Monica Lewinsky doesn't make many headlines these days, but her most recent outburst regarding former President Bill Clinton sure did.
According to RadarOnline, some 27 years after she became one of the most talked-about White House interns in American history, Lewinsky weighed in on what she believes the former president should have done at the time.
Lewinsky made it clear that she believes Clinton should have resigned after the scandal of their White House love affair broke.
She believes Clinton should have taken accountability for what had happened and immediately moved on by throwing in the towel.
What did she say?
In an interview with podcaster Alex Cooper, Lewinsky explained what she believes the right move would have been for Clinton, which would have saved him a mountain of bad publicity and legal headaches.
"I think that the right way to handle a situation like that would have been to probably say it was nobody's business and to resign," Lewinsky said.
She also admitted that she believes Clinton could have found a way to keep his job in a way "that was not throwing a young person who is just starting out in the world under the bus."
"I think there was so much collateral damage for women of my generation to watch a young woman be pilloried on a world stage – to be torn apart for my sexuality, for my mistakes, for my everything," she added.
RadarOnline noted:
Clinton was subsequently impeached in 1998 for lying to a grand jury about the relationship but ultimately remained in office.
Meanwhile, Lewinsky said many women wound up being hurt by his "predator-like behavior" in "taking advantage" of her when she was a starstruck 22-year-old.
Social media reacts
Users across social media weighed in on Lewinsky's thoughts on the matter.
"Democrats said believe all women but they didn't believe Monica!" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Hillary was NOT going to allow Billy boy to resign. Bill was in the Chicken House for the hens, and Hillary was using Bill as another steppingstone in her lifelong quest to be President."
Lewinsky, now 51, is an author and activist.
While Democrats and their media allies continue to cry and whine about Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency slashing government waste like never before, they seem to have forgotten that it's not a new concept.
According to Breitbart, a video resurfaced this week of former President Barack Obama announcing in a 2011 video that he had placed then-Vice President Joe Biden in charge of cutting government waste.
The video sparked mountains of mockery and comments.
Musk posted the video on his X account and noted that Obama's message at the time "sounds exactly like DOGE."
What happened?
The video, which consists of Obama announcing an effort to cut government waste, quickly made the rounds across social media, especially the part where he says "nobody messes with Joe."
In his caption while reposting the video, Musk wrote, "Obama sounds exactly like DOGE!!"
In the video, Obama pointed to specific examples of what he believed was government waste, pointing out "folk music ensemble made up of forest rangers" and government buildings that were sitting vacant.
"They’re called the Fiddlin’ Foresters," Obama said in the video. "I’ll put their music on my iPod, but I’m not paying for their website — and there are hundreds of similar sites that we should consolidate or just get rid of."
He added, "By the way, you’re not only paying for websites no one needs. You’re paying for thousands of buildings all across the country no one uses. For the last decade, the government has owned a massive and completely empty warehouse in the middle of Brooklyn, for example."
Social media reaction
Users across social media had a lot of fun commenting on Obama's 2011 video.
"Except they didn't really mean this Elon. It was a front. But you do mean it, thanks," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "It was an “Obama DOGE” type project where billions reported saved, but the oversight enhancements as we note today eventually made it worse. Obama Cleaned up corruption and later caused more corruption with the replacement oversight he installed…"
It's truly amazing to witness the hypocrisy unfold within the ranks of the Democratic Party when videos like this resurface.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Mostly Democrats, but also some Deep Staters as well as federal employee union-supporting radicals who are enraged by Elon Musk's work with President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency have been warned there's a bull's-eye on their backs if they vandalize Tesla dealerships and vehicles.
It's been happening over and over across the country because of Musk's ownership of Tesla, and his work with DOGE to eliminate fraud, waste and corruption in the United States government.
That so far has involved slashing spending, cutting programs and firing a lot of people, moves that sometimes are being blocked in the courts by local district judges who were chosen by case plaintiffs for their ideological bent.
But the vandalism is going to stop, Attorney General Pam Bondi has revealed.
