This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A panicked anti-ICE agitator begged for mercy from federal officers, pointing out her motherhood, after being caught on video allegedly interfering with a crackdown on gangs in Portland, Oregon, last week.
"I'm just a mom! I'm just a mom!" the hyperventilating woman tells an officer, as seen on footage courtesy of Katie Daviscourt of the Post Millennial. "Can you just give me a warning? I have kids."
"You are surrounded by federal agents," the officer tells her.
"I understand, I'm just worried about my community," she responds.
The Post Millennial reports: "The agitator, who had been recklessly driving through the neighborhood to impede ICE operations, was stopped by ICE officials on Thursday afternoon after blowing a red light and nearly colliding with a school bus while trailing federal vehicles, which she attempted to box in multiple times with her Mustang. The Post Millennial captured the incident during an exclusive ride-along with the ICE Seattle Field Office's Portland branch."
Julio Hernandez, the ICE deputy field officer director, said the woman has been referred to Homeland Security Investigations for criminal prosecution.
"She placed our officers in danger. She blocked in our vehicles several times," Hernandez told the news site. "We gave her multiple warnings to leave the area. This time, enough was enough."
He explained agitators were posted in various spots in the gang-ridden neighborhood to act as "spotters," letting illegal immigrants to ICE operations by using whistles, horns and vehicles.
"Like [DHS Secretary Kristi Noem] said, enough is enough, we're drawing the line, and that's what we did now," Hernandez told TPM during the ride-along. "We have her information. We're going to refer the case over to Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Attorney's Office."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats, even before President Donald Trump started gaining constitutional and favorable rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, joined other leftists in insisting that the institution must be changed, stacked with leftist ideologues, so the party can get its way whenever it wants.
While Joe Biden was in the White House and Democrats were at their peak power to weaponize the government against their political opponents, through Letitia James, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, the FBI and more, the talk fell by the wayside.
But with President Donald Trump back in the Oval Office and a few Democrat election victories in governors' races, it's back, and "with a vengeance," according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law and George Washington University.
Elections can cause people to speak the unspoken, he noted.
"Partisans can blurt out their inner thoughts with shocking frankness. That was the case this week as Democratic luminaries discussed plans to retake power and then fundamentally change the constitutional system to guarantee they will never have to give it up again," he noted.
"It turns out that winning votes in three blue states and a blue city in an off-year election can be quite intoxicating. It is easy to dismiss it as the talk of chest-thumping, bar-room blowhards about whom they were going to thump. But there is a truth in the bravado."
He noted the demands from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who said "The Democrat Party looks powerful for the first time all year."
He cited the importance of the Democrats' decision to shut down the government, to coerce the Republican into giving them their way.
Those budget resolution demands include raiding American taxpayers' wallets for another $1.5 trillion for paid propaganda, health care for illegal aliens and more, and it appears the party lost as members crossed over during the weekend to support a GOP plan to reopen federal functions.
Murphy had explained how important it was that the Democrats' win, to squash the idea that Democrats were in "retreat."
And it was ex-Attorney General Eric Holder who not only talked about regaining power, but never giving it up.
"That means weakening the greatest single check on power: the Supreme Court," Turley wrote.
He said he was talking about "the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028."
He said the Supreme Court must change.
"It's something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in '26 and in '28, 'What are we going to do about the Supreme Court?'" he charged.
Turley noted, "In other words, the court, as we know it, has got to go. While some on the left are questioning the very need for a Supreme Court or calling for it to be simply defied or 'dissolved,' others want it to be stacked with political activists, like some state supreme courts are."
Colorado's highest state court, for example, is made up of all Democrats, who even tried to banish Trump from the 2024 election ballot before being swatted down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He\y said changes there would have to happen for Democrats to force the creation of D.C. and Puerto Rico as states with two new Democrat senators each.
"Others want election and immigration 'reforms' viewed as favoring Democratic campaigns," he said.
Democrat strategist James Carville joined the bandwagon.
"I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They're going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That's going to happen, people."
