House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is calling for "maximum transparency" on the topic of Jeffrey Epstein as President Donald Trump tries to quell fury among his supporters over the Justice Department's handling of the case.
"What I believe in is maximum transparency, and so does President Trump,” Johnson told CNBS's Squawk Box.
Trump has sharply criticized members of his base who remain fixated on the case, calling them "weaklings" who are helping Democrats push a "hoax."
The drama erupted after the DOJ officially concluded that Epstein, a notorious pedophile and wealthy financier, did not keep a secret client list and that he died by suicide in his prison cell.
With the MAGA movement in an uproar, Johnson is considering a legislative measure mandating the release of additional information in a way that protects the identities of victims, The Hill reported. That would differ from a Democratic amendment that Republicans shot down, which called for the full release of the materials.
“The House Republicans are for transparency and they’re looking for a way to say that,” Johnson told The Hill.
After several days of dismissing the controversy, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury materials from a court in New York.
"Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!" Trump wrote.
Trump sued the Wall Street Journal on Friday after it published a purported "birthday letter" from Trump to Epstein that included what was intended to represent a dialogue between the two men as well as a drawing of a nude woman.
The alleged birthday message concludes: “Happy Birthday -- and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Trump said that the letter is fake and clearly not written in his style. Some say that the Wall Street Journal, with its decision to publish the story, may have partially defused the divide between Trump and some of his supporters, many of whom see the Journal's report as part of an old playbook to smear Trump with outlandish claims.
“If there was a ‘smoking gun’ on Epstein, why didn’t the Dems, who controlled the ‘files’ for four years, and had Garland and Comey in charge, use it? BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING!!!” Trump wrote Friday.
Johnson echoed Trump's response to the Wall Street Journal's "absurd" reporting.
“The president and I talked about that ridiculous allegation this morning. He said it’s patently absurd. He’s never drawn such a picture. He’s never thought of drawing such a picture. And he said, ‘Did you see the language of this bogus supposed communication?’” Johnson said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Scandal has enveloped appointee over building renovation costs exploding by $700 million
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, who has been under fire for refusing to nudge interest rates lower amid a booming economy, a move that actually costs American consumers billions through higher interest, has been referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.
The confirmation came from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna online:
She referenced the "crazy" $2.5 billion building, which actually is a renovation of the Fed's facilities in Washington that are being refurbished. The problem is the project already is $700 million over budget and is years from completion.
Bill Pulte, the chairman of the board of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had predicted the move was coming.
Powell has been under fire from Trump for his insistence on keeping interest rates higher than the president thinks are reasonable given the low inflation rate, high income surges, and booming economy.
The president's tariffs program is expected to generate tens of billions of dollars for the nation even as they still are being applied.
WND reported that while there have been reports Trump would fire Powell, he said such a removal of the "knucklehead" isn't likely, unless "there's fraud involved."
"I don't rule out anything, but it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud. I mean it's possible there's fraud involved."
The New York Times had reported only this week Trump had drafted a letter to fire Powell, and asked Republicans if he should send it.
Trump said of Powell, "He's always been too late, hence his nickname 'Too Late.' He should have cut interest rates a long time ago. Europe has cut 'em 10 times in a short period of time. We cut 'em none.
"I think he does a terrible job. He's costing us a lot of money, and we fight through it. It's almost, the country's become so successful it doesn't have a big impact. But it does hurt people wanting to get a mortgage, people want to buy a house. He's a terrible Fed chair."
In fact, some members of the Federal Reserve also have been calling for an interest rate cuit.
Trump, speculating about whether Powell should resign, or be fired, cited the explosion in costs at the Fed's building.
"But you know, there are many people who say he should be removed because of the fraud of what he's doing at the Fed, with regard to the $2.5 billion he's spending, $2.5 billion to, I guess it's a renovation. I don't know. I'm very good at that stuff. I should go look at it," Trump said.
Amid questions about the costly renovation project, Powell launched a defense, explaining the project is "large … because it involves the renovation of two historic buildings on the National Mall and that were first constructed in the 1930s."
The sites in question are the Eccles Building and 1951 Constitution Avenue Buildings.
