National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard suggested that former President Barack Obama may face a Department of Justice criminal probe for his part in the Russia collusion scam, Breitbart reported. Gabbard called Obama's conduct "treasonous," though it may be difficult to prosecute.
Information has come to light about the scandal that plagued President Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign. It appears the Obama administration ignored its own intelligence information that debunked claims that Russia meddled on Trump's behalf.
Instead, they doubled down on the assertion, likely in an attempt to undermine Trump even after he was elected. Now, Gabbard suggested she would hold the former president accountable at a White House briefing on Wednesday, just before the Justice Department did just that.
In earlier remarks, Gabbard called Obama's conduct "treasonous," though neither she nor Leavitt would commit to pursuing that charge. However, it's clear she's not about to let him or his administration off the hook on this matter.
Gabbard fielded a question from a Townhall reporter, Katie Pavlich, who asked if Obama's actions were criminal. "We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this," Gabbard said.
"The evidence that we have found and that we have release directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact," Gabbard later asserted.
However, even if Gabbard has the smoking gun linking Obama to this behavior, it may be difficult to prosecute him. Last June, Trump won his election interference case before the Supreme Court by arguing he had presidential immunity, The Hill reported.
The court decided 6-3 that a sitting president indeed has sweeping immunity while in office. "At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute," Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.
Even with the possibility that Obama received presidential immunity, the Justice Department announced it had formed a "strike force" on Wednesday evening to investigate. It will examine the matter and determine the legal action that may be taken from there, according to Fox News.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the collaboration with Gabbard to get this done. "The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard, and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people," Bondi said.
"We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice," she added. The strike force, made up of prosecutors and investigators, is in charge of pursuing "the worst offenders engaged in fraudulent activities, including, chiefly, health care fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, money laundering offenses, false statements offenses."
This will add to a previous FBI investigation launched earlier this month against former CIA Director John Brennan for his role in the Russia collusion hoax. Current CIA Director John Ratcliffe decided to do this after a declassification of a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on the matter implicated Brennan.
This scandal bogged down Trump during his campaign and into his first term, and it appears the Obama administration knew it was fake all along. Even if Obama is immune, these people must be punished for attempting to undermine the will of the American people with a phony scandal.
A recent Harvard-Harris survey has found that a majority of respondents believe former President Joe Biden intentionally left the borders wide open during his tenure, Breitbart reported. These results come as President Donald Trump makes significant headway in combating illegal immigration.
During the Biden administration, record numbers of illegal immigrants crossed the border. While it's possible that this was due to complacency or incompetence, a significant majority of those surveyed believe it was intentional.
In a poll conducted from July 6 to 8 among 2,044 registered voters, 67% of respondents believed that Biden kept the border open. On whether this was a "deliberate policy" or not, 69% agreed that it was.
This sentiment is more widespread when broken down by party affiliation, with 84% of Republicans believing it was a purposeful decision, while 68% of independents share the same view. Even Democrats could only muster a slight majority of 51% who believed the border was "secure" and 52% who thought it was "not deliberate."
Biden was squarely responsible for the open border mess, and 88% of Republicans and 60% of independents are calling it "deliberate" in the poll. This is far more than just opinion, as recent facts may indicate that they're right.
Trump has plugged up the leaks at the southern border, with May and June reporting that there were zero illegal immigrants brought into the interior of the U.S. In a post to his Truth Social, the president touted his success while contrasting it with Biden's failures.
"Zero Border crossings for the month for TRUMP, verses 60,000 for Sleepy, Crooked Joe Biden, a man who lost the 2020 Presidential Election by a 'LANDSLIDE!' Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!" Trump wrote on June 20.
"The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin! What this Crooked man and his CORRUPT CRONIES have done to our Country in 4 years is grossly indescribable! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump concluded.
One positive figure can be dismissed, but it appears Trump's success in reversing Biden's immigration trends continues across other metrics. According to Fox News, Biden paroled 27,766 illegal immigrants in June 2024 while Trump released exactly zero in June of this year.
His policies have also stopped illegal immigration at the source, as Border Patrol reported just 6,070 encounters with illegal immigrants for the entire month of June. During the Biden administration, there were as many as 10,000 illegal immigrants a day crossing the border.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Rodney Scott credited Trump with this change in a news release last month. "From shutting down illegal crossings to seizing fentanyl and enforcing billions in tariffs, CBP is delivering results on every front," Scott said.
