Legal experts are warning that President Donald Trump may find it difficult to prosecute former President Barack Obama after accusing him of treason, following the Supreme Court’s immunity judgment last year.
In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution applies to all “official acts.”
The accusations came as Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence, alleged that Obama and his senior officials “manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump” after Trump won the 2016 election.
Gabbard stated that she will be submitting a “criminal referral” to the DOJ and FBI.
“The evidence that we have found and have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard said.
Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett spoke to anchor Sean Hannity on Wednesday night alongside Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, where they discussed the fake Trump-Russia hoax.
“John Brennan. John Brennan, when he testified in front of the Congress, Chairman Gowdy, asked a series of questions. I think he was not square with the Congress, specifically about the dossier. I went back and read some of that transcript. There was a clip played earlier today on your fine network. I think John Brennan misled Congress, which you’re not supposed to do. Now, again, statute of limitations, everything else, we’ll have to see, but I so appreciate what Tulsi has done and the work that Pam is now putting together to go after these guys and get to the truth,” Jordan declared.
“If the ongoing conspiracy is, for example, the raid on Mar-a-Lago and events thereafter, that’s when the statute of limitations begins to count right there. So that’s not an obstacle. But, you know, Barack Obama should be thanking Donald Trump. Why? Because he obtained from the U.S. Supreme Court the very kind of immunity that will protect Barack Obama,” Jarret said.
Gabbard declassified a previously unreleased 2020 report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The report, dated September 18, 2020, stemmed from an investigation initiated by then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chaired the committee at the time of the report’s release.
The committee’s investigation centered on the development of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, highlighting how then-CIA Director John Brennan advocated for including the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier—despite being aware it was largely based on “internet rumor.”
According to the report, the ICA was a “high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.”
“Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,” the report states. “The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.”
The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter “rushed” the ICA’s production “in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.”
The report states that Brennan “ordered the post-election publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard—containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible—and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgements that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.”
“The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws,” the committee found.
“One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,” the report states, going on to say that the ICA “ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged-and in some cases undermined—judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.”
In addition, the committee said that a pair of senior CIA officers warned Brennan that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.”
However, despite the warnings, the Obama regime moved to publish the ICA anyway.
The ICA “did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.”
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said in an interview Friday that the FBI never informed him that hundreds of its agents had been deployed inside the crowds during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Sund’s remarks to host John Fawcett of “The Great America Show” came on the heels of a Thursday revelation that the FBI, then under Christopher Wray, had 274 plainclothes agents inside the massive Trump crowds on January 6, 2021 — hundreds more than previously reported.
A senior congressional source said the number of FBI personnel at the Capitol on Jan. 6 is not necessarily surprising, noting that the bureau routinely embeds countersurveillance staff at large public events. Still, the source acknowledged that, given the FBI’s longstanding refusal to detail the scope of its presence that day, the figure is likely to draw skepticism in some quarters, The Blaze
The disclosure follows earlier claims by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General that the FBI had no undercover personnel embedded in the Jan. 6 crowds. It also
“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” the DOJ OIG said in an 88-page report released in December 2024.
By A. J. Hamilton, Investigative Correspondent
WASHINGTON D.C. – The political landscape was rocked this week by what is being exposed as one of the most brazen and spectacularly failed political cover-ups in recent history. While mainstream media outlets amplified a so-called “Epstein email bombshell” aimed squarely at smearing President Donald J. Trump, the entire narrative collapsed within minutes, revealing itself as a calculated and utterly desperate effort by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to distract the country from a humiliating
$15 million defamation disaster they had hoped to bury.
The DNC’s meticulously planned smear operation was undone by one simple fact: the internet never forgets, and presidential schedules are archived.
Every attempt to twist, redact, and fabricate the Epstein narrative backfired, instead shining an even brighter spotlight on the Democrats’ pattern of spreading knowingly false claims about the President and paying dearly for the consequences.
