A California judge has just confessed to a jaw-dropping fraud that siphoned off hundreds of thousands from a state fund meant for injured workers.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Israel Claustro, 50, has agreed to step down and plead guilty to federal mail fraud after masterminding a scheme to bilk California’s workers’ compensation system through a sham medical company.
As a former prosecutor with nearly two decades of experience handling heavy-hitting cases like murder and corruption, Claustro’s fall from grace is a stunning betrayal of the public trust he swore to uphold.
Back when he was still prosecuting criminals, Claustro set up Liberty Medical Group, despite lacking any medical credentials or legal right to do so under state law.
He then teamed up with Dr. Kevin Tien Do, a physician whose license was revoked after a 2003 felony conviction for health care fraud involving a staggering $300,000.
Together, they cooked up fake reports targeting California’s Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund, a program designed to support workers with additional compensation for injuries.
Their fraudulent submissions netted Liberty Medical Group hundreds of thousands of dollars, money that should have gone to hardworking folks already struggling with injuries.
While Claustro once handled high-profile cases with an iron grip on justice, he apparently saw no issue in gaming the system for personal gain.
First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli didn’t mince words, declaring, “Judge Claustro violated the law for his personal financial benefit.”
Essayli added, “We will not hesitate to prosecute anyone – judges included – who defraud public benefits intended to help those in need.”
That’s a refreshing stance in an era where too many elites seem to skate by on privilege, dodging accountability while regular Americans bear the cost of such schemes.
Claustro’s own words from a 2022 interview with the Asian Times now ring hollow: “I believe that serving as a judge requires humility, an open mind, independence, and commitment to the highest ethical standards of the law.”
Humility? Hard to see it when you’re rigging a system meant to protect the vulnerable, all while sitting on the bench as a supposed arbiter of fairness.
Claustro faces up to 20 years in federal prison for the mail fraud charge, while his partner in crime, Do, has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax fraud, with sentencing pending in the coming months.
With Claustro’s initial court appearance set for January 12, the gavel of justice may soon fall on a man who once wielded it, reminding us that no title or robe shields anyone from accountability.
President Donald Trump just made an announcement that could shake up the housing market and give everyday Americans a fighting chance at the American Dream.
On January 6, 2026, Trump announced a daring plan to block large institutional investors from snapping up single-family homes, aiming to tackle the skyrocketing costs that have locked so many out of homeownership.
For young families and first-time buyers, this could mean a lifeline—finally, a chance to compete without being outbid by corporate giants wielding all-cash offers that drive median home prices to a staggering $426,800, as reported by the National Association of Realtors.
After the 2008 financial crisis, big investment firms swooped in, buying up homes in bulk at foreclosure sales and turning them into rental cash cows.
Fast forward to 2025, and investors of all sizes account for nearly 30% of single-family home purchases nationwide, with major players dominating over 20% of sales in cities like Houston and Miami, per a CJ Patrick Co. report.
Housing advocates have long argued that this corporate ownership shrinks the supply of available homes, inflating prices and making it nearly impossible for regular folks to get a foot in the door.
Trump, speaking at a House GOP retreat, made it clear he’s had enough of Wall Street treating family homes like Monopoly properties.
“For a very long time, buying and owning a home was considered the pinnacle of the American Dream,” Trump posted on Truth Social, lamenting how high inflation under previous leadership has crushed that vision.
“It was the reward for working hard, and doing the right thing, but now... that American Dream is increasingly out of reach for far too many people, especially younger Americans,” he continued, pinning the blame squarely on past policies.
The market didn’t waste time reacting—shares in Invitation Homes, the biggest single-family home renter in the U.S., plummeted 6% after Trump’s announcement.
Heavyweights like Blackstone and Apollo Global Management weren’t spared either, with their stocks dipping roughly 6% and 5%, respectively, showing just how much this proposal rattled the big players.
While a Blackstone spokesperson insisted, “That said, we believe our current portfolio is poised to continue to perform quite well,” one has to wonder if they’re just whistling past the graveyard while their holdings shrink.
Now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves—Trump hasn’t laid out the nuts and bolts of how this ban would work, and it’s unclear if Congress needs to sign off on it.
