Blog

Report: Biden Admin Hid Online Footprint Of Trump’s Would-Be Assassin

The Biden administration hid critical information about Thomas Matthew Crooks — the person who shot President Donald Trump and three others in Butler, Pennsylvania — throughout the 2024 election, according to a report from the New York Post.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Biden appears to have knowingly lied to Congress, misled the American people, and, at best, was negligent in its duty to track Crooks after he reportedly made numerous statements about committing political violence and assassinations.

The NYP received information from a source showing that Crooks did have a history of significant online activity, despite then-Biden FBI Director Christopher Wray testifying that Crooks had no “online history that pointed to motive or political ideology.” Wray also attempted to downplay Trump’s being shot by suggesting he may have been hit with a piece of shrapnel from his podium, despite no evidence of that whatsoever.

Paul Abbate, former FBI deputy director under Wray, seemed to muddy the water even more, telling Congress that some social media accounts connected to Crooks “appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse political violence and are described as extreme in nature.”

That is true, but the posts Abbate was referring to — which appear to paint Crooks in some sort of right-wing extremism light — were quite a bit older than posts showing a left-wing, anti-Trump ideology Crooks seems to have adopted over time.

Crooks’ online footprint appears to show someone who has always been interested in political and mass violence, who grew to openly hate Trump and called for “terrorism style attacks” and assassinations. He also seemingly became involved with “furry” fetish platforms — often a sexual deviancy associated closely with gender ideology. Furry fetishes and transgender ideology are more and more common among those who commit left-wing violence, and the person who allegedly assassinated Charlie Kirk in September was apparently immersed in both.

In light of Crooks’ online threats, it seems impossible that he was not known to the FBI before he attempted to assassinate Trump, and yet his online footprint was completely omitted from the final report about the shooting released in December 2024.

It is important that the American people get answers about Crooks and his attempted assassination of a former president who, by all serious accounts at the time, was the leader in the presidential race. But it is also important to keep in mind that, in addition to nearly killing Trump, Crooks’ bullets took the life of rallygoer Corey Comperatore and wounded rallygoers David Dutch and James Copenhaver. They and their families deserve answers too.

Crooks was 20 years old when he tried to assassinate Trump. He was shot dead by the Secret Service on the scene, but not before he was able to fire eight bullets.

His online history goes back at least to when he was 15, showing a political evolution from Trump supporter (though violent) to left-wing terrorist. The source cited by the NYP found 17 online accounts on platforms YouTube, Snapchat, Venmo, Zelle, GroupMe, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com, and Quora.

Crooks’ “radicalization, violent rhetoric and obsession with political violence were all documented under his real name,” the NYP source stated. “The threat wasn’t hidden.”

And, far from the all-too-common “lone wolf with no discernible motive” narrative peddled by officials after acts of mass violence or political violence, Crooks’ political development was out in the open for anyone to see — and for the FBI to monitor.

Keep reading

Dems Now Try to Dox Epstein Victims, Release Child P*rn.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) explained Tuesday that there remain significant issues with the Democrat-led discharge petition that would force the release of the Epstein Files held by the federal government. While the Republican House leader acknowledged that he lacks the votes to block the measure, he also made clear that Republican efforts to amend the discharge petition to ensure the privacy rights of victims and those with no criminal ties to Epstein were rejected by Democrats. Additionally, Johnson raised concerns that the petition lacks language preventing the release of Child Sex Abuse Material (CSAM) and sealed grand jury testimony—the latter of which has had no adversarial challenge.

“Our side has been insistent that this matter must be handled very carefully,” the Republican Speaker explained before detailing that the language used in the Democrat-led discharge petition is so vague that it provides no protections for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims or even provisions to bar the release of CSAM materials collected from Epstein’s properties. Speaker Johnson continued: “We want maximum transparency,” though he warned that as currently written, the discharge petition is likely to muddy the waters further.

“So what am I to do as a leader in a situation like this?” Johnson posed during his morning press conference on Tuesday, ahead of the vote. He continued: “I called my counterpart in the Senate, Leader Thune, and I talked through this with him and I shared our deep concerns. And of course they share those concerns as well.”

