This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Letitia James, the New York attorney general who campaigned on a platform to "get" President Donald Trump, then worked with a leftist judge to decide on a $500 million "fraud" penalty that turned out to be unconstitutional, now has been indicted herself.
The charge comes from a federal grand jury in Virginia and names her on a count of bank fraud.
She already had been under investigation by the Department of Justice over allegations she lied on federal forms to get better interest rates on mortgages.
James won a civil case last year against President Donald Trump and his Trump Organization over her claims of faulty business dealings, but the $500 million penalty created by Arthur Engoron, the New York judge in the case, and James was found to be unconstitutional and thrown out.
Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte had alleged that James may have committed mortgage fraud by making false or misleading statements on property records, "like a loan application that said her property in Virginia is her primary residence, a building record stating her multifamily Brooklyn property incorrectly has five residences instead of four, and a mortgage application that falsely stated James was her father's spouse," Fox News reported.
It was U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, appointed by Trump after her predecessor, who returned the indictment.
WND has reported that the mortgage fraud allegations aren't the only problem for James.
It's minor, but it's still a problem that was cited. It's that the height of a fence at a five-unit apartment structure she owns in Brooklyn.
It's the same address that triggered a federal mortgage fraud investigation into her, as she obtained an interest rate on a mortgage for the property that was based on it having four units, when it actually has five, according to building records.
The Washington Examiner said James could face $500 in fines because the fence at the brownstone is five feet, five inches tall, beyond the 48-inch limit.
The New York Department of Buildings served James with a violation notice recently that deemed her front fence exceeded height limitations.
It was James who, after campaigning to "get" Trump, came up with a claim that his business operations committed fraud. She worked with Engoron on the case, which alleged that there was fraud even though the business entities that supposedly were victimized said their loans were repaid on time and in full, and they would like to do more business with Trump.
Despite the lack of evidence, the judge created a penalty for Trump and his businesses of almost half a billion dollars, a decision that subsequently was tossed by an appeals court ruling that said it violated the U.S. Constitution.
Further, WND reported that constitutional expert Jonathan Turley revealed that James may not be done losing to Trump.
A New York appeals court ruled that the civil penalty issued by Engoron in February 2024 violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. Turley told "Faulkner Focus" guest host Aishah Hasnie that while the ruling was a "tremendous victory" for Trump, more wins could be coming for the president.
"This is obviously a tremendous victory for President Trump, but it's long overdue. During this litigation, many of us described this entire effort as a grotesque use of this New York law. No one lost money in this case. The banks actually wanted more business from President Trump," Turley said. "No one had ever seen an effort like this. It was an effort by Letitia James to have a trophy win against Trump and what this opinion has done is reduce what was a mounted marlin to something of a guppy. It has removed the fine and left in place the injunctive relief that President Trump can now appeal. So, it is possible that even that could go to the wayside."
"The good news is really for the New York court system. This regains some of the credibility that was lost during this process," Turley continued. "Many of us stood there in disbelief that James was allowed to do this. She succeeded in securing or she was fortunate enough to secure a very favorable judge, Judge Engoron, and I want to note, by the way, that both the judge and James tried to effectively price Trump out of even appealing the case. They insisted that he would have to pony up half a billion dollars just to question what they did in the case and it was an outrageous effort to effectively price out an appeal. It didn't work. Now we can see that the appellate court said this should never have happened in terms of the fine."
James sued Trump in September 2022, alleging he overstated the value of real estate holdings to obtain loans after vowing to investigate Trump during her initial campaign for attorney general in 2018, during which she labeled him an "illegitimate president." Turley said the appeals court ruling would also calm businesses in the state.
"There are still legitimate questions here with regard to the injunctive relief," Turley told Hasnie. "The court obviously fractured on these issues. The good news for New Yorkers is that the court of appeals really sent a message to the business community, the legal community, that they are not going to allow raw lawfare."
Late Thursday, James posted a video saying the indictment is "nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system."
If a case the Supreme Court is looking at goes Republicans' way, it could lead to 19 more solid GOP seats in the House, almost guaranteeing a Republican majority for the foreseeable future.
The high court plans to rehear Louisiana v. Callais, a case that challenges section 2, the provision that prevents racial gerrymandering if the result would dilute minority votes in that district.
