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.”
WOW! Capitol Police Chief During January 6, 2021 Riot Drops NEW Bombshell… 
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
reported.
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
follows a false claim by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that neither then-President Trump nor anyone else requested National Guard support.
“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.
DEMOCRATS IN FULL MELTDOWN: Epstein Hoax Collapses as $15 Million Lie is Dragged into the Spotlight
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.
I. The Fabricated Bombshell: A Coordinated Collapse
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 Thanksgiving Day Debacle
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.
Panic and Deletion: The Confession of Guilt
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.
II. The Redaction Fraud: Hiding the Truth
The most insidious element of the DNC’s operation was the alleged deliberate manipulation of the actual Epstein records.
The Victim Who Cleared Trump
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.
The Fumbling Performance
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.
III. The $15 Million Motive: Drowning Out Disaster
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.
IV. The Reality Check: Adversary, Not Accomplice
The Democrats’ entire operation failed to account for a massive, documented truth about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein: they were adversaries, not allies.
The Whistleblower Behavior
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.
V. Conclusion: The Consequences of the Coordinated Lie
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.
Analyst fired after comments on live TV about Charlie Kirk’s 
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!“
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN – JULY 15: CEO of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk speaks on stage on the first day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum on July 15, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Delegates, politicians, and the Republican faithful are in Milwaukee for the annual convention, concluding with former President Donald Trump accepting his party’s presidential nomination. The RNC takes place from July 15-18. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
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.
OREM, UTAH – SEPTEMBER 10: Charlie Kirk speaks at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025 in Orem, Utah. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was speaking at his “American Comeback Tour” when he was shot in the neck and killed. (Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images)
“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.”
HOUSE PASSES GOP BILL TO DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO ASSAULT POLICE psss 
HOUSE PASSES GOP BILL TO DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO ASSAULT POLICE
House Passes Bill Mandating Deportation of Illegal Immigrants Who Assault Law Enforcement
The GOP-led United States House of Representatives has approved a controversial immigration enforcement measure that would require detention and deportation of illegal aliens who assault law-enforcement officers. The legislation is titled the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act (H.R. 7343), introduced by Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.).policemag.com+4vandrew.house.gov+4Congress.gov+4
Key features and vote
The House passed the bill by a vote of 265 to 148, with 54 Democrats joining Republicans in support.policemag.com+2Congress.gov+2
Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to take custody of any non-U.S. national (an “alien” under federal law) who: (a) is present in the U.S. without being lawfully admitted, and (b) is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing an offense involving assault of a law enforcement officer or other first responder.Congress.gov+2GovInfo+2
The bill also inserts language into the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) to create a new inadmissibility ground: an alien who “is inadmissible … and … is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any offense involving assault of a law enforcement officer.”Congress.gov+1
Rep. Van Drew said of the bill: “There is no reason that an illegal alien who attacks our law enforcement should remain in our country; that shows zero respect for our rule of law or our institutions.”vandrew.house.gov+1
Supporters vs. Critics
Supporters: GOP leaders and supporters of the bill argue that it strengthens “law and order” by prioritizing removal of unauthorized immigrants who assault officers, and sends a message that such behavior is unacceptable. The vote timing coincided with events tied to National Police Week.policemag.com+1
Critics: Democratic opponents argue the measure is overly broad, politically motivated, and may have unintended consequences. They raise concerns about due process, resource demands on DHS/ICE, and whether the bill effectively addresses the broader immigration system issues. The Committee Report for the bill acknowledged that Congress has never appropriated sufficient detention resources to cover all non-citizens who fall under “mandatory detention” categories.GovInfo+1
Status & Implications
After passing the House on 15 May 2024, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.Congress.gov+1
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) summary indicates the bill would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain aliens charged with or convicted of assault, which could raise budgetary and operational implications for DHS/ICE.cbo.gov+1
This legislation reflects how immigration enforcement remains a central policy battleground, especially within the broader “law-and-order” narrative advanced by Republicans ahead of upcoming election cycles.
Polling Shows Republicans Retaining Advantage on the Economy
In parallel to the legislative push, recent polling data reveals that the Republican Party continues to hold the edge over Democrats in voters’ perceptions of economic competence — a surprising trend given prevailing economic headwinds.
What the polling shows
A Reuters/Ipsos survey found that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle inflation and the economy. For example, in surveys asking, “Which party has the better approach for tackling inflation?” or “Which party has the better approach to the U.S. economy?” Republicans held a lead (e.g., 42% vs. 31% in one earlier poll).Reuters+1
According to reporting on a recent CNN poll, Republican advantage on the economy stood at around eight points in the latest data. Analyst Harry Enten expressed surprise at the result, given what many assumed would be an advantage for Democrats. The Times of India
A blog summary of the CNN-SSRS 2025 poll reinforced that “Republicans still poll better on crime, immigration, and the economy,” though it noted their lead is “quickly diminishing.” campaignnow.com
Political significance
For Democrats, historically the party of the working class and economic justice, this trend signals a potential vulnerability heading into the 2026 election cycle. The fact that the GOP is seen as more capable on the economy — despite periods of stock market volatility, tariff hikes, and inflation concerns — suggests either messaging success for Republicans or messaging failure for Democrats.
For Republicans, the data offers a point of strength: tying the economy to their message may help maintain competitiveness even if other issues (immigration, crime) become more salient. As one strategist noted: “Voters are still feeling squeezed by the cost-of-living. Republicans still have the edge there.”Reuters+1
The intersection of the polling trend with the immigration bill is also notable: Republicans are moving aggressively on the law-and-order/immigration front while enjoying relative strength on economic perceptions — a potential two-pronged strategy for upcoming midterms.
Why These Two Developments Matter Together
When you look at both stories side by side — the passage of H.R. 7343 and the polling data on the economy — a few broader dynamics stand out:
Messaging synergy: The immigration legislation reinforces a Republican framing of “tough on crime/immigration” while the polling suggests they currently hold the upper hand in the economy. Together, these narratives can reinforce a broader “strong leadership” image.
Election implications: With the 2026 congressional elections on the horizon, Republicans appear to be leveraging perceived strengths (economy, law-and-order) to challenge Democrats not only on policy substance but also credibility and competence.
Challenges for Democrats: To reverse the trend, Democrats may need to sharpen their economic message and reconnect with voters who believe the GOP is better or more reliable—especially mid-western and working-class voters. On immigration, they risk being portrayed as weak or out of touch if they cannot present a compelling alternative to bills like H.R. 7343.
Operational and legal questions: Although the immigration bill passed the House, it still faces procedural hurdles, resource constraints, and possible legal challenges — especially around due process, detention capacity, and implementation. Meanwhile, broader economic conditions (inflation, labor market dynamics, global shocks) remain volatile and could shift public opinion quickly.