FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have released new files to Congress showing how the Clinton Foundation, run by Bill and Hillary Clinton, collected foreign and domestic donations from those seeking influence over the U.S. government, but were never investigated fully for influence peddling schemes.
The files are being called the "Clinton Corruption Files," and Patel and Bondi plan to make them public in the next week or two once some information related to the whistleblowers is removed.
The evidence will show that there was an effort “to obstruct legitimate inquiries into the Foundation by blocking real investigation by line-level FBI agents and DOJ field prosecutors and keeping them from following the money,” an official who has seen the files said.
The Clinton Foundation was started after Bill left office in 2000, but some of the contributions were received while Hillary served as Secretary of State under Barack Obama.
Whistleblowers in 2015 said that some of the documents and evidence was kept from investigators in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the pair lived before Bill Clinton became president.
The investigation was soon shut down by order of Obama Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, but if the evidence bears out, it appears that former President Joe Biden wasn't the first powerful executive branch figure to run a pay-to-play scheme out of the White House.
In fact, there were three separate investigations into the Clintons that were all shut down by Yates.
According to Trump officials, the documents show that lower-level FBI agents and prosecutors prevented evidence from getting to decision makers in the multiple investigations of the Clinton Foundation.
It's not at all surprising that damning evidence about the Clintons was buried so deeply that it never came to light.
Anyone familiar with the speculation surrounding the Clinton Foundation for years will not be surprised by the revelations by Patel and Bondi.
Republicans long thought that the foundation was a corrupt vehicle for influence peddling, but they never had any hard evidence until now.
Unfortunately, the statute of limitations on influence peddling is five years, so unless there is evidence of a crime without a statute of limitations, the Clintons will once again get off scot-free.
Other than propping up their legacies, I don't even know why they care anymore whether people know what they did.
Maybe it would give away the Democrat playbook, although it seems like maybe it skipped a generation with Barack Obama.
Hold onto your hats, folks—the Supreme Court just slammed the door on a decade-long saga involving a Kentucky clerk who stood her ground against issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple, Breitbart reported.
The high court’s rejection of Kim Davis’s appeal marks the end of a contentious battle that began in 2015, when the former Rowan County clerk refused to grant a license to David Moore and David Ermold, citing her deeply held religious convictions, only to face lawsuits, jail time, and damages as a result.
Back in 2015, Davis made headlines for her refusal to issue the license, a decision rooted in her personal faith.
Her office in Rowan County turned away Moore and Ermold, prompting the couple to file a civil rights lawsuit against her.
A court ordered Davis to comply, but she dug in her heels, landing herself in jail for contempt of court.
It’s a classic clash of personal belief versus public duty, and while some cheer her conviction, others see a public servant overstepping her role.
Eventually, Moore and Ermold did secure their marriage license, but they weren’t done fighting, pushing for damages over the initial denial.
A jury agreed, hitting Davis with a $100,000 penalty for the emotional toll her refusal caused.
She appealed that ruling, lost, and took her case all the way to the Supreme Court, hoping for a lifeline that never came.
The case drew fresh attention recently, with some worrying it could threaten the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
As NBC News noted, “Her latest appeal in the case, brought a decade later, had attracted considerable attention amid fears that the court could overturn the 2015 same-sex marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, in the aftermath of the 2022 ruling that overturned the landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade.”
But let’s be real—while progressive agendas often cry wolf over settled law, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this appeal suggests Obergefell isn’t on the chopping block just yet.
Breitbart News framed Davis’s argument sharply: “Davis is not merely claiming a First Amendment right not to participate in same-sex marriages by issuing a marriage certificate.”
They added, “But as Breitbart News previously reported, Davis is claiming the right to use her governmental power to order all of her deputy clerks and other subordinates that they shall not issue marriage licenses, either.”
Here’s the rub—while her personal objection might deserve accommodation, using public office to enforce private beliefs on others feels like a bridge too far, even for those of us skeptical of woke overreach.
Hold onto your hats, folks—New York Attorney General Letitia James, a prominent figure in progressive circles, finds herself in a legal quagmire over two Virginia homes that seem to attract police like moths to a flame.
Between federal bank fraud charges tied to the purchase of these Norfolk properties and a staggering number of police calls to the residences occupied by her relatives, James is caught in a storm of scrutiny that raises serious questions about her judgment, the New York Post reported.
Let’s rewind to August 2020, when James closed on her first property in Norfolk for $137,000, a modest home intended for family use.