With plans to elaborate at the World Economic Forum in Davos in two weeks, conservatives are hopeful but wary, knowing that good intentions don’t always translate to airtight policy in a bureaucracy that often protects corporate interests over Main Street.
For now, this proposal is a battle cry for hardworking Americans tired of being priced out by faceless firms, and while the road ahead is murky, it’s a fight worth watching as median home prices hit record highs and mortgage rates hover at 6.19%.
Iran’s top brass just tossed a verbal grenade at the United States, threatening preemptive action over what they call hostile rhetoric.
Here’s the quick rundown: Iran’s Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami has fired back at President Donald Trump’s warnings about the regime’s harsh treatment of protesters, while massive demonstrations fueled by economic despair rock the nation and draw sharp international criticism.
Let’s rewind a bit—late last month, protests erupted across Iran as citizens grappled with skyrocketing prices for basics like cooking oil, poultry, and cheese. Shopkeepers have sounded the alarm, predicting costs for essentials could triple. It’s no surprise that cities like Abdanan and Malekshahi are reportedly under protester control, according to the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
The Iranian government, scrambling to douse the flames, rolled out a new monthly subsidy of about $7 for staples like rice and meat, more than doubling the previous aid for over 71 million people. But let’s be real—$7 won’t cut it when you’re in what Vice President Mohammad Jafar Ghaempanah called a “full-fledged economic war.”
Ghaempanah didn’t mince words, pushing for “economic surgery” to gut corruption and outdated policies. Sounds noble, but when your people are hungry, surgery feels more like a Band-Aid on a broken leg. The West, particularly the U.S. and Israel, isn’t buying the regime’s excuses either, slamming their heavy-handed response to demonstrators.
Enter President Trump, who took to Truth Social with a message that’s pure red, white, and blue bravado. “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue,” he posted, adding, “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” While his heart may be with the oppressed, waving the big stick of intervention risks turning a spark into a wildfire.
Maj. Gen. Hatami, speaking to military academy students, didn’t take kindly to Trump’s words, calling the rhetoric a direct threat to Iran. He’s not just posturing for the crowd—his response hints at a regime feeling cornered by both internal dissent and external pressure.
Here’s Hatami in his own words: “The Islamic Republic considers the intensification of such rhetoric against the Iranian nation as a threat and will not leave its continuation without a response,” as reported by The Associated Press and IRNA. That’s diplomatic speak for “back off, or else.”
Not stopping there, Hatami doubled down with a chest-thumping promise of military might. “If the enemy commits an error, it will face a more decisive response, and we will cut off the hand of any aggressor,” he declared. It’s bold, but when your house is on fire, bragging about your fire extinguisher feels a tad misplaced.
Adding fuel to this geopolitical tinderbox is the recent U.S. operation in Venezuela, where Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores were captured and extradited. While unrelated on paper, it sends a clear signal that America isn’t shy about flexing muscle abroad. Iran’s leadership surely took note.
So, what’s the play here? Hatami claims Iran’s armed forces are more ready than ever, but preemptive strikes are a dangerous gamble when your economy is crumbling and your streets are chaotic. It’s less strategy and more desperation.
Meanwhile, Trump’s “locked and loaded” stance, while a crowd-pleaser for those fed up with authoritarian regimes, treads a fine line. Intervention might sound righteous, but history shows it’s a messy business with no guaranteed happy ending.
At the heart of this standoff are Iran’s protesters, ordinary folks crushed by economic hardship and now pawns in a high-stakes game of chicken. The regime’s crackdowns have drawn rightful condemnation, but foreign saber-rattling risks making their plight a footnote in a broader conflict.
Let’s not lose sight of the real issue—Iranians deserve better than subsidies that barely buy a loaf of bread or leaders who prioritize military bravado over reform. The U.S. should keep the pressure on for human rights, but without lighting a fuse that could burn everyone.
Bottom line: This is a powder keg waiting for a match. Iran’s threats and America’s warnings are a volatile mix, and the people caught in the middle—those brave protesters—deserve solutions, not showdowns. Cooler heads must prevail before words turn into war.
