Special prosecutor Robert Mueller, 81, who headed the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion after the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2021 and won't be able to testify about federal involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case, according to his family.
“Bob was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in the summer of 2021,” Mueller’s family said in a statement to the New York Times on Sunday.
“He retired from the practice of law at the end of that year. He taught at his law school alma mater during the fall of both 2021 and 2022, and he retired at the end of 2022. His family asks that his privacy be respected,” the statement said.
Mueller handled the Epstein case during his tenure as FBI director from 2001 until 2013. He was expected to appear on Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee and answer questions about his handling of the case.
Mueller has had trouble moving and speaking recently, which is why he is apparently unable to testify.
The Parkinson's diagnosis might answer a lot of questions about why Mueller seemed so disoriented and stumbling when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee for three hours in 2019.
“I was surprised that Mr. Mueller was so disoriented,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) told the New York Post after his testimony.
“He was unable to answer some basic questions, which really surprised me,” she said.
Parkinson's Disease usually affects people over the age of 60. It causes tremors, slowness, and speech difficulties, and there is no cure.
Symptoms of the disease can be managed with medications and other therapies, but it is progressive and usually gets worse over time.
After the statement from Mueller's family, the committee withdrew its subpoena for Mueller to testify.
"We've learned that Mr. Mueller has health issues that preclude him from being able to testify. The Committee has withdrawn its subpoena," a committee aide said in a statement.
Mueller was only one of many high-profile witnesses from which the committee sought testimony.
Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee James Comer (R-KY) has also brought in ex-FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, and former Attorneys General Eric Holder Jr., Merrick Garland, Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Sessions and William Barr to testify about their involvement in the Epstein case.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired a DOJ paralegal who was caught flipping the bird at National Guardsmen working in Washington, D.C.
The paralegal, identified as Elizabeth Baxter, was on her way to work at the DOJ's environmental division when she flipped off a National Guard member and then bragged about it to a security guard working in the lobby of her building.
Baxter told the guard that she had encountered the National Guard member at the Metro Center Metro Stop when she made the obscene gesture and loudly proclaimed, “F–k the National Guard."
Her bad behavior didn't stop there, as she was later observed on that same day by DOJ security cameras flipping off the National Guard and saying, “F–k you!” Keep it classy, leftists.
Many of Washington, D.C.'s residents are grateful to have the National Guard in town, as there has been an unprecedented drop in crime. For the first time in years, its fairly safe to walk the streets of the nation's capital without risking being robbed at gunpoint.
Regardless of one's feelings about the situation in Washington, D.C., it's unacceptable for a public servant to be making obscene gestures to other public servants who are doing their jobs. Only a leftist would ever think it's acceptable to treat America's armed forces with such disrespect.
An investigation into Baxter's actions was quickly conducted, resulting in the issuance of a termination letter that read, "You are removed from your position of Paralegal Specialist, GS-0950-11, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and from the federal service, effective immediately."
In comments made to The New York Post, Bondi explained that, "Today, I took action to terminate a DOJ employee for inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members in DC."
She went on to warn other DOJ workers by saying, "This DOJ remains committed to defending President Trump’s agenda and fighting to make America safe again. If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement — you will NO LONGER work at DOJ.”
This incident with Baxter comes after another DOJ paralegal, Sean Charles Dunn, was charged with throwing a Subway sandwich at federal law enforcement. He was lucky to avoid felony charges for his absurdly boneheaded decision.
Interestingly, Baxter and Dunn worked in the same building and were both paralegals. Clearly, it's time for Bondi to review the hiring practices that have allowed for such a toxic and disrespectful culture to flourish.
The decision to deploy the National Guard to clean up D.C., since Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser would rather coddle criminals, has led to fantastic results with over 1,000 arrests made, according to Bondi.
Of particular note is the seizure of over 100 illegal firearms. Typically, leftists are demanding that weapons be seized, but because the Trump administration is disarming criminals and not regular citizens, leftists are angry.