He said, "That's going to happen to you. They're going to win. They're going to do some blue ribbon panel of distinguished jurists, and they are going to recommend 13, and a Democratic Senate and House is going to pass it, and the Democratic president is going to sign it, because they have to do an intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As if the BBC's reputation hadn't already been damaged enough, with President Donald Trump's charge that it acted with actual malice in its misleading story about him, the British Broadcasting Corporation now faces another huge scandal.
It seems its LGBT reporters wouldn't allow anything on the air about LGBT issues unless they liked the stories.
WorldNetDaily already has reported on Trump's charges that the network, which he is threatening with a possible $1 billion lawsuit, acted with "reckless disregard for the truth" and that shows the "actual malice" involved in the BBC's decision to publish false statements.
The firestorm already has prompted the head of the BBC and its news chief to walk away from the company, for the deceptive editing of President Trump's remarks on Jan. 6, 2021.
Lawyers for Trump confirmed statements on the network's "Panorama" documentary were "fabricated."
Now the Christian Institute in the U.K. is reporting that there was a group of LGBT activists within the BBC news organization that censored "news coverage critical of transgender ideology."
"In a leaked internal document seen by The Daily Telegraph, Michael Prescott warned executives of fears that LGBT 'desk staffers' were 'keeping other perspectives off-air,'" the report said.
Prescott worked at the BBC advising in editorial guidelines and standards.
The Telegraph reported Prescott heard reports of "what sounded like effective censorship by the specialist LGBTQ desk within News" while in his advisory role, the report said.
"I was told that time and time again, the LGBTQ desk staffers would decline to cover any story raising difficult questions about the trans debate. The allegation made to me was stark: that the desk had been captured by a small group of people promoting the Stonewall view of the debate," Prescott said.
"There was also a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity," he explained.
The documentation seen by the Telegraph also confirmed David Grossman, a senior editorial adviser for BBC, found "unintended editorial bias," a lack of "significant voices," and "little or no coverage" on the extremism involved in transgenderism, the "quality of care given to gender-confused children."
Further, the beliefs on gender identify were referenced as "established fact," not ideological beliefs.
"Referring to the story of transgender wrestler Gisele Shaw as a 'typical example' of bias, the memo said the BBC account 'glossed over how the wrestler, who is a biological male, had repeatedly won trophies by competing in women's competitions,'" the institute explained.
A BBC official confirmed there have been "a number of actions" relating to reports on sex and gender, to include new updates in the news style guide.
The Panorama scandal involves charges BBC literally spliced video together to claim Trump was encouraging the riots on Capitol Hill in 2021.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on Monday said he believes Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has "lost her way," saying he's "surprised" by the MAGA lawmaker who has been one of his staunchest supporters.
Trump was answering a question in the Oval Office, as CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked: "Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is a big ally of yours, said that she would rather see you focused on non-stop domestic policy meetings here at the White House, instead of non-stop foreign policy meetings. What's your response to her saying that, and also saying that grocery prices are up and not down, as you've said?"
"I don't know what happened to Marjorie. She's a nice woman, but I don't know what happened. She's lost her way I think," Trump responded. "I'm surprised at her."
"I have to view the presidency as a worldwide situation, not locally," he continued. "I mean we could have a world that's on fire where wars come to our shores very easily if you had a bad president. We had a horrible president and we ended up with Russia-Ukraine. We ended up with other disasters too."
"When you're president, you really sort of have to watch over the world because you're gonna be dragged into it otherwise, you're gonna be dragged into a world war."
Investigative journalist Laura Loomer took note of Trump's opinion of MTG, and said: "President Trump just confirmed publicly what I have been telling you all for months.
"He can't stand her and she's lying about being close with him and lying about speaking to him regularly."
Does Greene have aspirations for higher office? NOTUS reported the Christian congresswoman "is telling people she wants to run for president in 2028."
"She has confided to colleagues that she wants to run for president, according to four sources familiar with the matter, including one who has spoken with her directly about it," the news outlet explained.
"One source says her conversations have centered around her belief she is 'real MAGA and that the others have strayed,' adding that she believes she has 'the national donor network to win the primary.'"