Shortly after the purchase, her grandniece, Nakia Thompson, moved in with her three children, and almost immediately, the house became a hotspot for law enforcement activity.
Police have been dispatched to this address 12 times since then, with calls ranging from warrant services to domestic disputes and even reports of suspicious individuals lurking about.
The frequency of these visits spiked in early October 2025, with six calls in just two weeks, suspiciously coinciding with national attention on James’ legal troubles—talk about bad timing.
James’ legal headaches began with a federal indictment in October 2025 for bank fraud, alleging she misrepresented her intent to occupy the 2020 property to snag a better loan rate.
A second property, purchased in 2023 with a $219,780 mortgage, is also under a criminal referral for similar claims, despite paperwork bearing James’ signature claiming she’d live there—except she works over 300 miles away in New York.
Facing up to 60 years in federal prison if convicted, James denies any wrongdoing, but one has to wonder if this is less about progressive policy and more about personal accountability.
Back to the first house—Nakia Thompson, who testified to a grand jury in June 2025 that she lives there rent-free, has a rap sheet longer than a CVS receipt, including charges for theft and assaulting a government official.
In a Facebook rant, Nakia dismissed her criminal history as “OLD AS HELL” and “fabricated,” but public records, including a 2020 probation sentence for larceny, paint a less flattering picture (The Post).
Her latest charge in late October 2025 for allegedly threatening a school official over the phone doesn’t exactly scream “reformed character”—a pattern that hardly helps James’ public image.
Now, let’s turn to the 2023 property, home to James’ other grandniece, Cayla Thompson-Hairston, an OnlyFans model, along with her mother and sister, where police have shown up 10 times between April 2024 and April 2025.
These calls, including warrant services and a reported assault, suggest a troubling trend of chaos surrounding James’ family properties, raising eyebrows about who’s really in control here.
While James may argue she’s simply helping family, conservatives might see this as a cautionary tale of misplaced priorities—shouldn’t a public official ensure her own house is in order before championing sweeping social reforms?
Hold onto your hats, folks—there’s a storm brewing among Senate Democrats as a progressive lawmaker calls for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s head on a political platter.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, has openly demanded that Senate Democrats ditch Schumer as their leader after a messy vote to reopen the government amid a 41-day shutdown, spotlighting a rift over healthcare subsidies and party unity, The Hill reported.
For 41 days, the federal government has been shuttered, leaving Americans frustrated and lawmakers scrambling.
During this deadlock, Schumer, alongside House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pushed hard against a House-passed funding bill, arguing it failed to extend critical Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Most Senate Democrats held the line, rejecting the bill 14 times on the Senate floor.
But on Sunday, the dam broke when eight members of the caucus—including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire—voted to move forward with the Republican-backed plan to restart government operations.
Enter Rep. Ro Khanna, a Silicon Valley progressive, who didn’t mince words on social media, blasting Schumer for failing to keep his team together on such a pivotal issue.
“Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Khanna declared, adding, “If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”
That’s a sharp jab, but let’s be real—when a party can’t rally around protecting something as fundamental as healthcare access, it’s no surprise folks are questioning the coach’s playbook.
Khanna isn’t alone in his critique; Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin piled on, pointing to Schumer’s apparent reluctance to back a Democratic mayoral candidate in New York City and his perceived weakness in negotiations.
Such public infighting isn’t just a bad look—it’s a signal that the progressive wing feels sidelined by leadership’s inability to secure wins on policies they hold dear.
After all, if your team is fracturing over a funding bill that ignores enhanced health insurance protections, what’s the point of claiming to champion the little guy?
On the flip side, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen defended the vote to reopen the government, noting that Republicans weren’t budging on adding healthcare subsidies no matter how long the shutdown dragged on.
“When I talk to my constituents in New Hampshire, you know what they say to me? They say, ‘Why can’t you all just work together to address the problems that are facing this country?’” Shaheen remarked.
While her plea for bipartisanship sounds noble, one has to wonder if caving to a bill that sidesteps crucial healthcare support is really the “working together” Americans want—or just a surrender to political gridlock.
Hold onto your hats, folks— the U.S. border just hit a milestone that’s got everyone talking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proudly reported a record-breaking drop in unauthorized border crossings for October, marking the start of fiscal 2026 with the lowest numbers ever seen for that month, the Washington Examiner reported.
This isn’t just a small dip; it’s a historic plunge.
DHS data reveals a staggering 30,561 total encounters nationwide in October 2025, a figure hailed as the smallest start to any fiscal year in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) history.