Florida is gearing up for a legal showdown with a fallen dictator, and it’s about time someone took a stand.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has revealed that the state is seriously considering pressing charges against former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro for his alleged role in drug trafficking that directly impacted the Sunshine State.
Let’s be clear: Maduro’s downfall has been a long-awaited moment for many, especially in Florida’s vibrant Venezuelan communities in Miami and Doral, where celebrations erupted over his detention.
DeSantis dropped this bombshell during a Fox News interview with Jesse Watters on Tuesday, signaling that the Florida Attorney General’s office is diving deep into the possibility of state-level charges.
Unlike the federal indictment already slapped on Maduro in New York, Florida wants its own piece of justice, focusing on how his actions allegedly funneled drugs straight into the state’s backyard.
“He was obviously very involved with bringing drugs, particularly to Florida,” DeSantis stated during a press conference in Clearwater, underscoring the personal stake Floridians have in this fight (Gov. Ron DeSantis).
The federal case in New York paints a grim picture, accusing Maduro of orchestrating a massive cocaine trafficking operation through Venezuela’s military, with shipments targeting places like Miami.
Unsealed indictments also name Maduro’s son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, and other officials as co-conspirators, detailing schemes to ship hundreds of kilograms of cocaine to Florida and beyond.
This isn’t just a distant problem—it’s a direct assault on Florida’s communities, where the fallout from Venezuela’s collapse under Maduro and Hugo Chávez has already displaced millions.
DeSantis didn’t hold back in criticizing the Marxist policies of Chávez and Maduro, which he says turned a resource-rich nation into a wasteland, forcing countless Venezuelans to flee.
Many of those refugees landed in Florida, particularly in Miami and Doral, where the news of Maduro’s detention in Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center alongside his wife, Cilia Flores, sparked jubilation.
“Millions and millions of people fled out of Venezuela. So this is being greeted very positively,” DeSantis noted, capturing the relief felt by a diaspora weary of tyranny.
Beyond the drug trafficking accusations, DeSantis raised eyebrows with a separate claim that Maduro emptied Venezuelan prisons, sending former inmates across U.S. borders, some allegedly ending up in Florida.
While this isn’t part of the federal charges, it adds another layer of concern for Floridians already grappling with the ripple effects of Venezuela’s chaos under Maduro’s iron fist.
With a cryptic social media post urging followers to “Stay tuned…”, DeSantis has hinted that more revelations or actions might be on the horizon, keeping the spotlight firmly on this unfolding drama.
Conservative commentator Scott Jennings just threw a curveball at the White House, daring to call the January 6, 2021, Capitol chaos a dark stain on history that must never be repeated.
In a bold break from President Trump's narrative, Jennings aired his dissent on CNN, critiquing the White House's take on the violent Capitol breach while still swatting away progressive attempts to turn the day into a somber annual ritual.
Let’s rewind to that infamous day in 2021 when a mob, spurred by claims of a stolen election, stormed the Capitol, even threatening then-Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to halt vote certification.
Jennings didn’t mince words on CNN’s “The Source,” declaring, “It was a bad day, it should never happen again,” a stark contrast to the unapologetic stance from Trump’s camp.
While he’s no fan of the left’s urge to memorialize the event, Jennings isn’t buying the White House’s spin that pins the blame on Capitol police for ramping up the conflict.
Speaking of that spin, the White House webpage paints a picture of officers “aggressively firing tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions into crowds of peaceful protesters,” as if law enforcement were the instigators.
That same webpage takes aim at Democrats for “certifying a fraud-ridden election” and flipping the script to fault Trump for the mayhem, a claim that’s been a lightning rod for years.
Adding fuel to the fire, the White House hailed Trump’s sweeping pardons for many January 6 defendants on Inauguration Day 2025, labeling them “patriotic citizens” wronged by a vindictive prior administration.
Yet, Jennings isn’t swayed, pointing out how the White House’s words could easily be read as shifting culpability onto the cops who faced the brunt of that day’s fury.
Back in the aftermath of the attack, Jennings penned a fiery op-ed for CNN, branding the event “literally an insurrection” directly tied to Trump’s actions, a stance that still echoes in his current critique.