"After publication, Greene texted NOTUS, saying she 'saw you posted a baseless article.' NOTUS sent an inquiry to her communications director ahead of publication, but Greene asked why NOTUS had not reached out to a different person in her office.
"Who is your source? Laura Loomer? She claimed I was running for governor last week and announcing it in the view. Once again you publish baseless gossip. Very disappointing. Don't text me again," Greene said.
Meanwhile, Greene is excited about her first book, "MTG," which is set to be released Nov. 21.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who faces a catastrophe because of a leftist ruling creating same-sex "marriage" across the country by extremists who no longer are on the bench.
It is Kim Davis who now faces $360,000 in penalties for the "hurt feelings" of homosexuals who bypassed other marriage license channels and sought her out to try to force her to publicly violate her Christian faith and issue them a marriage license.
"Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"By denying this petition, the high court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression. This cannot be right because government officials do not shed their constitutional rights upon election. Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start.
"This opinion has no basis in the Constitution. We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell. It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell."
Davis, in fact, had been caught up in the disaster that marriage ruling created. While the Supreme Court created same-sex marriage, it ignored the simultaneous need for recognition of individuals' constitutional rights, leaving Davis facing a demand to violate state law and her own religious rights.
The Supreme Court's denial of a review was without a ruling on the merits.
"By declining to hear the case, SCOTUS leaves the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion in place. The court also leaves unresolved an important constitutional question of whether the First Amendment's complementary protections of Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause protect government officials sued in their individual capacity for actions taken based on their religious beliefs," Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis, said.
Also left in place was the claim from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held Davis personally liable for a same-sex couple's "hurt feelings" from not getting a marriage license from Davis due to her upholding her religious views on marriage.
When the Obergefell case was announced, it was based on the implications of the Constitution, not any actual wording since marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. It, like the failed Roe decision earlier creating abortion, a decision that later was struck down, demanded a social change not mentioned in any way by the authors of the Constitution.
So believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses from June 29 to early September 2015 while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs.
"But two sets of plaintiffs, including David Ermold and David Moore, sought to mock Davis' Christian faith by forcing her name on their marriage license through litigation. Their attempt failed when Gov. Steven Beshear agreed that the altered license without Davis' name was valid. From early September onward, licenses were issued without Davis' name on them. In December 2015, newly elected Governor Matt Bevin issued an executive order granting the accommodation Davis sought. Then in April 2016, the Kentucky legislature unanimously codified the religious exemption by removing the names of all clerks from the state's marriage licenses," Liberty Counsel said.
However, David Bunning, a leftist federal judge, didn't wait for democracy to take effect, and immediately put her in jail for her Christian faith.
Liberty Counsel pointed out the nature of the attack on Davis. "Ermold and Moore could have gone to any number of nearby clerks to get a marriage license. But they wanted Davis' name on their license. In 2017, Ermold and Moore amended their complaint and sued Davis in her individual capacity for emotional distress for 'hurt feelings.' In addition to six days in jail, Davis was held liable for $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees over their 'hurt feelings' stemming from her religious expression."
Muiltiple judges had dissented from the creation of same-sex marriage – it was adopted by only a single vote from one leftist justice. And the minority warned of the threat to the Constitution that the social-engineering decision crated.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have "potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also apply to the Obergefell "same-sex marriage" decision.
In fact, both the abortion and same-sex marriage creations rely on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said. To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
Thomas said, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
On the same day an Omani official invited Tehran and Washington to return to the negotiating table – Nov. 1 – Iran's foreign minister expressed readiness to resume discussions over the country's nuclear program.
However, such an act in past U.S.-Iran negotiations has often proven counterproductive, as it has always served to conceal the political and social realities inside Iran. The 2015 nuclear talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group (China, France, Russia, the UK, the U.S. and Germany), which likewise began under Omani mediation, ultimately left Tehran closer than ever to building a nuclear weapon.
President Donald Trump was justified in withdrawing from the nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018, since it not only failed to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also released $150 billion in Iranian assets – funds that enabled the regime to accelerate its nuclear and missile programs, expand its regional proxy networks and deepen the economic misery of ordinary Iranians. By 2017, widespread poverty had already sparked a nationwide uprising.