Powell said the work is making the buildings, safe, healthy and effective places to work, and includes removal of asbestos and lead contamination.
Trump has described the renovation project as similar to creating a "palace."
Senate lawmakers already have grilled Powell over what they saw as lavish upgrades, including fountain and marble upgrades, special elevators and such.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, over the paper's claim to report on a letter he allegedly wrote to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein years ago.
Trump has said he never wrote the letter, and the report is false.
The lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Florida against WSJ, Dow Jones and Murdoch, according to a Daily Mail report.
The claim by the newspaper is that Trump "wrote a 'bawdy' 50th birthday card to Epstein which concluded: 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,'" the report said.
The publication claimed to have seen a typewritten letter with Trump's signature, "framed by the seemingly hand-drawn outline of a naked woman."
Trump's response to the claim is that it is "false, malicious, and defamatory."
"I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper, the WSJ," Trump said on social media.
The paper claimed Trump wrote, "We have certain things in common, Jeffrey" and that both of them know that "there must be more to life than having everything," the report said.
Trump had told the WSJ, "I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women. It's not my language. It's not my words."
On social media, the president reported he warned the publication that the "supposed letter" was a fake.
"The editor of the Wall Street Journal, Emma Tucker, was told directly by Karoline Leavitt, and by President Trump, that the letter was a FAKE, but Emma Tucker didn't want to hear that. Instead, they are going with a false, malicious, and defamatory story anyway."
Trump pointed out, "If there was a 'smoking gun' on Epstein, why didn't the Dems, who controlled the 'files' for four years, and had Garland and Comey in charge, use it? BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING."
Trump has urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to release additional Epstein files.
The Mail explained, "The late financier was charged in 2008 for soliciting prostitution with an underaged girl and received a modest jail sentence in Florida. He was later charged with federal sex trafficking crimes in 2019. He hung himself in prison awaiting his trial, feds say."
But evidence shows he socialized with Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and others.
"Anyone who believes Trump got markers out to draw the figure of a woman and write what sounds like some weird Democrat fan fiction inside it to Jeffrey Epstein is an imbecile with a room temperature IQ," commentator Robby Starbuck wrote.
Trump previously has sued several networks over their false allegations about him, and has settled several of the cases for payments amounting to millions of dollars.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
If nothing else, Colorado officials have proven their persistence in their agenda to control everyone's speech.
First, following the demands of a homosexual Gov. Jared Polis and a Democrat-majority state House and Senate, they tried to force a Christian baker to endorse same-sex marriage. Millions of tax dollars later they not only lost, but were scolded by the U.S. Supreme Court for their "hostility" to Christianity.
They tried the same stunt, under the guise of "non-discrimination," with a web designer. Again the Supreme Court knocked the state down.
They're also arguing for their right to control others' speech in another case now before the Supreme Court, involving state-mandated censorship of counselors.
Now state officials have adopted a scheme that would require a bookstore to express ideas its owners don't believe, and it's already in the courts.
Again.
It is a report in Complete Colorado that describes the dilemma facing Born Again Used Books, a Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs.
Its owners had to file a lawsuit against the state because of a leftist "gender expression" law new from Democrats in the statehouse.
It controls speech in that it requires businesses to address customers according to their "preferred pronouns," meaning that bookstore workers have to call a woman "he" and a man "she" if that's what they want.
The store, with help from the ADF, has sued over the state scheme to censor speech and punish individuals who are guilty of "misgendering" someone, that is, calling them by an accurate pronoun they don't like.
It's all under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which has been used in those other schemes that already have been torpedoed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, in federal court, names as defendants state officials Aubrey Sullivan, Sergio Raudel Cordova, Geta Asfar, Mayuko Fieweger, Daniel S. Ward, Jade Rose Kelly, Eric Artis and Phil Weiser.
"The government has no need or right to force Americans to profess ideological views they oppose," the court filing charges. "Our pluralistic country is big enough and sturdy enough to allow people of good faith to express different views, even when the government disagrees. The Constitution demands it. And Colorado is better for it."
Store owners Eric and Sara Smith told Complete Colorado of their concern about compromising their values, or facing steep legal punishments for exercising their First Amendment rights.