Tonight, we break down the spectacular timeline that turned the DNC’s “nuclear strike” into a damp squib and confirmed, against their will, that Donald Trump was one of the only high-profile figures who actively sought to expose Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
The DNC did not stumble into this; this was a coordinated political rollout, complete with synchronized tweets, talking points, and a ready-made echo chamber of blue check mouthpieces. They selectively pulled a handful of Epstein emails, stripped out the context, and pitched it as the long-awaited smoking gun tying Trump to the convicted predator.
The centerpiece of the Democrats’ manufactured scandal was an email wildly misread and misapplied to suggest that President Trump spent Thanksgiving 2017 with Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the core claim they blasted across social media, believing they had irrefutable proof of a continuing relationship.
There was, however, one immediately devastating problem:
The Archive Check: Donald J. Trump was the sitting President of the United States at the time. His schedules are fully documented, public, and archived.
The Fact: On Thanksgiving Day 2017, President Trump was not anywhere near Epstein. He was at a Coast Guard station in Riviera Beach, Florida, serving meals to service members and fulfilling his duties.
The Democrats did not just misread the email; they bet their entire attack on something instantly, publicly, and provably false. Anybody with half a brain and Wi-Fi could have checked the public record.
The moment independent journalists and commentators realized the Thanksgiving claim was impossible, the backlash exploded. Screenshots flooded every platform.
The DNC’s response was not a defense; it was a confession:
They deleted the entire post and pretended it never happened.
The deletion instantly became bigger news than the original accusation. It was public panic, damage control in real time, and it proved one thing unequivocally: they knew they were caught, and they tried to run. The narrative had not only failed but was actively imploding due to sheer sloppiness and an astonishing disregard for basic fact-checking.
The most insidious element of the DNC’s operation was the alleged deliberate manipulation of the actual Epstein records.
The Democrats did not just release emails; they edited them selectively, particularly one email snippet involving a victim whose name was mysteriously redacted, hidden behind black bars.
When independent investigators traced the timeline, the unredacted version pointed directly to none other than
Virginia Giuffre—a key accuser who, crucially, publicly stated multiple times that Donald Trump never harmed her, never acted inappropriately, and never participated in Epstein’s crimes.
The obvious question demands an answer: Why would Democrats selectively hide the name of a victim who publicly clears Donald Trump?
The Calculation: The existence of a victim who publicly defended Trump’s conduct completely destroys the political utility of the files. The redaction, therefore, was not protection, but manipulation—an attempt to preserve a damaging narrative by concealing exculpatory evidence.
Once these redactions were exposed, the Democratic spokespersons were left with no defense. Their attempts to spin the story fell apart instantly:
The Contradictions: Spokespersons first claimed ignorance, then they couldn’t confirm, and finally they claimed the DNC post deletion was “routine.”
The Smell of Fear: The stuttering, the contradictions, the clear panic—it was brutal. Viewers saw instantly that they weren’t clarifying anything; they were scrambling, attempting to cover up a coordinated lie that hadn’t been rehearsed sufficiently. This fumbling performance didn’t just make them look uninformed; it made them look
guilty of obstruction and purposeful deception.
The timing of this spectacularly failed Epstein hoax was the biggest clue to its true purpose.
The DNC launched this sloppy Epstein stunt in the exact same week they were facing brutal heat for a massive $15 million defamation payout tied to previous false claims pushed by their allies in the media.
The Precedent: Trump had already won major settlements against ABC News, CBS News, and YouTube linked to Democratic-aligned smears. This pattern of legal defeat terrified them.
The Desperation: The DNC was desperate to shift the attention away from the fact that yet another defamation lawsuit had triggered a massive legal defeat and a major financial payout. They tried to bury the story with a manufactured scandal.
Instead of successfully distracting the country, the botched hoax shined an even brighter spotlight on their lying. The public realized the Epstein angle was a coordinated pivot away from the
$15 million defamation humiliation they had just suffered.