Meanwhile, the Iranian regime continues to prevent Hezbollah from being disarmed and still provides financial and military support to Iraq's Hashd al-Shaabi and Yemen's Houthis. It has also concealed more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity.
A regime sustained by repression and executions
Iran's clerical regime now stands on the edge of collapse. Rooted in medieval dogmas and propelled into the 21st Century by historical accident, it can survive only through repression at home and aggression abroad. This is why Tehran has tied its survival to its nuclear program.
To believe that Iran's rulers would voluntarily abandon their nuclear ambitions is nothing short of a delusion.
Losing strategic depth and facing its real enemy
The loss of strategic depth in Syria, the collapse of the so-called "axis of resistance" and severe setbacks in its nuclear program have brought the regime face-to-face with its true adversary: the Iranian people.
For years, the regime has tried to delay this confrontation by exporting crises abroad and fueling regional conflicts.
The leadership in Tehran knows another uprising is inevitable – only its timing remains uncertain. The next revolt will be driven by a generation of people who perceive a vast gap between the regime's official rhetoric and their lived reality. This disconnect has stripped the establishment of legitimacy and deepened public distrust.
'Crimes against humanity': Mass executions as a tool of suppression
At least 285 prisoners, including four women and one juvenile offender under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged crimes, were hanged in October 2025 alone. Such a high number of executions in a single month is unprecedented in recent decades and represents a new record of crime and brutality in the contemporary world. The number of executions this month is approximately 1.7 times that of 2024 (171 executions) and three times that of 2023 (92 executions).
Through this wave of executions, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei aims to prevent any uprising. The sharp increase in executions no longer signals power, but desperation – evidence that state violence has lost its deterrent effect and now exposes the regime's crumbling foundations.
A pattern of mass killing to preserve power
For nearly half a century, Iran's religious rulers have relied on mass killings to overcome major crises and ensure their survival. After years of declaring war with the battle cry "fight to the last house," when finally forced to accept a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, ordered the execution of 30,000 political prisoners. Today, after a string of military and political failures, the regime once again appears ready to resort to mass bloodshed as its last means of survival.
'The war of wolves': Factional power struggles before an imminent uprising
As another nationwide uprising – and possibly the regime's downfall – looms, the issue of succession for the frail and aging Supreme Leader has fueled fierce infighting among Iran's ruling factions. Ordinary Iranians refer to this internal conflict as "the war of wolves."
Indeed, the regime has effectively split into two main blocs:
The first bloc, linked to former president Hassan Rouhani, ex-foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and others once close to Khamenei, who now see collapse as inevitable, advocates renewed negotiations with the United States to prolong the system's lifespan. Certain economic factions within the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) back this group.
The second bloc, loyal to Khamenei and the regime's hard core, rejects any compromise with Washington or retreat from the nuclear and missile programs, viewing such moves as the regime's premature death.
Power fractures: Harbingers of transition
In political science, a split within an authoritarian regime is among the clearest indicators – and catalysts – of a transition toward democracy. Simply put, such fractures signify the beginning of the end of the authoritarian order and the weakening of the machinery of repression.
However, engaging in deals, negotiations and appeasement with the global godfather of execution and terror is, many believe, tantamount to fueling the machinery of crime and slaughter of the religious fascists currently ruling Iran.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As significant progress was being made toward ending the federal government shutdown, President Donald Trump issued a scathing warning Monday to some air-traffic controllers, while praising others.
"All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!!" Trump exclaimed in a lengthy message on Truth Social. "Anyone who doesn't will be substantially 'docked.'"
"For those Air Traffic Controllers who were GREAT PATRIOTS, and didn't take ANY TIME OFF for the 'Democrat Shutdown Hoax,' I will be recommending a BONUS of $10,000 per person for distinguished service to our Country.
"For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU. You didn't step up to help the U.S.A. against the FAKE DEMOCRAT ATTACK that was only meant to hurt our Country. You will have a negative mark, at least in my mind, against your record.