"When the truth gets lost in the discussion, it's hard to have a discussion," Sara Smith told the publication.
The state also tried recently to force a Christian summer camp for children to allow boys in the facilities for girls, but abruptly reversed course when confronted with concerns about the state's violation of religious rights.
The bookstore is seeking a court ruling to stop the state's enforcement of its CADA against the store, an order declaring the state is violating the Constitution, a monetary award to cover the expenses of the fight, and that the court retain jurisdiction to see that the state follows the law.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to work on unsealing and releasing grand jury testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Epstein was a convicted sex offender billionaire who died in a New York jail in 2019 awaiting more charges against him. With his privately owned island and "Lolita Express" jet he's long been suspected of trafficking underage girls to celebrities and others.
Bill Clinton and Bill Gates are known to have associated with him, and President Trump appears in photographs with him, images that mostly date to before Epstein's first conviction in Florida.
Fox News confirmed the order, but said it wasn't certain when any testimony may be public.
Democrats who now are demanding the release of all of the Epstein information, suspecting it include references to Trump, were silent on the issue for years while Joe Biden was in the Oval Office.
A report in the Hill pointed out that such testimony is confidential by law and could take months of legal work to release.
"Trump's announcement about the grand jury testimony came hours after the publication of a Wall Street Journal report about a birthday card he apparently wrote the disgraced financier," the report claimed. Trump has described that report as completely false.
The Hill said grand jury testimony could include details from the legal work against Epstein in the early 2000s, for which he was given a slap on the hand, meaning he served time in jail but was freed many days of his sentence.
His 2019 case just was developing when his death was reported in that New York jail.
Leftists, including Rep. Dan Goldman, said it would be other evidence that more likely would mention Trump.
A memo released by the FBI and the Department of Justice that has provoked "the latest firestorm over Epstein said it uncovered a 'significant amount of material,' including more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence," the Hill said.
"That included large volumes of child pornography and images of Epstein and people who appear to be minors, the memo said. Most of it has been ordered sealed," the report said.
The report noted there's also evidence from a defamation case filed by the late Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's accusers, as well as documents about how Epstein amassed his wealth.
"There's also the question of whether Epstein kept a 'client list,' which the DOJ and FBI memo said he did not," the Hill said.
Investigative reporter Julie Brown for the Miami Herald said that probably didn't exist, and is used now as a "red herring."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Still representing themselves as board members, taking votes, adopting resolutions
The U.S. Department of Justice is going after workers fired by President Donald Trump who have refused to leave.
The details are documented in a column posted on the website for constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
It explains that the DOJ has petitioned for a writ of Quo Warranto against three people who had served as board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, fired by Trump, because they "continued to hold and exercise their office."
The CPB, which funds NPR and PBS, was hit this week with the loss of more than a billion dollars when Congress adopted a rescissions package that pulls that money back from what was allocated for the organization.
Named are Laura G. Ross, Thomas E. Rothman and Diane Kaplan, who are accused of "usurping and purporting to exercise unlawfully the office of board member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."
It explains Trump "lawfully removed each defendant from office on April 28, 2025."
And it explains, "As recent Supreme Court orders have recognized, the President cannot meaningfully exercise his executive power under Article II of the Constitution without the power to select—and, when necessary, remove—those who hold federal office. Personnel is policy, after all."
The three, told they were dismissed, "immediately sought a preliminary injunction against the president and other officials, seeking to enjoin the government from completing their firing," court filings noted.
The commentary said, "Their effort was unsuccessful as the court held that their claim the president lacked authority to remove them from office was unlikely to succeed."
The DOJ's complaint now accuses the three of "continuing to usurp the office of Board Member of the CPB by 'participating in board meetings, voting on resolutions and other business that comes before the board, and presenting themselves to the public as board members. All of this [was] manifestly unlawful.'"
The former board members charged that CPB was created by Congress as a "private corporation," and they are not subject to the president's authority to dismiss them.
They claimed the president's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and violated the separation of powers.
The DOJ pointed out that CPB board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, like other federal officials, Congress restricts the makeup of the board, limits their compensation, and has charged the organization with taking actions "to achieve the objectives and to carry out the purposes" of the law.