He didn’t stop there, once accusing Trump’s inner circle, including Rudy Giuliani, of fanning the flames with dangerous rhetoric like calls for “trial by combat” at a pre-riot rally.
Jennings urged fellow conservatives at the time to stand by the Constitution and denounce the violence as terrorism, a plea that feels just as pointed today amid the ongoing spin.
Meanwhile, White House aide Stephen Cheung let slip a smirk-worthy confession, marveling that media outlets “actually fell for our trap” with the provocative webpage, suggesting it was crafted to bait reactions.
If that’s the game, it’s a risky one—stoking division over an event that already split the nation, while voices like Jennings push for reflection over revisionism.
At the end of the day, Jennings stands as a rare conservative willing to challenge the party line, reminding us that even in a polarized age, some still value principle over playbook. His critique isn’t just a jab at the White House; it’s a call to reckon with history, not rewrite it. And while the left’s sanctimonious vigils grate, ignoring January 6’s lessons would be the real folly.
Brace yourselves, taxpayers—two GOP senators are raising a red flag over a hefty spending bill that could pour billions into refugee programs with questionable oversight.
Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah are firmly against a $5.69 billion provision for refugee assistance buried in the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS).
This amount, triple what was budgeted before President Joe Biden’s administration, has sparked fears of rampant fraud and a rollback of hard-won limits on welfare for noncitizens.
As head of the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, Paul is gearing up to fight, proposing an amendment to stop this funding and pushing legislation to cut all welfare benefits for immigrants, including refugees.
“The big spenders in Congress are back in DC, hoping to pass a bill that spends billions on refugee benefits despite widespread reports of fraud,” Paul warned. His sharp critique begs the question: why risk taxpayer dollars on programs so prone to misuse?
Lee, not one to sit idle, is championing his SAVE Act to mandate proof of citizenship for voting while calling for tougher immigration enforcement policies.
Opponents of the bill argue that this nearly $6 billion for refugee resettlement undercuts Trump-era measures that used executive action to restrict noncitizen access to federal benefits.
During Biden’s tenure, expansive immigration policies have welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees, including about 200,000 evacuees from 2021 to 2023, with many from Afghanistan and Somalia.
A chilling case saw an Afghan evacuee charged with shooting two National Guard members near the White House, killing one, just before Thanksgiving—a tragic example of the dangers of hasty resettlement without strict checks.
Under current rules, resettled refugees can access federal programs like SNAP, HUD assistance, and emergency Medicaid, as noted by the National Immigration Law Center.
Research from the Center for Immigration Studies shows 80% of Somalians resettled in Minnesota rely on public assistance, casting doubt on the long-term viability of such support.
Minnesota has also emerged as a cautionary tale, with state Medicaid programs reportedly exposed to fraud costing billions, amplifying concerns over unchecked federal spending.
Adding to the frustration, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” once eliminated Medicaid coverage for refugees and asylees, a protection now seemingly undone by this new proposal.
“New Year’s resolution: stop nonsense like this, pass my SAVE Act to require proof of citizenship to vote, and codify the MAGA agenda—especially on immigration and enforcement,” Sen. Lee urged. His blunt challenge questions whether Congress prioritizes fiscal responsibility or political posturing.
With billions on the line, the stance of Paul and Lee serves as a reminder that every dollar spent demands scrutiny, especially when past policies aimed at curbing abuse are at risk of being dismantled.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, just unleashed a scathing attack on the Supreme Court over a heated redistricting decision shaking up Texas politics.
In brief, the Supreme Court’s December order to uphold Texas’ newly crafted congressional districts—favoring Republicans and displacing Crockett from her seat—ignited a profane response from the congresswoman, who’s now eyeing a Senate run and demanding judicial reform.
This controversy began when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s redrawn district maps received a temporary nod from the Supreme Court ahead of November elections.
These new lines could deliver up to five additional House seats to the GOP, a significant shift in political balance.
Worse for Democrats, the map boots Crockett out of her current district, a tough blow for any sitting representative.
Not one to back down, Crockett quickly pivoted after the ruling, announcing a bold run for the Senate.
On Sunday, she posted a fiery video on YouTube, slamming the Supreme Court and accusing Republican leaders of foul play in redistricting efforts.