"If you want to leave service in the near future, please do not hesitate to do so, with NO payment or severance of any kind! You will be quickly replaced by true Patriots, who will do a better job on the Brand New State of the Art Equipment, the best in the World, that we are in the process of ordering. The last 'Administration' wasted Billions of Dollars trying to fix antiquated 'junk.' They had no idea what they were doing!
Again, to our great American Patriots, GOD BLESS YOU – I won't be able to send your money fast enough! To all others, REPORT TO WORK IMMEDIATELY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!"
As WorldNetDaily reported, forty days into the longest government shutdown in history, eight members of the Senate Democratic Caucus bucked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to support a deal that will end the government shutdown.
Lawmakers voted 60 to 40 to advance a House-passed clean continuing resolution Sunday night that had previously failed to clear the Senate's 60-vote threshold 14 times. Though the deal marks a crucial breakthrough to reopen the government, the process is expected to take several days due to likely opposition from a number of senators to expedite a vote on final passage.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Some comments have the power to simply bring the conversation to a halt.
Even when the conversation is on video, with a podcaster from the New York Times.
It is Greg Gutfield of Fox News that leveled the field when he was asked about Planned Parenthood getting mean letters.
"Well, I mean, they are killing children," he said, leaving the New York Times host with a stunned look on his face.
Commenters online gave Gutfield heart and thumbs-up emojis,
One abortion promoter oddly felt it important to add to the conversation about Planned Parenthood, one of the biggest abortion industry providers in the world: "Zero kids are killed at Planned Parenthood. Kids are born."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – As the head of BBC and its news chief resigned over the weekend amid a firestorm for deceptively editing Donald Trump's remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, the president wasted no time threatening a $1 billion lawsuit if the network does not retract its "false" and "defamatory" statements by Friday.
Fox News reports the president's "litigation counsel sent a scathing notice of intent to bring a civil action lawsuit on Sunday to BBC Chair Samir Shah, along with general counsel Sarah Jones. The letter, which has been obtained by Fox News Digital, demands that 'false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements' made about Trump must be retracted immediately."
Attorneys for Trump said statements by the network's "Panorama" documentary were "fabricated and aired by the BBC," leaving him no other option than to seek legal remedy.
"Failure to comply will leave President Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to recover damages for the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that the BBC has caused him to suffer, with all rights and remedies being expressly reserved by President Trump," the letter states.
"In the Panorama documentary, titled 'Trump: A Second Chance,' which was first broadcast on October 28, 2024 – a week before the 2024 United States presidential election – the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump's speech to supporters," the letter continues.
"The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: 'We're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
Trump's actual statement was: "We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
Also edited out, according to the letter, was Trump indicating: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
The letter was written by Trump attorney Alejandro Brito, who noted: "Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide. Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm."
"Consequently, the BBC lacks any viable defense to the overwhelming reputational and financial harm it has caused President Trump to suffer."
Lawyers for the president believe "the BBC's reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements."
Trump is seeking "a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published," along with compensation and an immediate apology.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is now examining its options.
"We will review the letter and respond directly in due course," a BBC spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
Meanwhile, BBC Chairman Samir Shah is reacting to the controversy, saying: "This issue has led to over 500 complaints. These are now being dealt with in the normal way. It has also prompted further reflection by the BBC.
"The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgement."
As WorldNetDaily reported Sunday, two top officials at the BBC both quit the state-funded, left-leaning media giant Sunday amid fierce pressure after allegedly twisting Trump's words to make it look like he was inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
BBC boss Tim Davie, a 20-year veteran at the network who has been in charge for the last five years, resigned after "reflecting on the very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role over many years in these febrile times."
"Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable," Davie added. "While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision."
Also leaving her post is Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News.
"The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love," Turness said.
"The buck stops with me," she added. "While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has issued pardons to Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and dozens of alternate electors who worked to make sure America's election processes would be followed should Democrat schemes that appeared during the 2020 presidential race prove to have corrupted the voting.