“So I am very confident that when this moves forward in the process, if and when it is processed in the Senate—which it is no certainty that it will be—that they will take the time, methodically, to do what we have not been allowed to do in the House, to amend this discharge petition and to make sure these protections are there,” Johnson stated.

Overall, House Republicans presented five key objections to the Democrat-led discharge petition as it is written. Namely, that it fails to protect the right to privacy of Epstein’s victims. While a number of the women preyed upon by the deceased pedophile financier have come forward, there are still many who have chosen not to go public with their allegations or horrific experiences. In addition, Speaker Johnson and House Republicans note that the release of sealed grand jury materials—which have not undergone adversarial challenges—risks implicating potentially innocent individuals in Epstein’s crimes, effectively creating a new class of victim.

Thirdly, they note that the petition fails to create adequate guardrails preventing the release of CSAM or child pornography that may be contained within the files, especially from materials seized from Epstein’s properties. Their fourth objection pertains to the impact the petition could have on future investigations, as it provides no protections for the identities of whistleblowers, informants, or undercover law enforcement involved in gathering evidence against Epstein, and who may be involved in current and ongoing investigations.

Keep reading

Panel of Federal Judges Block New Texas Congressional Map, Orders State to Use 2021 Map

A panel of federal judges on Tuesday blocked the new Texas Congressional map and ordered the state to use the 2021 map.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel ordered Texas to use its 2021 congressional map.

The judges claimed the newly redrawn map is unconstitutional because it appears to be a ‘race-based gerrymander.’

The ruling is expected to be immediately appealed.

US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion.

Politico reported:

A panel of federal judges has blocked Texas’ newly-redrawn congressional map — which made five districts in the state more favorable to Republicans — saying the plan appeared to be an illegal race-based gerrymander.

In a 2-1 ruling, the court ordered Texas to rely instead on the boundaries legislators drew in 2021. The new map, the majority concluded, appears likely to be unconstitutional and was drawn at the urging of the Trump administration.

“The map ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor — the 2025 Map — achieved all but one of the racial objectives that DOJ demanded,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Galveston-based Trump appointee, wrote for the panel majority.

In late August, the Texas House voted on the new Congressional map after the Democrats stonewalled them for more than two weeks.

The map, passed 19–2 along party lines, was designed to create up to five new Republican‑drawn U.S. House seats in anticipation of the 2026 midterm elections.

“This mid-decade redistricting isn’t about fair representation—it’s about politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders,” the Senate Democrat Caucus said in a previous statement. “And it doesn’t stop here. If they can gerrymander now, they can and will do it before every election.”

Democrat-run California passed a new congressional map that eliminates five GOP seats in response to Texas’s new map.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that its new map is unconstitutional because it is allegedly race-based.

Keep reading

Clintons Dodge Epstein Depositions As Trump Demands Total File Release

Bill and Hillary Clinton have officially refused to comply with House Oversight Committee subpoenas ordering them to sit for depositions about their ties to financier to the elite and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) broke the news on Monday, stating “Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before House Oversight for their depositions regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Notice how House Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about it.”

The subpoenas, issued in August by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), set Hillary’s deposition for October 9 and Bill’s for October 14. After their attorneys requested delays, the Clintons have now stonewalled entirely.

Comer has long flagged Bill Clinton as a “prime suspect,” citing more than 20 flights on the Lolita Express, multiple trips to Epstein’s island, and at least 17 visits by Epstein to the Clinton White House.

Keep reading

Trump’s New Islamic Extremist “Allies” — Syrian and Qatari Regimes

Is the ghost of Dick Cheney (CFR) haunting the Trump administration? During the George W. Bush administration, Vice President Cheney and a coterie of CFR neocon war hawks known as “The Vulcans” (Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen Hadley, Robert Gates, and Paul Wolfowitz) dragged America into a series of “forever wars” and “regime change” interventions. Accompanying these misadventures was the continuation of the policies of previous Democratic and Republican administrations’ musical-chair alliances, in which yesterday’s “terrorist” becomes today’s “noble ally” (and then tomorrow turns on us and is again designated a terrorist).

