 to 1999. He has been on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also with FBI oversight, since 1999 and is now the panel’s ranking member. Since becoming his party’s leader, whether in the majority or minority, he has been an ex officio member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Schumer knows that by neglecting its constitutional authority, Congress has allowed the FBI and the intelligence community to become a fearful master — a state within a state beyond the control of both Congress and the president.

Everything the FBI and CIA did to Trump and his allies would fill lesser politicians with fear.

Escape from accountability

Some senators show backbone. One is Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who made two big revelations. He was first to confirm the report that some of his colleagues wanted to vote on Gabbard’s nomination in secret.

It wasn’t about a closed hearing to discuss classified matters, but to have the vote itself, including its final tally, a secret. The purpose, one can only presume, is to allow senators to escape any accountability for their vote.

Precedent for this does exist. Following the jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted in secret, and concealed the tallies, on confirmation of nominees. It did this as a security measure because of fears that some would be targeted by terrorists.

The terrorism worry magically vanished in 2013, after the committee voted to confirm deep-stater John Brennan as director of the CIA. For some reason, establishmentarians were incensed that Brennan had any opposition at all. The committee released the tally, which was 12-3. But, as Roll Call reported, “the public had no official way of knowing which panel members voted against Brennan.”

Those three had to be exposed. One of them is still in office: Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho).

Since then, the tallies of Senate Intelligence Committee votes have been public information.

Who, whom?

Now, with the push to hold the Gabbard confirmation vote in secret, who is afraid of whom? It isn’t Gabbard’s supporters who want a secret vote.

Real intelligence professionals will recall the Bolshevik question, “Kto kogo?” or “Who whom?”

It’s a slogan from Lenin’s 1921 musing, “The whole question is, who will overtake whom?”

Washington has become its own zero-sum power-and-money game. The uniparty members who tax and spend on the permanent bureaucracy, who issue the contracts to the industrial complexes, consider themselves “us.”

In true kto kogo spirit, everyone else — in other words, you and me — is actually “them.” The late great scholar of Russia Richard Pipes once said in a conversation with colleagues, “The FBI learned its worst lessons from the KGB.”

The uniparty loves the FBI as it has become. Retired FBI man Thomas J. Baker observed, “Big Brother is family now.”

Trump and his populist peasant movement want to hold Big Brother and his family accountable. Gabbard and Patel are the tip of the pitchfork.

So the secrecy of a vote on Gabbard — even to those who believe that reforms are overdue — appears driven by some senators’ primal fear of what will happen to them if they are caught helping to hold Big Brother accountable.

Ending the impunity

If Gabbard is confirmed, impunity is over.

“Every FBI director I’ve questioned has lied to me” in his 14 years on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Mike Lee told Kash Patel during his confirmation hearings last week.

Making any false statement to Congress is a felony. Lying under oath is another felony. Five years maximum for each. Four successive FBI directors committed federal felonies, by Lee’s account. They should have gotten 10 years in the slammer for each time they lied to Congress.

But they routinely got away with it.

So have the leakers throughout the intelligence community, who committed felonies every time they passed classified information. Many of those leaks were calculated to manipulate the Senate on who it would and would not confirm.

President Trump is ending the impunity. That’s why the fight against Gabbard and Patel is so vicious. The demons are howling at the exorcist. Some senators feel caught in the middle. That’s why they are so afraid.

Outrage over the J6 pardons flows from malicious misinformation



The post-pardon outrage from leftist pundits, politicians, and D.C. judges and prosecutors is as dramatic as it is predictable. No amount of reason or logic will stop them from rushing to the cameras to stoke fear and loathing over President Trump’s sweeping pardons and commutations for nearly every January 6 defendant. The pardons included nonviolent offenders and those who, frankly, were significantly otherwise. But every pardon and commutation was justified.

Equally unsurprising, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) eagerly joined the leftist choir. But plenty of other spineless Republicans have also condemned the pardons, mostly RINOs from states or districts where voters only elect Republicans who side with Democrats half the time.

Even the most unsavory characters and reprehensible actors had their constitutional rights trampled. That fundamental injustice justified Trump’s blanket pardons.

Meanwhile, many in Congress remain willfully ignorant of the Biden Justice Department’s lawless prosecutions of nearly 1,600 J6ers. The scale of their indifference is not just stunning — it’s downright disconcerting.