That’s a jaw-dropping 79% decrease from the same month last year under the previous administration, and a solid 29% lower than the prior record low set over a decade ago.
Progressives might squirm at these stats, but let’s be real—fewer unauthorized crossings mean a tighter grip on national security, something most Americans can get behind.
Adding to the achievement, DHS noted six straight months of zero releases of unauthorized migrants into the country.
This policy shift is a stark contrast to the more lenient approaches of the prior administration, signaling a no-nonsense stance that prioritizes enforcement over open-door ideals.
While some critics may cry foul, arguing for compassion over control, the data suggests this strategy is working—numbers don’t lie, even if they don’t fit a feel-good narrative.
Since the first full day of the current administration, DHS has logged 106,134 enforcement encounters along the Southwest Border through the end of October.
That’s well below the monthly average of 155,485 encounters seen under the previous leadership, with daily apprehensions down by a whopping 95%.
“History made: the lowest border crossings in October history and the sixth straight month of ZERO releases,” declared DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. “This is the most secure border ever.”
Noem’s enthusiasm is matched by CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, who stated, “Our mission is simple: secure the border and safeguard this nation. And that’s exactly what we are doing.”
Scott added, “No excuses. No politics. Just results delivered by the most dedicated law enforcement professionals in the country. We’re not easing up — we’re pushing even harder.”
While Scott’s words brim with resolve, one has to wonder if this hardline approach will hold under inevitable political pressure—still, credit where it’s due, the results speak volumes.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take a case that could decide the fate of all mail-in ballots received late, The Hill reported. The Republican National Committee has sued over the practice of allowing ballots received after the polls are closed but postmarked on Election Day to be counted.
A lower court in Mississippi ruled that allowing late arrivals to still be counted is a violation of federal election laws. According to those laws, Election Day is defined as the first Tuesday in November, and Republicans believe that states that allow ballots to be counted after that day are breaking the law.
"Allowing states to count large numbers of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day undermines trust and confidence in our elections," argued Joe Gruters, chairman of the RNC. "Elections must end on Election Day, which is why the RNC led the way in challenging this harmful state law," Gruters added.
"The RNC has been hard at work litigating this case for nearly two years, and we hope the Supreme Court will affirm the Fifth Circuit’s landmark decision that mail-in ballots received after Election Day cannot be counted," the statement concluded. The case is expected to be decided at the High Court in the spring or summer.
Shockingly, the challenge to the law is occurring between the Republican Party officials in Mississippi and the RNC, essentially pitting the local and national parties against each other. "The stakes are high: ballots cast by—but received after—election day can swing close races and change the course of the country," the Mississippi attorney general's office noted.
The RNC stated that, for its part, the lower court was correct in its assertion regarding the conflict with federal law. "It should await a case where the lower court answers the question presented incorrectly, should one ever arise," legal filings from the RNC said.
At least one aspect is off the table as the state of Mississippi agrees that the RNC has a stake in the issue and therefore has standing.. This will allow the Supreme Court to decide the merits of the case rather than dismissing the case out of hand because of a technicality.
This precise scenario occurred in the case brought by Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) and two of President Donald Trump's electors, who were barred from challenging an Illinois law that allowed late-received ballots to count. According to Capitol News Illinois, Bost and the delegates attempted to sue the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022 over the issue of accepting ballots up to 14 days after Election Day.
While their challenge had merit, the problem is that both a lower federal trial court and the federal court of appeals denied the lawsuit, stating that Bost had no standing. However, Bost's attorney, Paul Clement, argued that the additional cost to the campaign for the extended campaign had an impact on Bost. "Everybody would like the elections to be conducted lawfully and in compliance with federal law, including the voters, but the injury is visited more specifically on the candidate," Clement said
Trump has made election security one of his signature causes in his second term. After the changes to procedure that came in 2020 and Trump's subsequent loss, the president has set his sights on tightening up these loopholes and procedural gray areas. As the Associated Press reported, Trump signed an executive order to that effect on March 25.
The order included provisions regarding Election Day deadlines as well as a requirement for proof of citizenship for voter registration, and this predictably sparked an immediate challenge. David Becker, former attorney for the Justice Department, was one who vehemently denied the validity of the order.
"This cannot be done through executive action," said Becker, who heads the Center for Election Innovation and Research nonprofit. "Look, the Constitution was very clear: The president is not king," he added, arguing that election laws are "it’s always done through Congress" and not the president.