The greatest irony of all: By trying to bury their financial scandal, the Democrats resurrected it. The moment their Epstein narrative collapsed, the public began asking, “Why were they pushing this story so aggressively in the first place?” That question led directly back to the massive public payouts.
The Democrats’ entire operation failed to account for a massive, documented truth about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein: they were adversaries, not allies.
Long before Epstein was arrested, President Donald J. Trump was one of the only high-profile individuals who actively helped law enforcement regarding Epstein’s behavior:
Tipping Off Authorities:
According to documented testimony, Epstein himself believed that in 2004, it was Trump who tipped off Palm Beach authorities about the illegal activities happening at Epstein’s mansion. Trump called the police on Epstein.
The Mar-a-Lago Ban: In 2005, Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago altogether for life after a complaint involving Epstein and a staff member’s daughter.
Cooperation: In 2009, when an attorney representing more than 70 Epstein victims reached out for information, Trump
cooperated fully and was described as “extremely helpful.”
This is not the behavior of an accomplice; that’s the behavior of a whistleblower.
When stacking the evidence side by side, the Democrats’ entire narrative falls apart. Their bombshell not only flopped; it backfired spectacularlarly, confirming that Trump was one of the only major figures who stood up against Epstein long before the public understood the criminal’s true nature.
The Democrats’ Epstein hoax was a five-alarm political meltdown fueled by sloppy research and desperation. Every element of their attack was either false, misleading, or contradicted by their own public record.
The consequences for the DNC are now severe. By publishing something so knowingly false and politically manipulated, they may have opened themselves up to yet another massive defamation problem. Courts have made it clear that if you publish something recklessly false to damage someone’s reputation, you will pay for it.
The media outlets that tried to prop up the failed smear now face a credibility crisis. Their willingness to amplify unverified claims, only to retract them when confronted with simple facts, reveals a profound ethical compromise.
The political landscape is clear: the DNC has lost control of public perception. Every scandal they try to manufacture blows back in their faces. Their entire strategy fractures the moment it meets reality. This Epstein hoax, intended to secure a political victory, instead highlighted the weakness of their entire machine. The truth has a stubborn way of surfacing, especially when it is deliberately buried. The lie has been exposed, and the reckoning is inevitable.
A TV analyst working for MSNBC has been fired for his response to news that Charlie Kirk had been sh*t d**d during a rally in Utah.
Kirk, 31, was a popular conservative political commentator and co-founder of Turning Point USA. He regularly traveled the country to take part in debates and host talks, and had built such a reputation that he was considered a close ally of President Donald Trump.
Shocking scenes yesterday, September 10, saw Kirk sh*t through the neck by a single bu**et believed to have been fired from the roof of a nearby building on campus at Utah Valley University.
Two people were a**ested in the immediate aftermath of the sh**ting but were subsequently released as it was found they had “no current ties” to Kirk’s d**th.
As is often the case in the modern world, horrific clips of the fatal sh**ting surfaced online even before the mainstream media had a chance to report on it. Donald Trump was one of the first to announce that Kirk had d**d, writing on Truth Social:
“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!“
Yet there were other outlets who received criticism relating to their handling of the heartbreaking news. TMZ were forced to issue an apology after staff members were heard laughing in the background of a live report on the subject (they were reportedly laughing at an unrelated video), while a political analyst on MSNBC has lost his job.
Reacting to the sh**ting on TV, Matthew Dowd was asked to discuss “the environment in which a sh**ting like this happens”.
Dowd proceeded to call out Kirk for his past comments, suggesting he was part of the “unfortunate environment” which led to his d**th.
Dowd had said: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of h*te speech or sort of aimed at certain groups.
“And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to h*teful words, which then lead to h*teful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in.
“You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”
Yet Dowd’s comments were largely criticized. MSNBC’s president Rebecca Kutler released a statement reading: “During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable.
“We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for vi*lence in America, political or otherwise.”