Washington D.C.'s police union is also happy with the National Guard's presence, and the police union thanked the Trump administration for their focus on cleaning up the city, something D.C's metropolitan police have been unable to do thanks to soft-on-crime leadership.
This cleanup of Washington, D.C. has starkly illustrated how Democrats are on the side of criminals over regular Americans. Liberals like Baxter are flipping the bird at our troops who are making life better for law-abiding citizens.
Apparently, there's a serious issue with paralegals at the Department of Justice (DOJ), as this week marked the second time one was fired under Attorney General Pam Bondi's watch.
According to Fox News, Bondi dropped the firing hammer on a second DOJ paralegal this week after it was reported that the paralegal who was terminated gave the "bird" to a National Guard member stationed in Washington D.C. on her way to work.
The paralegal was Elizabeth Baxter. She reportedly worked in at the DOJ's environmental department. It was after she arrived to work at 8:20 a.m. that she bragged about something profane she had shouted at a member of the National Guard.
As soon as AG Bondi received word of Baxter's immature and foolish move, she announced that she had terminated the paralegal promptly.
Baxter had the audacity to brag about what she had done on her way to work that morning, as Fox News noted:
Later that day, Baxter was seen on DOJ security footage sticking up her middle finger at the National Guard and exclaiming, "F--k you!" the outlet reported. She was also allegedly seen demonstrating to a department security guard how she held up her middle finger.
There is a sizeable contingent of National Guard troops currently helping D.C. Metro Police patrol the streets and keep crime down as much as possible, which has triggered many on the left who somehow claim the crime levels are find and the troops aren't needed.
Bondi not only announced Baxter's firing after news of the incident got to her, but also made sure to use the situation as a teaching moment -- and a warning -- to others who believe disrespecting our troops is an acceptable move.
"Today, I took action to terminate a DOJ employee for inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members in DC," Bondi said.
"This DOJ remains committed to defending President Trump’s agenda and fighting to make America safe again," Bondi continued. "If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement — you will NO LONGER work at DOJ."
In the termination letter, Bondi wrote, "You are removed from your position of Paralegal Specialist, GS-0950-11, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and from the federal service, effective immediately."
Baxter's firing followed the termination of Sean Charles Dunn, another paralegal who made a stupid decision and lost an amazing career as a result.
Dunn reportedly hurled a sandwich at a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent earlier this month.
Fox News noted:
Dunn, who worked in the criminal division's international affairs section in the 4CON building, was initially charged with a felony, but a grand jury declined to hand down an indictment. He was subsequently charged with a misdemeanor, which could result in up to one year in jail.
Clearly, Bondi isn't messing around.
In a striking legal move, country singer Alexis Wilkins has initiated a $5 million defamation lawsuit, the New York Post reported.
Alexis Wilkins claims that podcaster Kyle Seraphin falsely called her an Israeli spy to attract viewers to his show.
Based in Tennessee, Wilkins is not only a country music artist but also collaborates with PragerU. Her decision to file this suit in Texas stems from allegations made on August 22 by Kyle Seraphin, a former FBI counterterrorism agent turned popular podcaster.
Seraphin, who has amassed over 217,000 followers across platforms like YouTube, Rumble, and X, tackled the personal life of FBI Director Kash Patel in his broadcast, claiming Patel’s girlfriend, Wilkins, was no ordinary partner. Without naming her directly, but given the public nature of her relationship with Patel since January 2023, Seraphin insinuated she was a former Mossad agent involved in a questionable "honeypot" operation—intelligence jargon for using romantic relationships for espionage.
The accusation did not stop at espionage claims. Seraphin openly mocked the sincerity of Wilkins and Patel's relationship, suggesting that what they had was far from genuine love.
Wilkins and Patel had met Seraphin before at a conservative event, which adds a layer of personal acquaintance to the allegations. The lawsuit specifically points out Seraphin’s background in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division to underline the weight his words carry, potentially giving his baseless claims an undeserved veneer of credibility.