While the legacy media to this day still claims they were "false" electors, those individuals simply were following a process long established in American elections to set up alternate slates of presidential electors when the results of those votes are clouded with doubt, scandal and controversy.
A report at the Federalist explains while legal challenges to various state election results were under way, the individuals met and cast votes as alternates, supporting President Donald Trump in that scandal-plagued 2020 vote.
That was when Mark Zuckerberg interfered in the election by handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to elections officials who often used the flood of cash to recruit voters in Democrat districts. Further, the FBI interfered by falsely claiming scandals revealed in the laptop abandoned at a repair shop by Hunter Biden were Russian disinformation.
So while various controversies were raging, both Democrat and Republican organizations offered slates of elections to the Electoral College.
"Those actions were taken based on sound historical and legal precedent, and ensured that legislatures in the Challenged States could select the rightful winner of the Election in the event the legislatures or the courts determined there had been a flawed calculation of votes or an unconstitutional deviation from state election law resulting in the wrong electoral votes being counted.," explained a recommendation from the Office of U.S. Pardon Attorney Edward R. Martin.
He stressed legal challenges to various "unconstitutional changes to election laws, procedural violations, ineligible voters, and election irregularities" raised alarms.
Others in the pardons list were former law professor John Eastman; lawyers Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis; and Kenneth Chesebro and Boris Epshteyn.
The Federalist explained the process used simply mirrored one used by the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 when the acting governor of Hawaii certified the Republican electors for Richard Nixon.
"There, as in Trump's case, Kennedy had filed a challenge to the results in state court, and accordingly Democrats certified three alternative electors to cast their ballots for Kennedy in the event the court ruled in his favor," the report explained.
"Two of the three Democrat electors were retired federal judges and yet they certified — as did the Trump alternative electors — that they were 'duly and legally qualified and appointed' electors for Kennedy. The Democrats further certified 'the votes of the state of Hawaii' were given to Kennedy. Kennedy later prevailed in his legal challenge, with his alternative electors then casting their votes in his favor," the Federalist explained.
However, when similar circumstances developed in the 2020 election, ex-FBI chief Christopher Wray and then-Attorney General Merrick Garland launched numerous "criminal" investigations of individuals, claiming that their efforts were "fraudulent."
Despite the processes being routine, and historic, legacy media outlets to this day claim that those individuals were trying "to overturn the outcome" of the election.
CBS referred to the individuals as "so-called" alternate state electors.
The pardon document confirmed it is done to end "a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that it was persecution against those Americans, and Joe Biden put them "through hell."
Democrats' schemes to make similar claims against President Trump failed in federal court earlier this year.
While some of the cases against the Trump supporters developed in state courts, results that a president cannot pardon, some of those have been dismissed and others are on appeal.
The list included a total of 77 people who had been targeted by Democrats.
State officials involved in the attacks on the Republican-named electors included Arizona AG Kris Mayese, Nevada AG Aaron Ford, Michigan AG Dana Nessel, Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul and the now-disgraced Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis.
Martin had explained that the prosecutions are "attempts by partisan state actors to shoehorn fanciful and concocted state law violations onto what are clearly federal constitutional obligations of the 2020 Trump campaign: the establishment of the contingent electors, the actions attendant to their roles as presidential electors, and their duties under established historical and legal precedent to exercise their responsibilities as electors – all of which are functions of federal – not state – law."
"The memorandum noted because the states are prosecuting the 2020 Trump electors, and those connected to the decision to use alternative electors, for exercising a solely federal function, the president of the United States can pardon them for their supposed state law crimes. This novel theory seeks to sidestep the normal limitation on the president's pardon authority — an authority limited to pardoning individuals for solely federal crimes," the Federalist explained.
Now, the report noted, "The Democrat attorneys general behind the prosecutions may not wish to push the matter because doing so could expose either their complicity with the Biden administration or with Democrat activists. Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis already learned that lesson when her efforts to prosecute the Georgia electors and Trump attorneys led to the discovery that 'both the Fulton County prosecutor and her paramour-paid junior prosecutor engaged with Biden administration officials both before and after obtaining the indictment.'"