"Under this administration, we are protecting this country with relentless focus, and the numbers prove it," he added. Trump is certainly a skilled statesman, but it's clear the disparity has just as much to do with Biden's open-door policy as it does with Trump's crackdown.
For as inept as Biden was at being president, the record illegal immigration can only be explained through a willful decision to let it happen. It's clear as ever now that this was intentional, especially since Trump has been so successful so quickly after taking office.
President Donald Trump celebrated a legal victory on Wednesday after it was announced that Columbia University took a loss.
The university announced that it would pay $221 million in order to settle several civil rights investigations from the Trump administration, as Breitbart News reported.
Trump went so far as to call the win “historic” and the “right” thing for the iconic university to do.
Columbia’s Office of the President issued a statement, saying that they reached an agreement to resolve the “alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination laws.”
“As part of the resolution, Columbia will pay a $200 million settlement over three years to the federal government. In addition, the University has agreed to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $21 million,” the university president’s office said.
The school, however, was quick to point out what the agreement does NOT do:
“Importantly, the agreement preserves Columbia’s autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.”
The announcement also states that the agreement reinstates a number of federal grants that were terminated in March of this year.
That change alone allows Columbia access to “billions of dollars in current and future grants.”
The agreement said that, “This includes the reinstatement of the majority of grants previously terminated by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services, renewal of non-competitive grants, the release of overdue payments on active, non-terminated grants, and Columbia’s restored eligibility to apply for new federal research funding in the ordinary course.”
Linda McMahon, the Trump administration’s Secretary of Education, called the deal “a seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate.”
Columbia Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson offered up a statement, saying that “Today’s agreement with the federal government affirms Columbia’s unyielding commitment to academic freedom, freedom of expression, and open inquiry.
There also appeared to be a spin reminiscent of the idea that it was part of the university’s plan to make change, saying that the deal, “confirms the changes already underway at Columbia to meaningfully address antisemitism on our campus and allows the University to continue to undertake its transformative research and scholarship.”
During a live interview at the Axios News Shapers forum in Washington, D.C., Senator Josh Hawley was escorted off stage as pro-Palestinian protesters voiced their dissent.
Senator Josh Hawley faced a protest interruption criticizing his political stance and U.S. policies in Gaza while at an event in Washington, D.C.
The disturbance unfolded while Hawley was discussing policies with Axios reporter Stef Kight. Protesters abruptly interrupted the session, challenging Hawley's views and the broader U.S. support for actions in Gaza.
Several protesters wielded signs bearing messages such as “STOP STARVING GAZA” and “U.S. FUNDS GENOCIDE,” highlighting their accusations. They denounced policies they believe contribute to suffering in the region, specifically targeting Senator Hawley’s support.
“Josh Hawley cannot possibly care about people in this country because he is supporting a war of starvation,” one protester loudly declared in the middle of the forum, ensuring the audience's attention was riveted on the interruption.
This bold assertion was followed by another protester accusing, “Your career is built on the suffering of children,” pointing directly at the ongoing humanitarian issues in Gaza.
As the protests gained momentum, Stef Kight decided it was prudent for safety and order to temporarily halt the interview. “Let’s leave the stage,” she suggested to Hawley, who paused, surveyed the increasingly tumultuous scene, and reluctantly agreed with a quick, “Are you sure?”
The dialogue between Kight and Hawley was briefly paused as they left the stage, seeking to de-escalate the situation and perhaps return under calmer conditions. Meanwhile, the protesters continued to chant and wave their signs, dominating the forum's atmosphere.
After a brief hiatus, Stef Kight and Senator Hawley returned to the stage. Kight addressed the audience, urging, “Please allow us to do our job,” emphasizing the importance of continuing the democratic discourse amidst passionate disagreements.
Recognizing the intensity of the sentiments involved, Kight appealed for understanding and respect from the crowd. “We appreciate and understand that people feel passionately about some of these issues,” she stated, calling for civility. “We do ask that you be respectful and allow us to continue our conversation.”
The forum resumed, and Hawley, perhaps with a touch of irony, commented on the disruption by likening it to typical challenges faced in the Senate, remarking, “Just another day in the Senate.” This quip lightened the mood momentarily, as the audience prepared to reengage with the discussion at hand.
Simultaneously, news of escalating tensions and humanitarian crises in Gaza was being reported by various media outlets, indicating a broader context of international concern that echoed through the forum's protests.
Code Pink, a well-known anti-war and social justice organization, had a representative, Olivia DiNucci, articulate their perspective on the protests. “Palestinians are starving for one reason: Israel’s siege, fully backed by the U.S. and its allies,” DiNucci explained, underscoring the motive behind the protest.