How could they ignore the blatant abuses of due process and basic legal rights? Prosecutors manufactured evidence, suborned perjury, and exaggerated or outright lied about individual behaviors. Courts handed down absurdly harsh sentences, especially compared to similar or worse crimes committed during left-wing protests and riots in the same city less than a year earlier. On top of that, J6ers in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system endured inhumane treatment for years.

Sunday morning “news” programs last week were a font of ignorance and disinformation. Near the conclusion of CBS News’ “Face the Nation” interview with Vice President JD Vance, Margaret Brennan repeated a persistent media falsehood about convicted J6er Ronald “Colt” McAbee. She claimed, “Ronald McAbee hit a cop while wearing reinforced brass knuckle gloves, while he held one down on the ground while other rioters assailed the officer for over 20 seconds, causing a concussion.”

Courtroom evidence and testimony contradict every word Brennan read from her prepared notes about McAbee, making her claims false and potentially defamatory. At the time, McAbee, a Tennessee deputy sheriff, wore motorcycle gloves with plastic reinforcement to protect his hands in an accident — not “brass knuckles.” He never held down a cop to allow others to cause a concussion.

Two exhaustive reports for Blaze Media by my colleague Joe Hanneman expose how federal prosecutors lied, manipulated evidence, and withheld material from a judge to keep McAbee behind bars. A thorough review of video footage confirms McAbee never assaulted Metropolitan Police Department Officer Andrew Wayte, as alleged. Instead, he shielded the officer and helped him return to the police line.

Vance delivered a response every Republican should learn and remember. “There’s an important issue here,” he said. “There’s what the people actually did on January 6 — we’re not saying everyone acted perfectly — and then,” he continued, “what did Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice do in unjustly prosecuting well over a thousand Americans in a politically motivated way?”

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), another waste of ample Republican flesh, told Martha Raddatz on ABC News’ “This Week,” “I think the pardons by Joe Biden were disgraceful, and I think Donald Trump has taken it to another level as well.” He didn’t stop there. “These are the two most selfish politicians in the presidency in my lifetime. Joe Biden pardoning his family proves it, and Donald Trump trying to whitewash January 6 proves it.”

The real “disgraceful” and “selfish” act is Christie's desperation to stay relevant while pontificating about cases he clearly hasn’t reviewed. His criticism ignores glaring examples of Justice Department overreach and excessive sentencing by D.C. judges, making his commentary more about political positioning than legal integrity.

Many GOP and Democrat legislators display blatant ignorance, but the claim that all Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police feel “disgraced and insulted” by these pardons is false. Capitol Police officers I’ve interviewed and built relationships with over the past three years have shared a different perspective, as evidenced by the many messages in my inbox.

Active-duty, retired, off-the-record, and whistleblowing Capitol Police officers have congratulated me on the dismissal of my January 6 case. They recognize the department’s failures and the “setup” that occurred that day — their words, not mine.

On January 6 of this year, exactly two weeks before President Trump’s second inauguration, I entered the Capitol to cover the certification of the Electoral College vote count. Two other Blaze Media correspondents witnessed several uniformed and plainclothes Capitol Police officers recognizing and stopping me. They thanked me for exposing “the corruption of the white shirts upstairs.”

Make no mistake: About 140 police officers suffered injuries from assailants wielding sticks, bats, flagpoles, and bear spray that day. Calling violent perpetrators and provocateurs “patriots” or “heroes” is wrong. But even the most unsavory characters and reprehensible actors had their constitutional rights trampled by the Justice Department, the FBI, the courts, and their prison guards. That fundamental injustice justified Trump’s blanket pardons, commutations, and case dismissals.

Previously untold stories are now circulating through honest press coverage and social media revelations. These stories will gain further traction as newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin advances his investigation and as a new House select committee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), begins its work.

But much remains to be done — not only to prevent another January 6 riot but also to ensure that no future administration weaponizes the legal system to attack basic rights and emasculate due process.

No need for a ‘revenge tour’ — we simply need justice



I listened to Karl Rove the other day explain to the Wall Street Journal’s editors the meaning of Donald Trump’s electoral victory. Rove got half the story right. Although Trump did well in the Electoral College, Rove correctly noted that he won the popular election by only about 1.5 million votes. This shows that we are still living in “a deeply divided nation.”