The lawsuit also highlights some of Seraphin's commentary that seemed to target Patel’s ethnic background and appearance, with direct comments about his age and racial identity. Such details indicate a broader pattern of mockery and insensitivity, extending beyond mere speculation about Wilkins' background.
Wilkins’ legal team vehemently denies any association of hers with spy agencies, emphasizing her lack of any travel to Israel or connections with intelligence agencies. They argue that such fabricated tales threaten to tarnish her reputation and disrupt her career.
The seriousness of the claims and their potential impact on Wilkins' public image and career are not to be underestimated. Her attorneys argue that Seraphin's story was spun purely to boost his engagement online, a tactic seen not uncommonly in influencer circles but dangerous when mentioning former national security professionals.
Seraphin’s response to the lawsuit has not been observed publicly as of the latest updates. The silence could be strategic, considering the growing media and legal scrutiny surrounding the case.
"Defendant entirely fabricated the story to generate video engagement revenue," states an excerpt from the lawsuit. This articulation stresses that the implications of Seraphin’s statements are construed as factual due to his authoritative FBI background, misleading the audience significantly.
Meanwhile, Wilkins continues to face the reverberations of these allegations in her personal and professional life. The legal proceedings are likely to further spotlight the boundary between free speech and harmful misinformation, especially concerning public figures. The outcome could have lasting implications on how former government agents are viewed in public discourse.
As the case develops, the broader implications for how personal relationships of public figures are discussed in the media and on online platforms will likely come under scrutiny. The legal boundaries between permissible commentary and damaging defamation will be at the forefront.
Furthermore, the nuances of international and racial suggestions in such discussions point to a growing need for responsibility in how information is shared and interpreted, especially by those with influential platforms.
The forthcoming legal proceedings promise to not only clear the air around Wilkins’ allegations but also to set a precedent for how defamation might be treated in an era where anyone can be a broadcaster online.
President Donald Trump and his administration met extreme resistance on his aggressive tariff plan from an appeals court this week, and the president isn't happy about the ruling at all.
According to the Washington Examiner, the president expressed his frustrations with the "highly partisan" appeals court for ruling against the use of his tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The appeals court ruled in a 7-4 decision this week that the act doesn't grant the president the appropriate level of authority to execute such tariffs and then ruled them unlawful.
Democrats and those who were firmly against Trump's tariffs, especially those levied against Mexico, Canada and China, celebrated the appeals court ruling.
The majority for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its opinion this week on Trump's tariff plan.
"We conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate…importation,’” the majority opinion stated.
President Trump went on a tear on Truth Social after the decision was rendered.
"Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong," Trump wrote.
He added, "If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America."
The president vowed to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision.
"At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!" Trump wrote.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance celebrated the appeals court ruling.
"Today’s decision comes as no surprise. Every court that has looked at the substance of the IEEPA has concluded that it does not give the President power to evade congressional limits on tariff authority imposed in other statutes. Given the number of countries affected, this case calls for a ‘universal’ injunction—no hyperbole required!" the group said in a statement.
Hopefully, the conservative majority high court will come out on Trump's side on the issue.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
California's deliberate scheme to censor satire, and prevent its politicians and others from being the butt of online jokes, has failed.
A federal district court has ruled that two California laws censoring online political speech are unconstitutional.
"Making fun of politicians and criticizing the government is a core First Amendment right. That includes using new technology to create parody campaign ads or satirical memes," explained lawyer Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse of the ADF.
"The court was right to rein in California's blatant censorship. We can't trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates," the lawyer said.
The ADF is working on the case involving the Babylon Bee and others. There are two lawsuits involved, Babylon Bee v. Bonta and Rumble v. Bonta.
ADF is representing the satire website The Babylon Bee while California attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, and Rumble, operator of a large video-sharing platform that hosts a variety of content, including political commentary, are in the second case.
The fight is over AB 2839, "which targets and punishes speakers for engaging in certain political commentary, including posting satirical memes and parodies of politicians, "and AB 2655, "which requires large online platforms to act as the government's censor and remove certain political commentary from their sites," the ADF explained.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California found both laws to be unconstitutional.