Further, it is a "designated federal entity," is subject to inspections by an inspector general, and is subject to congressional oversight hearings.
But, court filings charge, the three held board meetings in May and June where they voted "in their official capacity," adopted resolutions and acted "as if the preliminary injunction they sought had been held in their favor."
Actually, the court filings confirm the president, under his Article II powers, with his "power to appoint someone … presumptively carries with it the incident power of removal."
It cites a Supreme Court ruling regarding Amtrak, which was set up as a corporation and not a government agency.
"The Supreme Court held 'that where, as here, the Government creates a corporation by special law, for the furtherance of governmental objectives, and retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of that corporation, the corporation is part of the Government for purposes of the First Amendment. … The Supreme Court later applied similar analysis to hold that Amtrak is also 'a governmental entity for purposes of the Constitution's separation of powers provisions.""
The DOJ is asking that the court enter a judgment for the defendants to "be ousted and excluded."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The news has been filled in recent months with instances of federal judges delivering attacks on the administration of President Donald Trump, releasing rulings that take control of Executive Branch decisions, restrict Trump's programs to secure the border and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores.
Those cases have involved cutting federal spending, removing illegal aliens, eliminating destructive DEI programs, protecting children from transgender ideologies, and mutilations, stopping anti-Semitism and much more.
There has been the appearance of bias in the judiciary.
The news has been filled in recent months with instances of federal judges delivering attacks on the administration of President Donald Trump, releasing rulings that take control of Executive Branch decisions, restrict Trump's programs to secure the border and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores.
Those cases have involved cutting federal spending, removing illegal aliens, eliminating destructive DEI programs, protecting children from transgender ideologies, and mutilations, stopping anti-Semitism and much more.
There has been the appearance of bias in the judiciary.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism before President Trump's first term when he was under attack in the fabricated Russiagate conspiracy theory launched by the Hillary Clinton campaign and others with lies about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Boasberg was chosen for his job by leftist Barack Obama, who now is just one subject of a congressional investigation into a vast conspiracy that developed in Washington targeting Trump.
Boasberg, in fact, when sentencing an ex-FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted doctoring a 2017 email regarding Deep State's work against Trump, refused to give him any prison time but told him to do community service.
Boasberg ruled against Trump in one deportation dispute and told him to order airplanes carrying illegal aliens out of the United States to turn around mid-air and come back.
The White House responded that the jets, carrying the "terrorist alien" individuals, already had left U.S. airspace and the judge had no jurisdiction there.
Federal judges already have heard hundreds of claims by those wanting to stop Trump's agenda to remove unneeded personnel from federal payrolls, stop handing billions of tax dollars to unfriendly foreign interests and more.
As a result of the campaign by district judges to target Trump's actions, the Supreme Court intervened and said they were misusing their offices by repeatedly ordering nationwide injunctions against Trump's agenda. The court said those judges haven't been granted the constitutional authority to do that.
The Federalist reported it obtained access to a memo from a recent Judicial Conference meeting in Washington.
That group is the national policymaking body for federal courts.
"That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges' clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties," the Federalist reported.
At the meeting, the report said, "a side conversation at the group's most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration."
The memo explained, "District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
The Federalist noted the memo continued, "Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize."
The report pointed out, "Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court's orders."
The report noted, "Judge Boasberg's comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges' 'concern' also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C."
The Federalist noted just days later, "Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law."
He went even further in his agenda, the report said: "Boasberg would later find 'the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court' by failing to turn the planes around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though the court's written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither."
Cleveland explained that Boasberg and his colleague "prejudged Trump as a scofflaw," even though that's not the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An anti-Trump judge in the federal judiciary now has been described as a "threat to the rule of law," by an official in the Department of Justice.
The comments come from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and are about James Boasberg, who repeatedly has used his own agendas in his court rulings that have struck down the president's.
In one case, he demanded that the president order airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals on deportation flights be turned around mid-air and brought back to the U.S., without regarding to whether those jets had enough fuel to do that.
Those airplanes were outside of American airspace already, however, and the White House explained Boasberg's jurisdiction didn't extend to international locations and foreign countries.