Significantly and wrongheadedly, Rove wants Trump to respond to this dilemma by acting in a bipartisan way. Although his proposed solution to our division may have pleased his listeners, for me it indicates blindness to the historical significance of what’s been happening in this country for the last four years.

We believe it is imperative to prevent such abuses from happening again — even if Trump’s side did not perform as strongly in November as some suggest.

The Biden administration was not just using its chance to run the executive in a two-party system that allows each party at some point to run the ship of state. The Democrats were fashioning a leftist revolutionary government, which weaponized the justice system to go after those on the other side of the political-cultural divide.

The Democratic administration unleashed corrupt, phony lawfare against its major presidential opponent. It also treated as would-be terrorists parents who objected to LGBTQ indoctrination of their children in the public schools. The regime also tried to end the recognition of biologically rooted gender distinctions. The same Democratic administration released into this country millions and millions of illegal aliens, many of them violent criminals, and lavished on these felons more than a billion dollars in taxpayers’ money.

The obvious intent of this move, which our lapdog media either openly supported or persistently covered up, was to create a permanent Democratic majority. This would occur in conjunction with Democratic proposals to enact laws banning voter identification nationwide and the elevation to statehood of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Such moves would strengthen the permanent one-party state the Democrats intended to establish.

In this replacement of our onetime constitutional government, a Democratic president would be able to do what he wanted through executive order, including what the Supreme Court decided was unconstitutional, like the federal government paying off the debts of college students with public revenues. Another Democratic presidency could count on continued legacy media support if, like the Biden administration, it policed the “facts” that electronic media would be allowed to post.

Although their inflationary and energy policies lost the Democrats popular support, they were not the most frightening moves taken by the last administration, which suppressed our freedoms and made war on traditional social morality. The fact that Biden’s “advisers” and power-hungry mediacrats were behind such activities rendered them even more appalling. Our bumbling former chief executive was only the frontman for the mischief unleashed by his handlers, and the corporate left-wing media provided cover for what amounted to a coup d’état.

I’m appalled that 75 million Americans voted for that cackling nullity whom Democratic leaders thrust on us in July as the Democratic presidential candidate to continue their policies for the next four years. What exactly should the new administration do to win over these voters?

Trump may be able to create more and better jobs through deregulation and by releasing more energy. But Democratic voters might consider such measures to be ecologically evil and attack the Trump administration for actually improving the economy.

Some of these voters were presumably cool with how Biden’s officials abused their power against the opposition. Many of them still believe that Trump, not the Democrats, is “threatening our democracy.” Should Trump and his supporters work to please those who were happy with how the Democrats governed us? How exactly would they accomplish this?

Our social and cultural divisions are not a desirable state of affairs, obviously. But we must ask whether these divisions can be overcome simply by one side rushing to accommodate the other. For those who value bipartisanship above all else, that may seem like the proper course.

Yet many of us have watched as the Democratic Party imposes what we see as arbitrary one-party rule, prompting disgust and outrage. We believe it is imperative to prevent such abuses from happening again — even if Trump’s side did not perform as strongly in November as some suggest. That side still has an opportunity to hold accountable those who, in our view, egregiously abused their power.

I am not calling for what the media dismiss as a “revenge tour.” However, I do want to see Attorney General Pam Bondi, an FBI director like Kash Patel, and others in positions of authority hold accountable those who, in my view, collaborated with Biden’s handlers to weaponize the executive branch. This reckoning must take place to prevent any attempt at establishing a leftist dictatorship the next time Democrats control the government.

Such actions seem far more conducive to restoring our constitutional system than trying to win favor from our opposition.

Daniel Penny was a hero — Alvin Bragg turned him into a villain



America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

America held hostage: Progressives fear losing control



In the United States, the ultimate check on the growth of power was the realization that, through elections, one side would eventually hand over whatever it had built to its political opponents. This seemed like a reasonable way to prevent tyrannical abuse. Trouble is, America’s founders did not anticipate the emergence of a distinct ruling class capable of maintaining power by capturing institutions.