"The president doesn’t get to establish executive orders that affect the states with the swipe of a pen. If he wants to affect funding, he has to go through Congress to do that," Becker said by way of a comparison.
The left has pushed these policies that challenge the boundaries and have made elections run on for weeks past the customary time frame. This matter must be settled if Americans are to trust the process and candidates are to receive a fair shake. Now, it will be up to the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of such a decision.
President Donald Trump authorized two more strikes against drug cartel boats in international waters as the administration ramps up efforts to stop the flow of illicit drugs into the U.S., Breitbart reported. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the strikes on Sunday killed six men and destroyed their poisonous payload.
Trump has designated the foreign drug traffickers as terrorist organizations and has begun active strikes against these vessels before they reach American shores. The first of such strikes occurred in September, when Trump announced that this would become part of an ongoing effort to stop the cartels from Venezuela and others.
The president said in a social media post on Sept. 2 that the strikes should "serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!" Trump said on his Truth Social. Since then, these strikes have killed at least 76 narcoterrorists, CBS News reported.
Hegseth took to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday to announce the successful completion of Sunday's mission. "Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," Hegseth wrote in a caption to a video of the maneuver.
"These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the Eastern Pacific. Both strikes were conducted in international waters and 3 male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel," Hegseth continued.
"All 6 were killed. No U.S. forces were harmed," Hegseth assured the American people.
"Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people," the Secretary of War concluded. While these missions have been successful, the left has gone crazy over Trump's audacity to take such measures.
Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations.
These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and… pic.twitter.com/ocUoGzwwDO
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) November 10, 2025
While the prospect of stopping the drug trade at its source is attractive to many who like law and order, there are objections from the left about Trump's methods and his aggression toward Venezuelan gangs. Volker Turk, who is the U.N.'s head of human rights, said Monday that the strikes have "strong indications" of "extrajudicial killings" and thus deserve additional scrutiny despite having the desired effect of preventing narcotics from making it to American shores.
"I have called for investigations by the US administration first and foremost, because they need to... ask themselves the question: are these violations of international human rights law? Are they extrajudicial killings?" Volker said, echoing some lawmakers who have questioned the president's ability to order these attacks..
"I mean, there are strong indications that they are, but they need to investigate this," Turk added. Meanwhile, Turk has complained that the strikes have occurred "in circumstances that find no justification in international law." This same skepticism has also been shared by lawmakers stateside.
However, a resolution that was proposed in the Senate to check Trump's power to order these strikes failed last week in a 49-51 vote. GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to join the Democrats' unanimous vote to put a stop to the strikes, NBC News reported. Some Democratic congressional lawmakers similarly raised concerns about the strikes and Trump's supposed lack of transparency.
These military strikes are taking out the drug trade at the source, just as Trump had promised. The increase in proactive operations is somewhat concerning from a geopolitical standpoint as they may spark retaliatory attacks, but Trump has typically been dovish when it comes to using the military, so it stands to reason that his change of heart comes from a well-informed place.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama once again blasted the Trump administration for demolishing the East Wing of the White House, saying that it "denigrates" the traditional workspace of the first lady and by extension, her role.
“When we talk about the East Wing, it is the heart of the work” of a first lady, Obama stated. “And to denigrate it, to tear it down, to pretend like it doesn’t matter — it’s a reflection of how you think of that role.”
Obama claimed that her work as first lady and the “balanced image of the first family” it created got her husband "five extra approval points," according to the New York Times.
While former President Barack Obama's approval rating fluctuated, as most presidents' do, he left office fairly popular.
It wasn't Michelle Obama's first criticism of President Donald Trump's plan to build a massive ballroom where FLOTUS had worked.
She told Stephen Colbert during a recent taping that the East Wing was a lighthearted place that had children and puppies.
She was "confused" about the values of the country under Trump, and added, “I just feel like, what is important to us as a nation anymore? Because I’m lost.”
She's not the only one who has used the image of a wrecking ball at the White House as a metaphor for Trump's presidency.
Former President Joe Biden said during an appearance in Omaha last week that Trump would “take a wrecking ball to the country,” and he called the ballroom “a perfect symbol of his presidency.”
Similar comments were made by former Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; Clinton even used the construction to raise money (for what, we don't know).
On behalf of Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that many presidents have undertaken renovation projects at the White House.
She asserted that a large indoor event space was needed in light of the fact that state dinners are currently held in rented tents on the South Lawn.