"Our job is hard enough when our jokes keep coming true, as if they were prophecies," said The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon. "But it becomes significantly more difficult when self-serving politicians abuse their power to try to control public discourse and clamp down on comedy. We're pleased the court recognized the First Amendment secures our right to tell jokes, even ones the government doesn't like."
"It is alarming to think that government officials could decide which political speech is permitted, silenced, or erased altogether," said Rumble CEO and Founder Chris Pavlovski. "At Rumble, we are unwavering in our commitment to free expression and creative freedom, which is why we're proud to join with ADF in defending the fundamental right to speak openly online."
The court's ruling said, "When it comes to political expression, the antidote is not prematurely stifling content creation and singling out specific speakers but encouraging counter speech, rigorous fact-checking, and the uninhibited flow of democratic discourse."
The district court granted the satirists their motion for summary judgment, explaining, "Plaintiffs bring a facial attack against AB 2839, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional because it restricts core political speech while simultaneously discriminating based on content, viewpoint, and speaker. California defends the statute by highlighting AB 2839's exemptions for parody and satire and arguing that the statute only regulates content that purports to be an authentic record of actual events. The Court finds that AB 2839 discriminates based on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally protected speech."
A sampling of the satire published by the Babylon Bee:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Another Department of Justice worker has been dismissed for attacking federal law enforcement, by messaging if not physically.
Earlier, Sean Charles Dunn, a DOJ paralegal, was canned after throwing a sub sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agents.
He was accused of felony assault but a grand jury in the leftist enclave of Washington declined to indict, so prosecutors came back with a misdemeanor charge that now is pending.
But he lost his position immediately.
Now it's happened a second time, with constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commenting on the firing of Elizabeth Baxter, another intern, who was fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi "for abusive conduct toward federal officers."
"Baxter shouted profanities and flipped off a member of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., on her way to work. The termination raises legitimate free speech issues, but Baxter may have crossed the line by recounting the abuse at work," he said.
Baxter's case is different from Dunn's in that she's not accused of any assault.
However, he explained, "According to the New York Post, after arriving at a DOJ building on the morning of August 18, Baxter bragged to a security guard about how she had just made the gesture at the Metro Center Metro Stop. She also recounted how she told the guardsman, 'F–k the National Guard.'"
Her original "protest" was not at work, or during work hours and DOJ guidelines affirm protection for expressing opinions on political subjects and candidates.
But her employment rules also state she may not: "Participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty; while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied office or building; or while using a government owned or leased vehicle."
Turley explained Baxter's insistent on repeating the "protest" to a security officer took her actions "into the workplace."
"Not only did security footage capture her flipping off the National Guardsman and exclaiming, 'F–k you!' but she is also seen demonstrating to a department security guard how she held up her middle finger. She boasted to the security guard that she hated the National Guard and that she told them to 'F–k off!'" he wrote.
She could challenge the action, he noted, but, "She elected to repeat the political expression inside the federal building to at least one other federal employee during office hours. As such, she destroyed much of the constitutional protection afforded to her earlier statements and demonstration."
According to the Washington Examiner, "DOJ spokesman Gates McGavick praised the termination on Friday, writing in a post on X, 'if you don't support law enforcement, [Attorney General Pam Bondi's] DOJ might not be a good fit.'"
Bondi's termination notice said Baxter was booted "immediately" because of "inappropriate conduct."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit has prompted officials in Asheville, North Carolina, to abandon their race requirements for city commission appointments.
A report from the Pacific Legal Foundation said the city council has voted to eliminate "race-based membership preferences" for its Human Relations Commission.
The change is part of a settlement of a lawsuit over the disputed practice.
"Government has a constitutional duty to treat all people equally under the law," said Andrew Quinio, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation who represents the residents. "Asheville should treat its citizens based on their character, qualifications, and achievements, not on characteristics they cannot control like race or ethnicity."