Dowd, who has since been fired for his comments, wrote later on social media platform Bluesky: “I apologize for my tone and words.
“Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous a**ack. Let us all come together and condemn vi*lence of any kind.”
MUST WATCH: CNN Calls Out Hakeem Jeffries to His Face
CNN’s “Inside Politics,” host Dana Bash pushed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries aggressively on the ongoing government shutdown and questioned his party’s role in resolving the impasse.
Bash repeatedly challenged Jeffries’s narrative that Democrats were ready to negotiate, suggesting instead that the real paralysis lay within Democratic leadership’s own demands.
At one point, Bash pressed Jeffries: “You say you want to talk, but Speaker Johnson apparently hasn’t been given permission to meet with you — have you tried knocking on his door, walking down the hall?”
Jeffries responded that Republicans had cut off communication, arguing that informal meetings would not be fruitful without willingness on the part of congressional leadership.
But Bash would not let the exchange end there.
She pressed whether the Democratic proposal — which included extending Affordable Care Act subsidies and reversing GOP healthcare cuts — was negotiable, or whether it was a nonstarter.
Jeffries maintained that Democrats remained open to bipartisan solutions but insisted Republicans had gone “radio silent.”
The tension escalated when Bash framed a question in a blunt, almost confrontational tone: “You could probably take a few steps… have you tried that?”
At several junctures, Bash’s questioning seemed designed to corner Jeffries into accountability, undermining his attempt to shift blame entirely to Republicans.
She also raised the inconsistency of Jeffries’s position, pointing out that what he called “negotiable” may not actually be open to compromise if Democrats hold firm on all their demands.
Jeffries attempted to shift the blame back, saying Republicans had repeatedly tried to repeal the ACA and were unwilling to extend subsidies without structural changes.
Bash followed up by asking whether he would support a one-year extension of those subsidies if Republicans would allow it.
Jeffries demurred, saying he was not ready to accept that narrow fix without broader action.
Through the interview, Bash adopted a skeptical posture toward Jeffries’s narrative — something that conservatives seized on as evidence that even legacy media are now pushing back harder on Democratic talking points.
Conservatives applauded Bash’s refusal to act as a passive conduit for official messaging. One commentator called the moment a turning point in media deference.
Social media users echoed the sentiment: “Even leftist CNN’s Bash shuts down Jeffries’ shutdown whine — caught off guard with brutal challenge.”
The exchange also undercut Jeffries’s argument that Democrats were trying to negotiate in good faith.
Bash sought to expose whether those overtures were real or rhetorical cover.
From a conservative vantage, this marked a welcome line of questioning from mainstream media — one that forces Democratic leaders to defend their posture rather than allowing them to dominate the narrative unchallenged.
The interview ended without a clear breakthrough, but the dynamic was telling: more pressure on Jeffries, less room for him to stick to the standard talking points.
In the coming days, this exchange may be referenced by Republicans as evidence that Democratic leaders aren’t being upfront about what they’re willing or unwilling to give up in negotiations.
BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED…
Representative Anna Paulina Luna has leveled explosive information against the Biden Department of Justice, claiming that critical materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have been deliberately destroyed.
This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.
Luna, who chairs a congressional task force focused on federal transparency, has stated unequivocally that she possesses evidence implicating high-ranking officials in the DOJ.
According to her, these officials not only failed to disclose materials related to Epstein but actively destroyed them to conceal the extent of powerful individuals’ involvement in Epstein’s criminal network.
She introduced legislation titled the SHRED Act, aimed at imposing severe penalties on government agents who destroy or conceal federal records. The proposed bill calls for 20 years to life in prison for anyone caught eliminating evidence in cases of national significance.
“Even if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,” Luna told Fox News. “We have been more than patient.”
These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein’s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.
Luna’s office has reportedly sent multiple requests to the Department of Justice demanding clarity on the handling of Epstein-related materials. So far, those inquiries have been met with either vague responses or complete silence.