In other words, it's currently illegal to redistrict a majority Black or Hispanic district so that it stops being a majority district for that race. It's a form of affirmative action for voting, so that's why liberals are worried the court will rule to strike it down.
Most majority Black or Hispanic districts vote Democrat, so the provision benefits Democrats.
If it is struck down, experts estimate that Republicans will net 19 House seats, which could be enough to keep them in the majority in 2026 and beyond.
The court probably won't rule on the case before primaries for the midterms in 2026, so changes will have to wait until after that.
But there's a chance the ruling could come that soon, and Republicans will be ready to jump on it if it does.
Other redistricting could give Republicans about eight more seats, but the party in power generally loses seats in the off-year, so we will have to see what happens.
Democrats are already talking about a "one-party system" if their fears come to fruition, but whose fault do they think that is?
Maybe if the party hadn't lurched so far to the left in the last few elections, they'd still be relevant and wouldn't be bleeding minority voters who don't want to see their taxes skyrocket and their world turn woke while inflation makes their dollars worth less every year.
If Democrats spent as much time listening to the concerns of their voting bloc and figuring out what the majority of their members really want as they do trumpeting soft socialism and transgender surgeries for minors, they might not be in this mess in the first place.
For Republicans' part, if they can avoid shooting themselves in the foot long enough, they might just be able to regain some of the strength they had in the 1980s, like in 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states.
Trump has managed to turn much of the economy around in just a few months, and if he can keep control of Congress, he could do even more during the rest of his term.
Let minorities get elected due to their platform and positions, not their skin color.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith, the Democrat-appointed special counsel who ran some of the party's lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, deserves to be punished, according to Republicans in Washington.
And, after recent revelations that he spied on the telephone records of multiple GOP senators, several of them are working to see that that includes disbarment.
One investigative reporter has suggested that Smith was collecting information on the GOP senators because, had Kamala Harris been elected, he wanted to pursue further charges against the president and other Republicans.
With Harris' catastrophic loss, the cases against Trump vanished.
Now a "growing chorus of outraged Republican senators, led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), are escalating their fight against former Special Counsel Jack Smith and the federal government, vowing a slew of legal challenges and professional complaints over the alleged tracking of their private phone records," a report confirmed.
Graham also has promised to "sue the crap" out of anyone involved in the monitoring was done without proper cause.
Blackburn confirmed a letter is being dispatched to call for Smith's disbarment because of the "appalling weaponization" he did in the federal government.
"I'm already working on a letter to the DC Bar, a complaint letter, to file against him! He should be DISBARRED."
According to a report at Gateway Hispanic notes Smith is "accused of orchestrating Biden's FBI espionage on eight Republican senators following the 2020 elections. Smith now faces a formal complaint for his professional disbarment."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the battle over President Donald Trump's Sept. 19 H-1B visa proclamation, a new lawsuit seeks to block Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee, intended to defend U.S. workers, restore integrity to the immigration system and stop corporate abuse of cheap foreign labor.
The coalition behind the lawsuit, composed of unions, universities and religious institutions, claims the surcharge is unlawful. But their challenge underscores a deeper problem: Too many American organizations have grown comfortable exploiting the visa system while benefiting from tax breaks, public funding and American freedoms.
The case, filed in California federal court, argues that Trump overstepped his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Yet the law grants the president explicit power under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) to restrict or condition the entry of any non-citizens when their admission is "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The proclamation cites precisely that concern: that the H-1B program has been "deliberately exploited" to replace Americans, suppress wages and create dependency on foreign labor.
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Why the administration says the fee is necessary
For years, law-abiding Americans have watched as tech firms, staffing agencies and academic institutions bypassed domestic workers through complex visa loopholes. Investigations by federal agencies have documented fraud, kickbacks and racketeering tied to outsourcing companies that dominate H-1B hiring. The new $100,000 surcharge functions as both deterrent and filter, discouraging frivolous petitions and forcing employers to justify their hiring decisions.
Under previous rules, companies paid only a few thousand dollars in filing fees, an amount small enough to treat the visa as disposable. Trump's order changes that calculation, ensuring that H-1Bs are used only when no qualified Americans are available – the actual purpose Congress originally intended. It also exempts current visa holders and petitions already in process, focusing solely on new overseas applications.