As Crockett put it, “Obviously, Trump is still doing his bidding with these state Houses and state Senates and governor's mansions to try to rig the system,” pinning the blame on former President Donald Trump and GOP strategists for what she calls a deliberate power play.
While redistricting often stirs partisan accusations, suggesting a coordinated scheme from the top seems more like political theater than hard evidence, especially since map-drawing has long been a bipartisan sport.
Crockett doubled down with a blunt “f--- you” to the Supreme Court over its ruling, a statement dripping with frustration but light on constructive dialogue.
Such sharp words might rally her base, but they risk sidelining a broader conversation about fair electoral boundaries and judicial roles.
Across the map, other states are wrestling with similar battles—California Gov. Gavin Newsom is advocating a ballot initiative for five new Democratic-leaning districts as a direct response to Texas’ GOP tilt.
In Indiana, the Republican-led state Senate surprisingly turned down a plan for two extra GOP seats, a move Crockett praised amid her critique.
Closer to home, Crockett’s push for Supreme Court reforms—like term limits and expansion—stems from her 2024 work on the Court Reform Now Task Force, though such proposals often strike conservatives as more disruptive than stabilizing to our judicial framework.
Ultimately, while Crockett’s ire at redistricting is understandable, solutions lie not in verbal barbs but in pushing for voter-first maps—a challenge both parties have dodged for decades.
Hold onto your hats, folks—President Trump just dropped a bombshell about his signature dance that’s got everyone talking.
During a recent gathering with House Republicans, Trump shared a lighthearted glimpse into his personal life, admitting that First Lady Melania Trump isn’t a fan of his now-famous dance moves, which have captivated supporters during his rallies.
On Tuesday, Trump addressed the group with his characteristic flair, weaving in a humorous anecdote about a playful disagreement with Melania over his dance.
He revealed that Melania finds the moves unbecoming of a commander-in-chief, a critique that clearly didn’t deter him from busting them out anyway.
“‘She hates when I dance. I said, “Everybody wants me to dance, darling,’” Trump recounted, mimicking a mock spat before adding Melania’s pointed jab: ‘It’s not presidential.’”
Well, presidential or not, Trump’s got a point—crowds do seem to eat it up, and isn’t connecting with the people part of the job?
Trump didn’t stop there, sharing how Melania even brought up a historical heavyweight to make her case against his groove.
“‘She actually said, “Could you imagine FDR dancing?” She said that to me,’” Trump added, referencing Melania’s nod to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who spent much of his tenure in a wheelchair due to polio.
While it’s a fair question, one wonders if FDR might’ve tapped a foot or two if he’d had Trump’s fanbase chanting for a shimmy—times have changed, after all.
Despite Melania’s reservations, Trump isn’t letting her veto cramp his style, and frankly, why should he?
After delivering a marathon 85 minutes of remarks to the House Republicans, he couldn’t resist giving the audience what they wanted—a live performance of the very dance in question.
It’s clear the man knows his base, and if the cheers are any indication, they’re not just being “nice,” as Melania suggested, but genuinely reveling in the unscripted moment.
This dance, whatever you make of it, isn’t just a quirky footnote—it’s become a cultural touchstone among Trump’s loyal supporters and even some high-profile athletes like UFC fighter Jon Jones and various football players.
In a world obsessed with stifling individuality under the guise of propriety, isn’t there something refreshing about a leader who isn’t afraid to step out of the polished, progressive mold and just have a little fun?
While Melania’s concern for decorum is understandable, Trump’s defiance of stuffy expectations might just be the kind of authenticity Americans crave in an era of over-scripted politics.
New York’s 10th Congressional District is shaping up to be a political cage match between establishment Democrats and the progressive fringe.
The battle lines are drawn as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries throws his weight behind two-term Rep. Dan Goldman against a challenge from former city comptroller Brad Lander, who’s riding the wave of far-left support from Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Goldman kicked off his re-election bid in Chinatown, planting his flag in a district that spans Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.
With Jeffries’ endorsement, Goldman gets a heavyweight in his corner, joined by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, both of whom share his staunch support for Israel.