In defending his decision to demolish the East Wing, Trump said it had been renovated 20 other times, including adding a floor on the top, which he said looked awful.
For now, the first lady's offices have been relocated to other areas of the White House, and it was not immediately clear whether permanent replacement office space would be provided.
Brace yourself for a housing policy that’s got conservatives seeing red: the Trump administration’s pitch for a 50-year mortgage.
The proposal, aimed at boosting housing affordability, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from across the Republican spectrum, with detractors arguing it traps homeowners in debt while padding the pockets of banks and lenders, the Washington Examiner reported.
This controversial idea emerged over the weekend when Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director and President Donald Trump’s housing chief, unveiled it as a potential fix for the housing crisis.
Pulte framed the extended mortgage term as part of a larger toolkit to protect “the American Dream for YOUNG PEOPLE,” suggesting it’s a bold step to help the next generation.
But let’s be honest—calling this a “dream” feels more like a bureaucratic fever dream when you dig into the numbers. A half-century of debt hardly screams opportunity.
President Trump himself drew parallels to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 30-year mortgage innovation during the New Deal, implying this could be a historic shift in housing policy.
Yet, the Republican rank-and-file aren’t buying the hype, with many slamming the plan as a betrayal of traditional homeownership values. They argue it’s less about owning a home and more about renting from a bank for five decades.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., crunched the numbers with a brutal reality check: “After paying on a home for 5 years, if the rate is 7% on a 50-year mortgage, you will have paid only 1.3% of the principal.” Talk about a slow crawl to equity—most folks will barely own a brick after half a decade.
Massie didn’t stop there, warning that such long terms likely mean tiny down payments, setting up borrowers for defaults and locking them in place with no flexibility to relocate for better jobs or schools.
Adding fuel to the fire, Chris Rossinni of the Ron Paul Institute cautioned that a 50-year mortgage “will mean the bank will own ‘your’ home for 50 years.” If that doesn’t sound like a corporate overreach dressed up as a lifeline, what does?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., echoed the sentiment, decrying a system that leaves people “in debt forever, in debt for life.” She’s not wrong to question who really wins here—homeowners or the financial giants?
Greene also pointed out that the plan seems tailored to enrich banks, lenders, and builders while saddling families with crushing interest payments that might outlast their lifetimes.
Instead of embracing endless debt, Greene floated ideas like qualifying renters with solid payment histories for mortgages and scrapping federal capital gains taxes on primary home sales. These seem like practical steps that don’t chain folks to a lender for generations.
Other conservative voices, like commentator Meghan McCain, urged a focus on raising wages or cutting costs rather than peddling long-term loans that erode fiscal responsibility. If Republicans stand for sound money management, this proposal feels like a sharp left turn.
Even cultural critics like Laura Loomer and Matt Walsh have chimed in, pressing Trump to zero in on immigration policy reforms over tinkering with mortgage terms. With so many pressing issues, is this really the hill to build a house on?
The head of the BBC has resigned over a deceptively edited clip of President Trump that the left-wing British broadcaster called an "error of judgment."
The doctored footage appeared in a BBC documentary that aired in October 2024, one week before the U.S. presidential election.
The BBC came under significant pressure after the leak of an internal memo that said the broadcaster "completely misled" viewers by splicing two different clips together. Trump is now threatening to file a $1 billion lawsuit for attributing "false, defamatory" statements to him in his famous speech prior to the Capitol protest on January 6th, 2021.
The clip stitches different parts of Trump's speech to make it appear that he urged his supporters to violently storm the Capitol, when in fact he urged them to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
In Trump's actual speech, he said, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
But in the BBC's version, Trump was heard to say, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
The "fight like hell" quote has often been cited by Trump's opponents to falsely suggest he was calling for violence, but the full context makes it clear he was using a common figure of speech.
Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards, had flagged its Trump edit along with the broadcaster's coverage of the transgender issue and other topics in a leaked memo that was first reported by the Daily Telegraph.
As the scandal over the Trump edit snowballed, BBC head Tim Davie said he would step aside.
“Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable. While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision,” Davie said in the statement.
“Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as Director-General I have to take ultimate responsibility,” he added.
The CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, also resigned, a development Trump welcomed as he thanked the Daily Telegraph for "exposing these corrupt ‘journalists’."
BBC chair Samir Shah conceded to an "error of judgement," but Trump's lawyers accused the broadcaster of a "reckless disregard for the truth" in a letter threatening legal action unless the BBC issues a full apology and retraction.