Elections come and go, but institutions remain. Progressives realized that by controlling the expert class staffing the permanent bureaucracies, they could vest significant power within them without worrying about the fluctuations of democratic politics. A weak and complacent Republican Party, content just to be included, also became invested in the perpetuation of these institutions. This allowed progressives to sprinkle a few “bipartisan” appointments into the mix while ensuring these institutions stayed under progressive control.

Progressives, perhaps unconsciously, know they’ve crossed a line they can’t walk back from and fear that conservatives would be just as ruthless if given the chance.

The state could continue to grow, and Democrats could grant nearly unlimited power to these institutions without fear of reprisal — until Donald Trump arrived.

Trump, though deeply flawed and unable to deliver many of his promised changes, was treated as a mortal threat by the system for good reason. As an outsider, he was not heavily invested in the machinery of governance or the authority of the institutions that progressives rely on to maintain control. At times, particularly during moments of crisis like the pandemic, Trump defaulted to the authority of these institutions, leading to some of his failures. But the mere fact that he was willing to question the system shook the ruling elite to its core.

Figures like Mitt Romney will dutifully maintain the status quo until the left regains official power. But a leader like Trump was never supposed to get anywhere near the levers of that machine. An incredible amount of authority has been placed in the administrative state, and that power was never intended to be handed over to a true political opponent.

When Trump entered office, the institutions declared all-out war on his administration, breaking rules and disregarding norms to limit the billionaire’s ability to affect the system. The media, already hostile to Republicans, unleashed unprecedented vitriol toward Trump. A perfect storm of pandemic lockdowns, riots, and election-related changes forced the real estate tycoon out of office, and the establishment vowed to never let a populist candidate like Trump gain power again.

With Democrats back in the White House, the institutions took swift revenge. January 6 protesters faced extreme prosecution from the federal government. Anti-abortion activists encountered similarly politically motivated charges and sentencing. Those who served in Trump’s administration had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves in court, while even Trump’s lawyers feared facing jail time.

Trump faced numerous legal challenges, aiming first to bankrupt him, then to remove him from the ballot, and finally to imprison him. When those efforts failed, some Democrats resorted to assassination attempts. The FBI increasingly acted like a Praetorian Guard serving the interests of the Democratic Party, and the weaponization of the Justice Department escalated. Under the Biden administration, opposing the institutional power of the left has become increasingly illegal.

Progressives, terrified at the idea that social media might break the hegemonic control on information that the left had previously enjoyed, launched a giant censorship industry under the banner of fighting “misinformation and disinformation.” Democratic politicians, worried that they may no longer be able to convince the existing American population, accelerated their ongoing project of replacement migration. The number of immigrants was so outrageous and the process so indiscriminate that even the leaders of major blue cities started to complain.

Trump probably did not deserve to strike that level of terror into the heart of the system, but he did, and the immune response almost killed the system itself.

Journalists now regularly draft breathless screeds warning that Trump might weaponize the Justice Department and prosecute his political enemies if he is allowed to return to office. This seems like rank hypocrisy to conservatives who have watched the Democrats treat the rule of law like a battered housewife.

But the left is doing more than just projecting its own behavior. Democrats have created an incredibly powerful leviathan and unleashed it against their political opponents. Intelligence agencies spy on regime critics, secret police harass and arrest them, and the media incites its audience to violence, sometimes even encouraging the killing of political opponents. Progressives, perhaps unconsciously, know they’ve crossed a line they can’t walk back from and fear that conservatives would be just as ruthless if given the chance.

Unfortunately, many conservatives still don’t grasp the current reality. They continue to act as if American politics follows a strict set of rules where the most convincing argument prevails and power is peacefully transferred. Their calls for civility and compromise fall on the deaf ears of a political movement that knows it has passed the point of no return.

The Democratic Party has taken the American people hostage. It has built a leviathan of immense power and recklessly aimed it at its enemies, shattering norms and undermining the rule of law. Progressives know they’ve broken the rules and fear that if they ever lose control, they will face consequences for their actions. This fear may be misplaced — many on the right lack the appetite for revenge, and Trump alternates between calls for retribution and offering the FBI a shiny new building.

Nevertheless, the possibility of a right-wing willing to stand firm still haunts the nightmares of Democrats. Like any hostage-taker, the regime’s paranoia grows by the day, and its desperation to maintain control is pushing the nation ever closer to disaster.