A system long abused
The proclamation's preamble cites evidence that the program has become a tool for wage suppression and labor displacement. In some industries, "specialty occupation" designations have been stretched so broadly that mid-level coding, accounting or analyst jobs are routinely outsourced to foreign nationals at lower pay. Law enforcement has prosecuted multiple H-1B-reliant firms for visa fraud and money-laundering conspiracies, confirming that such misuse is not rare. Indeed, it is routine.
These practices don't just undercut U.S. workers. They weaken America's national security. The transfer of sensitive data and intellectual property through offshored labor pipelines has already drawn scrutiny from defense and intelligence agencies. Trump's team frames the $100,000 surcharge as a national-interest safeguard, balancing economic policy with security oversight, both legitimate functions of executive power.
The lawsuit's real implication
Opponents argue that the surcharge violates administrative procedure, but their lawsuit exposes another truth: Many U.S. institutions have built their models around low-cost foreign labor instead of training Americans. Universities advertise international recruiting programs while cutting domestic admissions.
Hospitals contract foreign nurses through visa agencies instead of funding local pipeline programs. Tech firms lobby for more visas, even as they conduct mass layoffs of American staff.
Trump's proclamation forces accountability. By raising the cost barrier, it challenges employers to prove necessity, not merely convenience or cost savings. If companies truly face shortages, they can still file. If not, they'll have incentive to invest in apprenticeships, retraining and education in the United States of America. It's a measure meant to rebalance the labor market in favor of American citizens, not global labor brokers.
Can Americans harmed by past abuse seek justice?
Workers who lost jobs to unlawful visa practices may already have recourse under existing law. Claims of discrimination or displacement can fall under 8 U.S.C. §1324b, Title VII, or RICO statutes if fraud or collusion can be proven. Thus, even if Trump's proclamation were to be somehow struck down, which would predictably embolden further abuse, civil or class-action lawsuits would be the only path for Americans to challenge the system that replaced them.
A defining test of sovereignty
Whether courts uphold or block the policy, the stakes go beyond one visa category. The H-1B debate now represents a broader question: Who governs America's labor market – elected leaders accountable to citizens, or corporations accountable to shareholders? President Trump's move asserts that immigration should serve the national interest, not undermine it.
The current lawsuit will proceed through the courts in the coming months. For millions of American workers sidelined by years of outsourcing and offshoring, the outcome will decide whether immigration law protects them … or the companies profiting from their replacement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A school board does have the authority, and can, remove from its school library shelves a book intended for children that promotes same-sex "marriage," according to a judge's ruling.
"By definition, libraries must have discretion to keep certain ideas—certain viewpoints—off the shelves," explained Chief U.S. District Juge Allen Winsor of the fight involving the Escambia County School Board in Florida.
In exercising that discretion, this library did what "libraries have been doing for two centuries," and that is "decide which books" are of "requisite and appropriate quality" to be on shelves, the judge wrote.
At issue was a "penguin-themed children's book depicting 'same-sex marriage.'"
"And Tango Makes Three" is a story about two male penguins who adopt, hatch, and raise Tango, a penguin chick at New York's Central Park Zoo, Liberty Counsel explained.
The fight moved into the courts in 2023 on a lawsuit by the book's authors and a young female student.
Winsor's conclusion was that "the government does not create a forum for others' speech by purchasing books for a public library."
The result of the ruling is that the book's authors have no First Amendment right to a spot on a government library shelf and the student has no First Amendment right to receive the authors' specific message through the library.
"Judge Winsor explained the library's decision to remove the book does not keep the book or its viewpoint from the student since the book is available elsewhere. Furthermore, Judge Winsor noted, the authors also do not have a First Amendment right to demand that the library 'ignore the book's viewpoint' when deciding whether to include it in its collection," Liberty Counsel explained.
Winsor cited Shurtleff v. City of Boston, a U.S. Supreme Court case where Liberty Counsel won a unanimous victory in 2022.
In that case, Boston illegally censored Christian viewpoints by denying flying the Christian flag in a public forum open to "all applicants," and so the high court held when a city opens a public forum to private expression, it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint without violating the First Amendment, the legal team explained.