It was John Miall, a lifelong resident of the city who spent nearly 30 years working for the city including as its director of risk management, who had applied to serve on the Human Relations Commission of Asheville in 2023.
He was passed over because he was the wrong race.
Eventually, following the filing of the lawsuit, the city did appoint him to the board, but five other qualified residents – Robyn Hite, David Shaw, Willa Grant, Danie Johnson, and David Evans – faced the same discrimination for the same reason.
The case charged that the city was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Under the consent decree, filed Friday, Asheville must ensure equal opportunity on the commission by administering appointments without regard to race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. The city must also publicly state that appointment to the commission is open to all qualified applicants regardless of race.
The PLF documented that Miall had retired from the city government in 2006 but continued to work as a private sector consultant. He already had been chairman of Asheville's Civil Service Board and a candidate for city council and mayor.
The Human Relations Commission was created in 2018, and Miall "felt his decades of municipal experience and a boundless desire to serve his community would be a natural fit for the commission. Nevertheless, when John applied for one of the vacant seats in early 2023, the city council rejected his application—because of his race," PLF reported.
The original commission board was set up with quotas for the 15 members, including specific requirements for those who are "African Americans, Latinx, LGBTQ members, 'professionals with influence,' youth members, a representative from each of the city's geographical areas, public housing residents, and individuals with disabilities."
The board later was cut to nine members, and while the city ended the "quotas," it inserted "race-based membership preferences."
The PLF explained in bringing the complaint, "No government commission or committee should use an individual's race or ethnicity to determine who gets the opportunity to serve their public. Treating people according to immutable characteristics like race violates the very notion of equality before the law. People should be treated as individuals, not as members of a group they did not choose."
America First Legal has launched a bombshell lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration concerning the side effects of puberty blockers on children.
AFL is trying to get its hands on Biden-era records related to the government's internal guidance on the use of puberty blockers and the negative side effects on children.
This lawsuit comes after the AFL filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which uncovered communications from the Biden administration to the FDA recommending the use of puberty blockers despite the knowledge that they caused mental health problems.
Essentially, it appears that the Biden administration was totally aware of the damage puberty blockers could do but recommended their use anyway to appease the demands of radical transgender activists pushing transition on minors.
The FDA's deadline to present documents has already passed, and now AFL is taking them to court. The fact that bureaucrats at the FDA are obstructing this request demonstrates how entrenched leftist ideologues are in federal agencies eight months into Trump's presidency.
The Biden administration was clearly pushing the use of puberty-blocking drugs on minors despite knowing about the negative side effects.
AFL counsel Will Scolinos pointed this out by saying, "The Biden administration pushed gender-denying treatments on American kids. Now, it’s time to expose what officials really knew." Those officials must be held accountable for their reckless political agenda.
What's worse is that leftists have insisted for years that there are no life-altering "treatments" being pushed on children who supposedly are "transgender."
So far, AFL has obtained documents proving that Biden's Division of General Endocrinology recommended puberty blockers despite the fact that they cause increased depression, suicidality, and seizure risks in children.
In an email, one FDA official from the agency's endocrinology division explained, "There is definitely a need for these drugs to be approved for gender transition," while acknowledging that they "increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk," in the very same email.
Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to children's healthcare, but now the AFL has confirmed that the Biden administration knowingly pushed a treatment that would damage the mental health of children who are likely already experiencing mental health issues due to transgender social contagion.
Puberty blockers are typically used to combat precocious puberty and ensure children go through puberty at the right time. However, transgender activists have pushed for their use to delay puberty entirely into adulthood.
Leftist activists want children to take puberty blockers to increase the "effectiveness" of transition surgery. These ideas fly in the face of proper medical ethics, as puberty blockers can disrupt puberty even after blockers are removed.
In cases, puberty blockers can cause infertility and damage bone density, and lead to lifelong hormonal disruption and dysfunction.