She further criticized the apparent discrepancy between U.S. domestic and foreign policies, stating, “We won’t let lawmakers ignore this genocide while pretending to care about American families.” This statement aimed to connect the domestic audience with international policy impacts, a core message of the protesters.
While the Axios Forum was scheduled to proceed without further interruptions, the incident with Senator Hawley underscored a day of significant political expression and dialogue, reflecting the complex interplay between domestic politics and international humanitarian issues.
President Trump has reached a $220 million settlement with Columbia University, marking another victory in the president's effort to reform higher education.
It's a stunning capitulation from one of America's leading universities, one that has been at the center of unrest over the Israel-Gaza war and debates about anti-Semitism on college campuses.
"Columbia has agreed to pay a penalty of $200 Million Dollars to the United States Government for violating Federal Law, in addition to over $20 Million to their Jewish employees who were unlawfully targeted and harassed," Trump said in a post on his social media site, Truth Social.
"Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming," Trump added.
The concessions Columbia agreed to are significant. As reported by the school's newspaper, in addition to paying the government to get out of legal trouble, the school agreed to release detailed admissions data, providing insight into the race and test scores of students who were either accepted or rejected by the university. Columbia must admit students based on merit and comply with laws against discriminatory practices like affirmative action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
An independent monitor will be appointed to ensure Columbia observes the terms of the agreement, which also codifies reforms that Columbia agreed to in March, including a ban on masks, restrictions on protests, and changes to the school's Middle Eastern Studies Department. Those demands stemmed from Columbia's alleged failure to protect Jewish students from harassment.
Under its deal with Trump, Columbia will pay $200 million over three years to settle civil rights investigations, plus another $21 million to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In exchange, the White House will release most of the $400 million in research funding that Trump froze earlier this year to pressure Columbia.
While the agreement is a major win for Trump, Columbia denies having caved. The school points to part of the deal that says Columbia will retain academic independence.
Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, said the settlement "was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track.”
But the settlement is widely seen by Trump critics as another demoralizing victory for the president, who has secured a series of concessions from leading law firms, news organizations and elite colleges in his crusade to rid America of left-wing ideology.
“I am deeply disappointed by reports of Columbia University’s outrageous and embarrassing $200 million capitulation to the Trump Administration’s repugnant extortion campaign,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D) on X.
“[M]y alma mater has allowed a once highly-respected institution to succumb to the Trump Administration’s coercive and exploitative tactics,” Nadler added. “Columbia has effectively waived the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump Administration’s war on higher education and academic freedom.”
The settlement comes days after Barack Obama, a Columbia graduate, gave a speech chastising liberal elites for giving in to Trump.
As she pokes around for her next job, Kamala Harris should not bank on receiving a glowing reference from her former boyfriend and political patron, Willie Brown.
The heavyweight California politico and former San Francisco mayor dismissed Harris's rumored ambitions to run for governor of the state, calling her qualifications the wrong "fit."
“I do think people running for public office really ought to fit eventually where they are trying to land at. And I really do, hope, frankly, that [Harris] comes to that reality,” Brown said on the State of Gold podcast.
Recent polls suggest that Harris would be the frontrunner to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) if she decided to run.
But many Democrats are reluctant for Harris to stay in the spotlight after her humiliating loss to President Trump last fall.
Shockingly, the party's official election autopsy will reportedly overlook mistakes made by Harris and her former boss, Joe Biden, who endorsed her after suspending his own re-election campaign.
Harris has apparently downsized her ambitions, with Politico reporting that she plans to decide by the end of the summer on running for governor of her home state.
Snubbing his former lover, Brown said there are other Democrats who would do better in an executive role like governor. He suggested Harris go for a legal job like attorney general or even Supreme Court justice.
“There’s just so many really talented people thinking about that job,” Brown said.
“She may not want to run for governor of the state of California,” he said. "That may not be where she should be going. I think it’s going to be difficult for her to win that job.”
Brown infamously dated Harris briefly in the 1990s when she was an up-and-coming prosecutor in Alameda County, and he was the speaker of the California state Assembly.
Brown used his influence at the time to appoint his much younger then-girlfriend to two state California boards, and Harris has never been able to live down accusations of nepotism since then.
Harris has been in career limbo since her much-hyped presidential campaign imploded in the fall, sending Democrats into the political wilderness.
Brown's expectations of his former girlfriend's political future seem to have dimmed since November. He was effusive about a Harris presidency last year - before Democrats lost the White House, the national popular vote and the U.S. Senate.