Winsor's ruling found a library collection "does not constitute a public forum" for private expression, so libraries can make its own determinations on "what constitutes worthwhile literature."
Winsor said libraries send messages about their own protected messaging in selecting some books and not others.
"Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said, "School boards have the discretion to keep inappropriate material off the bookshelves and away from children. Gender ideology has no place in public education and school officials should protect children from indoctrination."
Former Biden prosecutor Jack Smith secretly spied on sitting Republican lawmakers as part of the sweeping investigation into the January 6th Capitol protest, according to a newly uncovered FBI document.
The spying was part of the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation, which was launched in 2022 as a Biden-era crackdown on President Trump and his MAGA movement was in full swing. The FBI memo is dated September 27, 2023, and mentions Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), as well as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) as targets for government surveillance.
News of the disturbing surveillance was shared with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.), who has been probing the weaponization of government during the Biden regime.
One of the senators targeted, Sen. Graham, called the weaponization of government during the Biden years "worse than Watergate."
“Based on the evidence to-date, Arctic Frost and related weaponization by federal law enforcement under Biden was arguably worse than Watergate,” Grassley said in a statement.
“If heads don’t roll in this town, nothing changes,” Grassley told reporters.
The Arctic Frost investigation was opened in 2022 by an anti-Trump FBI agent, Timothy Thibault, before it was handed over to Smith later that year.
This document shows the Biden FBI spied on 8 of my Republican Senate colleagues during its Arctic Frost investigation into "election conspiracy" Arctic Frost later became Jack Smith's elector case against Trump
BIDEN FBI WEAPONIZATION = WORSE THAN WATERGATE pic.twitter.com/V2JyiVlX48
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 6, 2025
Smith obtained cell phone records from the nine Republican lawmakers from January 4 through January 7, 2021, a period that overlaps with the contentious certification of the 2020 election. The surveillance appears to be related to GOP lawmakers' involvement in challenging the 2020 presidential election, which Trump still maintains was fraudulent.
The cell phone records would have showed whom the Republican members called and when, as well as the location and duration of the calls, although the content of those calls would not have been included, Grassley noted.
The FBI memo is titled "CAST assistance," which refers to the bureau's cellular analysis team. The document is tagged, "ARCTIC FROST — Election Law Matters — SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE MATTER — CAST.”
The news of Smith's spying on Congress adds to the Biden-era government abuses that were carried out in the name of saving "our democracy" from Trump, who was hounded by Smith in two sprawling criminal investigations while Trump was campaigning for the White House.
The Arctic Frost probe focused on alternate slates of pro-Trump electors who were deemed "fake electors" by Smith and others. The so-called "fake electors plot" became the centerpiece of Smith's sweeping, failed case against Trump for "election interference."
Trump called Smith a "real sleazebag" after the prosecutor's role in spying on Congress was exposed.
“Deranged Jack Smith got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A real sleazebag!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Smith's audacious surveillance of Congress adds to a long history of partisan overreach by the FBI, which infamously spied on Trump's 2016 campaign using Clinton-funded opposition research.
“We recently uncovered proof that phone records of U.S. lawmakers were seized for political purposes,” FBI director Kash Patel said in a statement. “That abuse of power ends now. Under my leadership, the FBI will deliver truth and accountability, and never again be weaponized against the American people.”
President Trump was evasive about the possibility of pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, when asked about the subject on Monday.
Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he would consult the Justice Department on the matter, the Washington Examiner reported.
"I haven’t heard the name in so long,” Trump told reporters of Maxwell. “I’d have to take a look at it. I would have to take a look.”
Controversy over Epstein was renewed this summer after the Justice Department affirmed that the financier died by suicide in jail and that he did not have an incriminating "client list."
The cut-and-dry conclusions sparked backlash from some in Trump's own base, where many have long believed that Epstein was part of a large and shadowy criminal conspiracy.
Theories about Epstein have since migrated leftward, as Democrats accuse Trump of a sinister effort to hide the so-called Epstein files.
Trump has been eager to put the Epstein firestorm to rest, although his own comments have at times fanned the flames.
“I’ll speak to the DOJ. I wouldn’t consider it or not consider it. I don’t know anything about it, but I’ll speak to the DOJ,” he continued Monday.