The transgender movement's insane ideas prey on vulnerable, confused children and leave them with lifelong scars, both mentally and physically. Those in the medical field who have allowed these ideas to run rampant must be held accountable.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Tina Peters, nearly 70, is imprisoned in Colorado in a Democrat lawfare case that erupted after the 2020 election.
She was convicted in the leftist courts of the leftist state of infringing their rules regarding passwords for elections systems and jailed, even though the state's current secretary, Democrat Jena Griswold, unleashed hundreds of active passwords online and was given a free pass by Democrat prosecutors.
Her case is being appealed, and even President Donald Trump has told the DOJ to check for options to intervene in the state case.
"If you're just going to stand after you've done all those things. Yeah. A lot of people won't do that. They'll throw it on haphazardly, and then the armor, and then they'll go hide somewhere, wait for a miracle to happen. You got to stand. You got to stand no matter what," she said in an interview with Joe Hoft.
WND reported only days earlier that President Donald Trump renewed his call for freedom for "Patriot" Peters, a former Colorado county elections official jailed by the leftists in the state on their charges of election interference.
She was indicted, convicted, and jailed for allegedly releasing one inactive password to an elections system several years ago.
However, Griswold was given a free pass for having hundreds of current passwords online.
Griswold earned the backing of the Democrat political machine in her failed attempt to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, a move that was approved by her own all-Democrat state Supreme Court but reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continuing the "torture" of Peters will bring bad things to Colorado, Trump promised.
"FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State. Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election. She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!"
During her sentencing, Matthew Barrett, the judge handling her state case, attacked her political speech, and denied her bond.
Peters' legal team has appealed her case to federal court, challenging the First Amendment violations and asking them to decide whether Tina Peters is being unlawfully imprisoned for her political speech.
The Post Millennial reported what Peters actually was accused of was providing someone with a security pass to review her county's elections system after she developed suspicions about the veracity of the voting system's conclusions.
Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, another activist Democrat, has asked the judge to dismiss Peters' petition to be released on bond pending the appeals process. Weiser, while claiming "No one is above the law," also has been completely inactive regarding any charges against Griswold for her involvement in released
Hoft prayed with Peters during her telephone call to him, from her prison location.
"Our dear Lord Jesus, we're so grateful to hear from Tina today. It lifts my spirit and heart, and we'll share more about what Tina's going through. Keep this story alive. We love Tina, and we thank you for protecting her and granting her safety in such a terrible situation. We know that you're going to be there for us until the end. We just need to hang in there, keep our faith, and have trust in you. Miracles, more miracles are going to happen by the day. In your name, we love you. Thank you, Tina."
Peters, whose case recently saw a new filing, explained, "Well, I'm still fighting, but I have a lot of hope. We got a lot of people praying for me, and I know a lot of people praying for you. And ultimately, that's what's going to save us all."
She explained, "You don't know how much courage you have until that's the only choice you have. You don't know. Some people will run, some people will freeze, and some people go forward into the fight. And people like you and me, we go forward into the fight. I mean, we just, you know what I'm used to say, it raises a Navy seal for nothing. It's like, we can't back down, we can't give up, and we can't give in."
WND previously reported that Peters "was a conservative in the far-left state, where the all-Democrat state Supreme Court partisanly tried to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Where virtually all of the top state leaders in the governor's office and legislature are virulently anti-Trump."
Further, it's where "leftists in population centers like Denver and Boulder openly advocate for Americans' rights to be violated in order to protect illegal alien criminals. Where abortion was made a state constitutional "right" and the state constitution's protection for voters against massive overtaxing plans routinely is undermined. For example, Democrat lawmakers, faced with constitutional limits on raising 'taxes,' routinely hike them anyway and then simply call them 'fees.' For example, state residents who license vehicles and pay taxes have to pay a 'fee' for roads and bridges. Visitors to the state using the same roads and bridges don't pay that 'fee.'"
Complete Colorado has noted there are multiple "missteps" by Griswold that now could come under review.
Previously, Griswold earned infamy among elections officials by sending postcards to some 30,000 non-residents, telling them how to register to vote.