“I was a part of every campaign that she’s ever been involved in, supported her religiously and will still do so, and I am just looking forward for the next 89 days. I just can’t wait to get in as president,” he added at the time.
The Supreme Court has cleared President Trump to fire three Biden appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The court granted the Trump administration's request on an emergency basis, allowing Trump to move ahead with removing the three Democrats on the agency, who have pushed their own agenda against Trump's wishes.
The Supreme Court's liberals, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.
The Trump administration has decried what it calls a judicial assault on the president's powers, which includes the authority to hire and fire executive branch employees as the president sees fit.
The Supreme Court has been generally sympathetic to the White House's view on executive branch control of independent agencies, previously ruling in Trump v. Wilcox that Trump could fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board "without cause."
In its brief, unsigned opinion on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Supreme Court quoted its opinion in Trump v. Wilcox. In that case, the justices held that the wrongful removal of a federal officer is less concerning than "allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power."
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration's argument that Trump v. Wilcox "squarely controls" the dispute with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which, the court said, "exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board."
A Biden-appointed district judge in June had ordered Trump to reinstate three Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission after Trump fired them. The commission has five members who serve staggered terms.
The district court's order put the agency under the control of a Democratic majority, which then "immediately moved to undo actions that the Commission had taken since their removal," the Trump administration noted in its early July appeal.
"That plain-as-day affront to the President’s fundamental Article II powers warrants intervention now just as much as in Wilcox," Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote.
The Trump administration's battles with the federal bureaucracy could be building toward a major Supreme Court ruling on the scope of executive power.
A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey's Executor, backstops the independence of federal agencies with "quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial" functions.
But the White House argues, and the Supreme Court seems to tentatively agree, that Humphrey's has allowed agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission to arrogate executive power in a way that threatens the Constitution.
In a dissent from the court's ruling, the liberal wing fretted that the justices have "all but overturned" Humphrey’s Executor.
"By allowing the president to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence,” they wrote.
Former acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under President Obama, John Sandweg, has questioned the impact of New York City's sanctuary laws following the shooting of an off-duty Border Patrol agent, Breitbart reported.
Sandweg, discussing the implications of the crime, linked sanctuary policies to the incident while emphasizing a need for both legislative and operational change.
Sandweg's comments were made during a broadcast on "NewsNation Now" on Tuesday. During this appearance, Sandweg discussed how sanctuary city policies, like those in place in New York City, could have contributed to the shooting incident. He suggested that the city's non-cooperation with ICE possibly allowed the shooter to remain on the streets.
Sandweg explained that the individual responsible for the shooting had entered the United States unlawfully. The suspect had multiple arrests, including for violent offenses, and had been ordered to be deported.
The former ICE director suggested that cooperation with ICE might have led to the prevention of the shooting incident. "Certainly, if New York City had handed these guys over to ICE, you probably wouldn’t have had this shooting," Sandweg said. The lack of collaboration between local authorities and ICE was highlighted as a significant issue.
Sandweg's analysis included a broader critique of ICE's current tactics. He noted a shift in focus towards large worksite operations, like farms and factories, which he argued could allow more dangerous individuals to escape notice. These operational strategies were described as a departure from more targeted approaches that might better identify and apprehend such individuals.
Sandweg expressed concern over how ICE is pressured to increase the number of apprehensions. He suggested that this pressure might be contributing to the inefficacy of current methods in targeting more illicit individuals.
The tactics, focusing on workplace raids, often miss finding individuals involved in more serious crimes. Sandweg questioned whether the shift to larger operations is making it easier for dangerous individuals to avoid detection.
This critique raises questions about the effectiveness of ICE's strategy in monumentally impacting local safety. Sandweg's insights suggest a need for reevaluation and potential reform to address current shortcomings and enhance safety measures.
Addressing the sanctuary policies, Sandweg noted that something needs to change to prevent events like the recent shooting. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue, urging a broad perspective beyond just sanctuary laws.
He stated, "But Marni, I think you’ve got to look bigger than just at the sanctuary laws." This highlights his recognition of systemic issues affecting immigration enforcement and public safety.
For Sandweg, the recent incident should serve as a wake-up call, signaling that something is broken in New York. His reflections pointed towards a collective responsibility to ensure individuals with serious criminal backgrounds are not able to exploit sanctuary policies.
While acknowledging the role of sanctuary laws, Sandweg made it clear that broader structural changes within ICE operations are necessary. His comments bring attention to the balance needed between local cooperation and federal immigration processes.