“I don’t know. I may not have to speak to the DOJ. I’ll look at it. I have a lot of people who have asked me for pardons.”
Maxwell is the only person other than Epstein to ever be charged for trafficking girls to him. She is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in recruiting "massage girls" for Epstein to abuse at his homes.
Trump has previously appeared to leave the door open to pardoning Maxwell. His latest comments on the matter came after the Supreme Court rejected Maxwell's appeal of her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking.
Any clemency for Maxwell would be certain to cause enormous controversy, including within Trump's own MAGA movement, which responded with consternation to the Justice Department's closure of the Epstein case in July.
But Trump has gone against his base before, previously disavowing "weaklings" on the right who remain focused on the Epstein matter. Trump has blasted the recent interest in the case as a cynical "hoax" being pushed by Democrats to distract from his achievements.
After she was thrust back into the spotlight this summer, Maxwell met with the Justice Department's No.2 official, Todd Blanche, for a controversial interview that fueled accusations that Maxwell was negotiating a pardon.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from a case on Monday dealing with social media websites.
Alito did not explain why he stepped aside, but the reason was likely routine as he owns stock in the company Procter & Gamble, which was a party in the case, according to left-leaning advocacy group Fix The Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal from right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer, who accused the tech giants Facebook and X (formerly known as Twitter) of colluding to censor her during both of her campaigns for Congress.
A brief note said that Alito "took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”
"The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition," the court wrote.
Loomer had alleged that she was deplatformed as part of a conspiracy involving "government pressure, corporate collusion and biased content moderation” that “stifled” her ability to fundraise and communicate with voters, the Hill reported.
Her arguments failed to win over lower courts, which found she did not have a convincing claim that the Big Tech companies acted as a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Loomer named consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble as one of the defendants in the alleged conspiracy to silence her. Justice Alito inherited shares in the company from his late father-in-law.
Federal judges are required to recuse themselves in cases where their impartiality can be called into question, such as situations where they have a financial interest.
In recent years, the left has pressured conservative members of the Supreme Court to recuse themselves from cases on more spurious grounds.
Alito, for instance, previously faced demands from Democrats to step aside from January 6th cases over flags that were displayed at his homes. Alito stood his ground, issuing a defiant response to his critics.
While critical of Alito in other instances, Fix The Court noted that his recusal from the Loomer case was unremarkable.
"Sometimes, the simplest answer is the right one: Justice Alito recused because the law required him to do so," wrote Fix The Cout clerk Manny Marotta.
This is not the first time that Alito has recused himself from a case where he had a financial interest. Indeed, Alito has investments in 28 different companies, according to his financial disclosures.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Colorado's leftist government, run by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis and other Democrats who make up the majority of the legislature, has decided that it's free speech when a licensed counselor tries to convince a client of the benefits of the LGBT lifestyle. That "affirming" advice.
But it's "behavior" when a Christian licensed counselor explains to a client the benefits of attitude adjustments that provide the patient a level of comfort inside his or her own sexual identity. That, Colorado claims, can be censored.
That fight was before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a case brought by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who explains that the state's one-sided and censorial agenda of leftism actually violates her constitutionally protected right to free speech.
It's been a common tactic for LGBT activists and other leftists across the country to falsely label such counseling "conversion therapy" and then make it illegal to counter their political ideology.
The Supreme Court, at least a "majority" of the justices, seemed "to lean in favor of a Christian counselor challenging bans on LGBTQ+ 'conversion therapy' for kids as a violation of her First Amendment rights," according to a published report.
Colorado already has lost multiple cases at the high court in its campaigns to censor Christians and force them to parrot the state's adopted pro-LGBT ideology. In one case, the justices scolded state officials for their "hostility" to Christians.
Even AP, which leans far left in its politics, admitted the justices, whose decision won't come for some weeks or even months, appeared to choose Chiles' side.
The high court already has ruled that states can ban transition-related health care for "transgender" youth.
Colorado's lawyers insisted that any "treatment" seeking to change "a minor's sexual orientation" is "unsafe and ineffective."
However, studies show that the incident of suicidal ideology is higher for those in the LGBT lifestyle than the general population.
A report at the Daily Signal explained, "Colorado says its law regulates a 'treatment' that is harmful and that violates the state's standard of care. But Kaley Chiles, a Colorado-based counselor, says the law violates her right to free speech by favoring 'the expression of some views over others."