Donald Trump pledged that he would cease these disastrous policies. However, his recent policies with regard to Syria and Qatar call that pledge into question. Are Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth channeling the Cheney/Vulcan spirit? It seems so.

The recent White House reception for Syrian “President” Ahmed al-Sharaa was odd, to say the least. Our government had previously designated him as a terrorist, with a $10 million bounty on his head.

Keep reading

Rep. James Comer Exposes House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ Connection to Deceased P*dophile Jeffrey Epstein

The Democrat Party’s efforts to lie and humiliate President Trump over the Epstein files continue to blow up in their faces as their own connection to the deceased pedophile is exposed.

In recent days, House minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has accused Republicans of running a p*dophile protection program. But now, he has become ensnared as well.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) took to the House floor on Tuesday and turned the tables on Jeffries by exposing that the Democrat leader has a notable connection to the p*dophile.

Comer explained that he had obtained an email showing that Democrat fundraisers had organized an event where Epstein could meet privately with Jeffries to assist in their efforts to seize the House in 2013.

This means that Jeffries was actively begging for money from Epstein.

It’s also important to note that this all occurred AFTER Epstein had already been convicted years earlier in 2008.

“Another email shows that Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of their 2013 effort to win a majority,” Comer explained.

“So, Hakeem Jeffries’ campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein! That’s what we found in the last document batch,” he continued.

Keep reading

Mamdani claims NYC is a ‘city of international law’ when asked about arresting world leaders targeted by ICC

New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has said that the Big Apple is a city of “international law,” and that he would uphold international warrants for figures such as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

The reporter asked, “you said you would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu based on the 2024 international court arrest warrant. Next UN General Assembly, as mayor, would you do that?”

Mamdani replied, “so I’ve said time and time again that I believe this is a city of international law. And being a city of international law means looking to uphold international law. And that means upholding the warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC), whether they’re for Benjamin Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin. I think that that’s critically important to showcase our values.”

“And, unlike Donald Trump, I’m someone who looks to exist within the confines of the laws that we have. So I will look to exhaust every legal possibility, not to create my own laws.”

The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Netanyahu in November of 2024, alleging that the Israeli Prime Minister is “esponsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024.”

The warrant came amid the Israel-Hamas war, which began when terrorists with the Palestinian terror group Hamas launched an invasion into Israel in 2023, killing 1,200 and taking hundreds more hostage. A ceasefire was reached in the conflict in the fall of 2025. 

An arrest warrant was also issued for Putin, accusing the Russian leader of being “responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”

Keep reading

The Imperial Judiciary Strikes Back

So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations and individuals.

While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration, and moving at breakneck speed to stop it. According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democrat presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.

Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially, cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominately activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.

Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while many liberals see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservatives on appeals courts are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.

To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP (food stamp) payments.

Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.

Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”

Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics, and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.

There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, that is unrealistic.

Keep reading

Senate Passes Epstein Files Transparency Act by Unanimous Consent – Bill Now Heads to Trump’s Desk

The Senate has officially passed the Epstein Transparency Act to compel the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files. 

The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent as soon as it is transmitted from the House at the request of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Schumer thinks this will help the Democrats, but we are expecting some high-profile Democrats to be named in the files.

No Senators objected to his request.

Keep reading

IT BEGINS: Senator Cory Booker Calls for Schumer’s Removal — Says It Is ‘Time For New Leadership’ in Senate

Senator Chuck Schumer is increasingly looking like a dead man walking.

Less than a week after Schumer brokered a deal to end the government shutdown, Democrats are still seething mad at this supposed betrayal.

Speaking in New Hampshire over the weekend, Booker was asked about Schumer’s continued position as Senate Minority leader.

Chuck Schumer’s generation, Nancy Pelosi’s generation, John Lewis’s generation, they have so much to be proud of,” he said.

“It is time, though, for new leadership. The other generations, X, Millennials, Z, it’s time for us to step up. The stage is waiting for us to lead.”

Booker joins a growing chorus of Democrats calling for Schumer to step aside, becoming the first senator to do so.

Several House Democrats have already expressed the same view, among them Reps. Ro Khanna of California, Ayanna Pressley and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Delia Ramirez of Illinois, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

”Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Khanna wrote last week.

“If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?|

Keep reading