This isn’t just a pat on the back—Jeffries, along with House Democratic leaders Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar, lauded Goldman’s work as counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, signaling he’s a fighter they trust against GOP overreach.
But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: Goldman’s pro-Israel stance has made him a target in a party increasingly swayed by progressive criticism over the Gaza conflict.
Enter Brad Lander, the progressive darling backed by Mayor Mamdani, who’s pushing a narrative of representing the “working class” against Goldman’s wealth and supposed coziness with Trump’s circle.
Mamdani gushed, “I am proud to support our former controller, Brad Lander in his run for Congress. I’m proud to support him because of his honesty, his sincerity and the vision that he has shared with New Yorkers.”
Honesty and vision are nice buzzwords, but when Lander’s camp, through spokesperson Lauren Hitt, slams Goldman for “chumming it up” with Donald Trump Jr. on vacation, it smells more like a cheap shot than a policy critique—especially when Goldman’s record shows him battling Trump head-on.
Goldman isn’t backing down, firing back with a reminder of his track record: “I have stood up to Donald Trump and I’ve won.”
That’s a bold claim in a district where anti-Trump sentiment runs deep, and it might just resonate more than Lander’s class-warfare playbook.
Lander, for his part, touts a resume of organizing against evictions, advocating for housing, securing paid sick leave, and shielding immigrants—noble causes, but ones that may not outweigh Goldman’s experience in Washington’s trenches.
The real fault line here is Israel, with Goldman’s unapologetic support clashing against a progressive tide that’s grown skeptical amid Middle East tensions.
While Jeffries and Hochul see Goldman as a bulwark against what they view as Republican extremism, Lander’s supporters frame him as the true voice of a district fed up with establishment politics.
This primary isn’t just about two candidates—it’s a referendum on the soul of the Democratic Party, and whether common-sense pragmatism can fend off the progressive agenda that often seems more about ideology than results.
Former President Donald Trump’s sweeping clemency for January 6 offenders might just have tossed a legal lifeline to an accused pipe bomber.
Here’s the crux: Brian Cole Jr., charged with planting explosive devices outside the DNC and RNC headquarters on the eve of January 6, 2021, could potentially slip through the cracks of justice due to a broad pardon Trump issued on his first day back in office last year.
For hardworking taxpayers, this saga is a gut punch, as millions in investigative and legal costs risk being flushed down the drain if Cole’s alleged crimes are covered by this pardon.
Let’s rewind to the night before January 6, 2021, when Cole allegedly placed pipe bombs near the heart of political power in Washington, D.C.
Fast forward to last week, when the Justice Department secured a grand jury indictment against him, and a judge ordered his detention pending trial after a tense court hearing.
Yet, in a twist that could make your head spin, Trump’s pardon—covering roughly 1,500 individuals tied to the Capitol events—might include Cole’s actions under its expansive umbrella.
Trump’s clemency, issued last year on day one of his return, offered a full pardon to anyone convicted of offenses linked to January 6 at or near the Capitol.
The language is as wide as the Mississippi, lacking any cutoff date for charges and already applied to pending cases, potentially sweeping in Cole’s alleged bombing plot.
Even the Supreme Court, over a century and a half ago, affirmed that presidents can issue preemptive pardons for past conduct—whether charges existed or not at the time.
During an FBI interview after his arrest, Cole confessed, reportedly saying he “was frustrated with both political parties,” as noted by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro on social media.
But here’s the rub: while Cole denied his actions targeted Congress or the January 6 proceedings, a judge noted the bombs were placed near the Capitol the night before lawmakers certified the 2020 election results.
A former January 6 prosecutor suggested Cole could argue his acts diverted law enforcement from the Capitol that day, tying them to the broader chaos—pardon territory, perhaps?
Now, let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: roughly three-quarters of Americans opposed Trump’s pardon, especially for violent offenders, viewing it as a sidestep of accountability.
Cole’s case, alongside high-profile releases like Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, only fuels the fire, as some pardoned individuals have allegedly committed new politically charged crimes since their release.
While the Justice Department danced around linking Cole’s bombs to January 6 in court last week, the question remains—will this pardon undermine every effort to hold wrongdoers accountable, leaving conservatives and moderates alike scratching their heads?