The report noted the wild tangent into which Sonia Sotomayor tried to push the court. She demanded to know whether Chiles encourages her clients to vomit or exposes them to electric shock therapy.
Chiles' lawyers explained she engages in speech with her clients, "voluntary talk therapy."
Leftist judges in Colorado, where the all-Democrat state Supreme Court even tried to throw Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot, claimed the state was right in saying that speech is behavior.
Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson claimed studies confirm higher rates of suicidality among teens who underwent conversion therapy – but Chiles' lawyer explained those results depend on biased sampling, self-reporting, which is unreliable, and the inappropriate conflation of "aversion therapy," a separate concept entirely, with the misnamed "conversion therapy."
Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told The Daily Signal, "Under Colorado law, young people may seek a licensed counselor's help to affirm or support their sexual orientation or gender identity, but not to change it or even to better align it with their sex or religious faith. As a direct restriction on speech, this blatant, intentional viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment. The kind of 'talk therapy' that plaintiff [Kaley] Chiles uses helps many clients, and Colorado has never offered evidence of any harm."
WND previously reported, "Officials in the leftist state who multiple times have demanded the authority to censor Christians in the state have claimed that the counselors' speech is "behavior," which they say they can regulate. But their agenda is clear in the details of their fight: They insist that no counselor can encourage a patient to consider NOT being LGBT. But promotions of the LGBT lifestyle choices are fully encouraged."
Detractors have called such counseling "conversion therapy" but the misnomer isn't accurate since the counseling actually involves helping patients come to grips with their own reality.
The 3rd and 11th circuit courts already have found such bans suppress protected speech.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said, "Laws that restrict counselors and clients to only one viewpoint violate the First Amendment. Talk therapy is speech, and the government has no authority to restrict that speech to just one viewpoint. Counseling bans must be struck down nationwide so that people can get the counseling they need. Counselors and clients should have the freedom to choose the counsel of their choice and be free of government censorship."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is accusing Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed under Joe Biden to work on some of the Democrats' lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, of "spying on political opponents."
WND has reported there's been confirmation about the extent and depth of the weaponization of the federal government under Biden, to include onetime special counsel Smith monitoring the communications of, and spying on, Republican senators.
A document, reviewed by Fox News Digital, revealed that Smith and his FBI activists working to undermine, even prosecute and jail, President Donald Trump "were allegedly tracking" telephone activity of GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania.
Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director, briefed multiple senators, including Graham, Hawley, Johnson, Blackburn and more, Monday.
Hawley said the scheme to be "spying on the presidents political opponents" was "a profound violation of the separation of powers."
Hawley said the actions align with what he described as the broader pattern of executive overreach under Biden's White House.
He cited the surveillance that was ordered of Catholic churches, parents at school board meetings, and social media censorship, too.
"The truth comes out. Biden's Stasi who claimed to be saving 'our sacred democracy' in fact worked overtime to destroy it — all for power. They spied on Catholic churches, prosecuted pro-lifers, deployed the FBI against parents at school board meetings — and tried to tap the phones of their political enemies. Including mine," Hawley wrote.
"This is an abuse of power beyond Watergate, beyond J. Edgar Hoover, one that directly strikes at the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the First Amendment. We need a full investigation of all involved: who knew about it, who ordered it, and who approved it. Anyone and everyone who violated the law must be prosecuted. The way to save the country is to restore the rule of law."
He said he was targeted because he is a conservative Republican and opposed Biden's "lawlessness," the report said.
"This is worse than Watergate," he said, as Biden "activated the entire government to go after anybody who dared to oppose him."
He explained, "We've got to have a total accountability, total transparency and a full accounting of everybody who was involved in this — everybody who knew about it, signed off on it, and had any part in it, and I just can't imagine that this is legal… and anybody who committed legal violations needs to be prosecuted."
One of Smith's lawfare cases against Trump involved Democrat claims that the January 6, 2021, protest turned riot in Washington actually was an insurrection, a deliberate attempt to overthrow to U.S. government. It apparently was in connection with those claims that he demanded access to the senators' telephone records.
The case eventually collapsed even has Smith continued to submit to the court various extravagant claims about Trump.