Sandweg emphasized a strategic alignment among agencies to avoid allowing individuals involved in serious crime to take advantage of discrepancies between local and federal priorities.
The former ICE director's call for reform illustrates the intricate nature of immigration enforcement and public safety. As discussions about sanctuary cities continue, Sandweg's perspective advocates for enhanced collaboration and comprehensive reform to address these pressing issues.
A federal appeals court has blocked New Jersey Democrats from moving ahead with an unlawful scheme to block President Trump from housing illegal aliens in privately run detention centers.
The 2-1 ruling is a warning shot to "sanctuary" jurisdictions around the country that are actively trying to thwart President Trump's mass deportation plans.
In 2021, New Jersey's Democratic governor Phil Murphy signed a law that bars state, local, and private entities from making contracts with the federal government to house illegal immigrants.
The appeals court called New Jersey's ban on private detention centers a "clever" ruse that flies in the face of the Constitution. The law was clearly "intended to ban immigration detention," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found.
Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, an Obama appointee, joined Judge Stephanos Bibas, an appointee of President Trump.
“Just as states cannot regulate the federal government itself, they cannot regulate private parties in a way that severely undercuts a federal function,” Bibas wrote.
The case was brought by CoreCivic, a private prison company that since 1996 has managed an immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. A district judge sided with CoreCivic against New Jersey, which filed an appeal.
Shuttering the Elizabeth detention center would cripple ICE operations in New Jersey, the court said. The facility is in close proximity to major airports in the New York metropolitan area and was, until recently, the only major ICE detention center in the New Jersey.
Without it, ICE agents would have been forced to drive 250 miles to a detention center in the middle of Pennsylvania. The Trump administration opened a second ICE facility in New Jersey this May, in Newark.
"Though New Jersey does not want private immigration detention centers, the government often relies on them. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not build its own lockups, and it does not operate them alone. Instead, it contracts with private companies or local governments to help run them," the appeals court noted.
New Jersey entered the spotlight in May after a trio of Democratic lawmakers were involved in a scuffle outside the Newark facility, leading to the indictment of congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D) for obstruction and assault.
The state's attorney general, Matthew Platkin (D), condemned the appeals court's ruling, citing the chaotic incident at Delaney Hall.
“As recent events at Delaney Hall underscore, entrusting detention to for-profit companies poses grave risks to health and safety,” he said.
In another move that has rankled Dems, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that two military bases, one in New Jersey and another in Indiana, will be used to house immigrants facing removal.
A young member of the British royal family has died in an apparent suicide.
Rosie Roche, a cousin of Prince William and Prince Harry, was found dead aged 20 inside her family home in Norton, England, a small village in Wiltshire. The coroner said a gun was found nearby and that she died from a traumatic head injury.
Roche seemed to have exciting things to look forward to as she had been packing up for a trip with friends.
Her mother Pippa and sister Agatha made the gruesome discovery on July 14.
"Upon checking the office in the house, Agatha found Rosie deceased and she was slumped over a firearm with significant head trauma," said Grant Davies, area coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon.
The police do not suspect any third-party involvement or anything suspicious about the death.
Roche was a student of English Literature at Durham University. Professor Wendy Powers, Principal of Durham's University College, described Roche as a lover of poetry and travel who had lots of friends.
"University College staff and students are extremely saddened by the tragic death of Rosie Roche," Powers said.
"Rosie was a first year student studying for an English Literature degree. Rosie had settled into the University and College beautifully and had lots of friends."
"She was loved for her creativity, energy, her love of books, poetry and travel among many other talents. She will be sorely missed."
"Our thoughts and condolences are with Rosie's family and friends, and we are offering support to those affected at this extremely difficult time."
Roche was the granddaughter of Princess Diana's uncle, Edmund Roche, 5th Baron Fermoy, who shot himself in the head at age 45 after a long bout of depression.
Her death from an apparent gunshot comes after the suicide of Thomas Kingston, the husband of Lady Gabriella Windsor, a second cousin of King Charles III.
Kingston shot himself in the head at his parents' home in the Cotswolds last February. An inquest found that he was suffering adverse effects from anti-depressants when he took his life.
An obituary for Rosie in The Yorkshire Post read: "Roche, Rosie Jeanne Burke. Died on Monday 14th July 2025."
"Darling daughter of Hugh and Pippa, incredible sister to Archie and Agatha, Granddaughter to Derek and Rae Long."
"Private family funeral. A memorial service will be held at a later date."
The British royal family has yet to offer comment.