The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ’s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.
“The Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,” Luna said. “This is corruption at the highest level.”
Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. “Had this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,” one conservative commentator noted.
For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America’s elite circles. The financier’s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.
Now, Luna’s allegations breathe new life into those concerns. If records were indeed destroyed, the implications are profound. It would mean that the DOJ, under Biden, actively shielded criminals from justice.
What’s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals—politicians, celebrities, and global financiers—who participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
In this context, Luna’s SHRED Act isn’t just legislative symbolism. It is a clarion call for accountability in an era marked by elite impunity. Her bill seeks to ensure that future officials think twice before erasing truth from the historical record.
Despite Luna’s repeated calls for transparency, there has been no formal response from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The silence speaks volumes to many who believe the DOJ is stonewalling on purpose.
Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers have rallied behind Luna. A growing number of Republicans in the House and Senate are voicing support for investigations into the DOJ’s handling of Epstein evidence.
Some have even floated the idea of appointing a special counsel to probe the matter independently. Given the stakes, such a move may be the only path forward to restore public confidence.
This latest scandal further erodes the credibility of an already battered Department of Justice. From the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco to the political targeting of conservatives, the agency has been repeatedly accused of partisanship.
Now, with Epstein documents allegedly destroyed, the DOJ’s credibility is in tatters. Public trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
The American people deserve the truth. And if Luna’s allegations are accurate, they deserve justice, no matter how high the guilty parties sit.
BREAKING: Tom Homan Reveals an Investigation is Underway Into AOC For…
Border Czar Tom Homan confirmed that a federal investigation is underway into Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for allegedly employing a criminal illegal alien and helping others evade federal immigration authorities.
Speaking from his post as one of President Trump’s top immigration officials, Homan revealed that ICE has launched a formal probe after multiple allegations emerged against the congresswoman.
“This is a live federal investigation. We’ve asked ICE to take immediate action,” Homan said during a televised interview.
The individual in question is reportedly an undocumented alien with a criminal record, unlawfully hired by AOC’s office.
According to internal reports, the employee had multiple encounters with law enforcement and should have been deported years ago.
Homan stressed that AOC’s potential interference with ICE operations could amount to obstruction of justice.
“This goes beyond hiring an illegal alien. There’s evidence she actively helped shield this person from deportation,” he stated.
Conservative leaders are sounding the alarm, warning that this may be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to far-left officials flouting immigration laws.
AOC has long been known for championing sanctuary cities and attacking border agents, often labeling them as “racist” and “oppressors.”
Now, critics say her reckless rhetoric has crossed over into potentially criminal behavior.
“If a sitting congresswoman used her office to harbor an illegal alien, that’s a clear violation of federal law,” Homan declared.
Sources inside ICE say agents have already gathered documentation and begun interviewing individuals connected to the case.
Evidence suggests AOC may have leveraged her political power to block enforcement action against the individual she employed.
House Republicans are demanding accountability, with several calling for a formal ethics investigation into her conduct.
“This is what happens when radicals gain power. They think the law doesn’t apply to them,” said Rep. Andy Biggs.
Democrats quickly circled the wagons, accusing Homan of launching a political smear campaign.
But Homan stood firm, reminding the public that the law is the law and political office offers no immunity from prosecution.
“This isn’t about politics. It’s about national security and public trust,” he said.
Homan emphasized that ICE agents are working independently and that the White House is not interfering in the investigation.
“We are following the facts. If those facts point to criminal activity, then action will be taken,” Homan confirmed.
Legal experts say AOC could face charges ranging from unlawful employment to obstruction of federal agents, depending on the evidence.
Citizens outraged by the news are demanding swift justice and a full public accounting of the congresswoman’s actions.
Homan urged Americans not to let political ideology blind them to the seriousness of the allegations.
“We must restore the rule of law,” he concluded. “No one, no matter how powerful, is above it.”