It was revealed this week that Boasberg, at a recent judicial conference, had made disparaging remarks about Trump, even though he's supposed to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
A report at the Washington Examiner said Blanche was responding to Boasberg's comments and said, the judge was in "serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law."
"This memo confirms that at least some federal judges were predisposed against the Trump administration," Blanche wrote. "Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum."
The report noted, "Other senior DOJ officials, including Chad Mizelle, called the report 'very troubling' and said it 'perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg (which was unsurprisingly stayed by the D.C. Circuit).'"
WND reported on the revelations about Boasberg's criticisms of Trump.
It was in a report at the Federalist that investigative reporter and senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland revealed Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., advised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that his colleagues were "concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
Boasberg is the chief judge in the judicial district and has been at center of a judicial campaign to prevent Trump's agenda to secure the American borders and deport illegal aliens, those who are in the United States illegally, and often have committed subsequent crimes.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism before President Trump's first term when Trump was under attack in the fabricated Russiagate conspiracy theory launched by the Hillary Clinton campaign and others with lies about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Boasberg was chosen for his job by leftist Barack Obama, who now is just one subject of a congressional investigation into a vast conspiracy that developed in Washington targeting Trump.
Boasberg, in fact, when sentencing an ex-FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted doctoring a 2017 email regarding Deep State's work against Trump, refused to give him any prison time but told him to do community service.
Boasberg ruled against Trump in one deportation dispute and told him to order airplanes carrying illegal aliens out of the United States to turn around mid-air and come back.
The White House responded that the jets, carrying the "terrorist alien" individuals, already had left U.S. airspace and the judge had no jurisdiction there.
Federal judges already have heard hundreds of claims by those wanting to stop Trump's agenda to remove unneeded personnel from federal payrolls, stop handing billions of tax dollars to unfriendly foreign interests and more.
As a result of the campaign by district judges to target Trump's actions, the Supreme Court intervened and said they were misusing their offices by repeatedly ordering nationwide injunctions against Trump's agenda. The court said those judges haven't been granted the constitutional authority to do that.
The Federalist reported it obtained access to a memo from a recent Judicial Conference meeting in Washington.
That group is the national policymaking body for federal courts.
"That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges' clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties," the Federalist reported.
At the meeting, the report said, "a side conversation at the group's most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration."
The memo explained, "District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
The Federalist noted the memo continued, "Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize."
The report pointed out, "Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court's orders."
The report noted, "Judge Boasberg's comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges' 'concern' also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C."
The Federalist noted just days later, "Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump in one interview endorsed the idea of a special prosecutor looking at the scandal over Jeffrey Epstein, his charges, his apparent suicide in jail in New York, and all of his files and documents, such as a "client list," used by the convicted sex offender suspected of trafficking young girls to celebrities.
But what will develop still remains uncertain.
"I think they could look at all of it. It's all the same scam. They could look at this Jeffrey Epstein hoax also, because that's the same stuff that's all put out by Democrats," he said. Asked about a look at Epstein, he said, "They've already looked at it, and they are looking at it, and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible."
His comments came in an interview with the Just the News, No Noise program.
He said he approved of the FBI decision to open a probe into what could have been a wide-ranging conspiracy under Barack Obama that could have included Obama appointees James Clapper, John Brennan and James Comey, chiefs of the CIA and FBI.
He also committed to declassifying two highly sensitive pieces of intelligence to help further the prosecutor's efforts.
He said he is "happy" with the FBI announcement to investigate events, collusions and conspiracies from about 2016 until 2024 "by Democrats and government officials as a continuing criminal conspiracy," the report said.
"It was a disgrace what happened, what happened in 2016 and what happened in 2020. It's a disgraceful situation. And our voting has to be straightened out. I always say if you don't have borders, if you don't have fair and free voting, you don't have a country," he said.
Those comments were addressing a wide range of election actions, some allegedly nefarious, used against him during the 2016 race, and then even more strident actions in 2020. The first election featured the made-up claims in the Democrats' Steele dossier. And 2020 was the year when the election fell under two significant outside influences, the first being Mark Zuckerberg's decision to give $400 million plus to two foundations to hand out to local election officials who often used the cash to recruit voters in Democrat districts.
The other was the FBI's decision in interfere in the election by telling media corporations to suppress reports about the Biden family scandals documented in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden. In fact, at the time, FBI agents knew the truth of those scandals, but sought to have the information suppressed anyway. A subsequent polling suggested that conspiracy alone could have handed the Oval Office to Joe Biden.
Just the News reported also, "unprompted," Trump volunteered that a special prosecutor – appointed to look at such weaponization, also could review "anything credible" on Jeffrey Epstein.
His administration had promised to release all remaining evidence in the now-deceased financier's sex scandal and prosecutions, but that has not gone smoothly, the report said, because of missteps from officials.
When the FBI and DOJ released the conclusion that Epstein did commit suicide in prison and did not leave behind a list of the people whom he entertained with young female escorts, many prominent conservatives were openly doubtful.
He also charged that MAGA conservatives speculating about Epstein only gives oxygen to Democrats.
"You know, some of the naive Republicans fall right into line, like they always do. They just don't have the sustainability. … There's something they don't have, that stick to it like glue," he said in the interview. "The Democrats, you know, they have bad policy, they have bad candidates, they have bad everything, but they stick together. The Republicans don't do that."
He charged, "But they ought to look into the Jeffrey Epstein hoax too, because that's another hoax that's frankly, put out by the Democrats pushing, pushing the Republicans, and put out by the Democrats."
He also suggested it's possible that "officials" inside the FBI and other agencies could have doctored files to protect Democrats and harm Republicans.
"I can imagine what they put into files, just like they did with the others. I mean, the Steele dossier was a total fake, right? It took two years to figure that out," he said. "So I would imagine if they were run by (former FBI director) Chris Wray and they were run by (former FBI director James) Comey, and because it was actually even before that administration, they've been running these files, and so much of the things that we found were fake."
He said he hopes that transparency prevails and confirmed a special prosecutor would be a way for that to happen.
The issue remains unclear, however, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the idea of a special prosecutor was suggested to the president, but that's not what he would recommend.
"That's how he feels."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A police department's open promotions of and advocacy for the LGBT lifestyle choices successfully undermined the public's trust that the agency could be neutral in its enforcement of laws.
That's the verdict from a high court in the United Kingdom in a fight between Linzi Smith and the Northumbria police agency.
Smith, a Newcastle United fan, was investigated by Northumbria police because she expressed gender-critical view over the department's promotions of the lifestyle choices.
Justice Linden, from the court, ruled the chief constable's "participation" in various pro-LGBT campaigns, "was likely to be seen, and may well have been intended to be seen, as expressing the support of the head of the force for the views and the cause which that [LGBT] march sought to promote."
The ruling said, "institutional support for gender ideology and transgender rights" was further expressed by uniformed police officers marching with the "Police Pride" flag, while a static display "included the Northumbria Police badge and the blue, pink and white of the transgender flag."
Those actions, the court ruling said, impacted the public's trust in police abilities to "fairly and impartially" handle clashes between those declining to adopt the leftist agenda, and those who actively promote it and want others to follow their lead.
Christian Institute Ciaran Kelly explained, the decision "struck a major blow against the capture of the police by LGBT ideology and could spell the end for 'rainbow' vehicles and other LGBT branding."
Smith explained, "It is terrifying to live in a community where the police have abandoned their duty of impartiality and embraced a highly controversial political cause. I've experienced first-hand what happens when the police forget their duty of impartiality."
She said the court's decision that police acted unlawfully when they investigated her social media comments about the reality of biological sex gives her hope the agency will change its ways.
Smith still is challenging the decision by the Newcastle United Football club's decision to suspend her membership.
She was targeted by police for her criticisms of the department's "openly supporting 'trans causes.'"
Police claimed her social media statements on the controversial issue were "malicious communications."
Smith was backed by the Free Speech Union and confirmed, "This has all happened purely because I hold views that other people don't agree with."
A lawyer representing her, Paul Conrathe, explained, "By marching at Pride, wearing rainbow lanyards and driving rainbow painted police cars the police have plainly breached their statutory duty of impartiality."