Bondi warned, "We have someone in jail right now for one of the dealerships, they threw a Molotov cocktail through a dealership. They're looking at up to 20 years in prison.
"So if you're going to touch a Tesla, go to a dealership do anything, you gotta watch out so we're coming after you. And if you're funding this we're coming after you. We're going to find out who you are."
Ironically, also on social media was a plea from a parent who wanted to minimize an 18-year-old daughter's punishment for vandalizing Teslas.
The parent wrote, "My daughter (African American, 18 year old) was involved in a protest at a Tesla dealership. After the protest, she apparently vandalized (spray paint + physical damage/breaning a Tesla and a cyber truck and was caught on Sentry mode (how clear are these cameras??). She told her lawyer and I that that (sic) she was coaxed by friends to do it."
The parent continued, "I'm scared for her and want her to have the best possible future. But I'm afraid that she is going to get a harsh sentence if found guilty, which her lawyer said is highly likely given the evidence. Will she be expelled form school? Will she be able to get a job? Anyone have any advice for me or her?"
A continuing resolution extending government funding passed Friday afternoon thanks to 10 Senate Democrats who joined the GOP, Politico reported. The 62-38 vote allowed the bill to clear to a final vote on the bill, which President Donald Trump signed on Saturday.
In the week leading up to getting the bill to its final vote, Democrats were conflicted about whether to give Trump this win. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explained the predicament Democrats found themselves in.
"While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse. I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option," Schumer said Thursday.
Bipartisan Support
The continuing resolution would fund the government for another seven months. It included $13 billion in cuts for non-defense spending, which is something Trump supports and Democrats typically recoil from.
However, Democrats were eager to stave off a government shutdown that would occur if they couldn't reach an agreement on a spending bill. Before its passage, Democrats were making dire predictions about what would happen if they didn't pass it.
They were dead set against giving Trump anything he wanted, thinking it would give him an edge in implementing his agenda. Prior to the vote, it was unclear whether they would cave on this despite the pitfalls of not signing on.
When the time for a vote came, Schumer joined Republicans along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durban. Other Democrats who voted for the bill included Sens Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Gary Peters of Michigan, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Angus King of Maine, who is an independent who typically joins Democrats, also voted for the bill. The only Republican to vote against it was Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Signed Into Law
According to Fox News, Trump signed the bill into law on Saturday, which thwarted the impending shutdown. The government is now funded through September, which means the fight will happen all over again next fall.
Even though it passed, there was collateral damage on the GOP side from the fight. Trump went after Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky for opposing the spending bill and said, "HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him," Trump said, according to a report from Fox News.
This move sent shockwaves throughout the GOP, as Massie has been a staunch conservative. However, Massie seems to have gotten the best of Trump this time, as he's actually seen a fundraising boon after the attack.
"In less than three days, I’ve received $261,000 through 3,203 individual donations, without sending an email, a text, or a phone call. It’s a fundraising record for me and it’s boosted my current cash on hand north of $1.1 million," Massie proclaimed in a statement.
This has been a contentious fight to fund the government, but it takes the issue off the table for now. The tension between Trump and Massie will likely blow over, but leftists in the media will surely make the most of it anyway.
Golf legend Tiger Woods, 49, is allegedly dating Vanessa Trump, 47, ex-wife of Donald Trump Jr., the Daily Caller reported. If the two get married, it would be the second wedding for both of them.
The pair have much in common. Woods is a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump, Vanessa Trump's former father-in-law. Vanessa Trump has a 17-year-old daughter, Kai, who is gifted at golf and looking forward to a future in the sport.
Woods has a 16-year-old son, Charlie, with the same aspirations. Kai and Charlie are also students at The Benjamin School in Florida. The UK Daily Mail was the first to report their romance.
Not So Secret
Although the pair have not made their relationship public, there are many signs that they are together. Four sources who claim to be close to the matter confirmed their union and said that all five of Vanessa Trump's children, plus the rest of the Trump family, are aware.
“She comes to his place on Jupiter Island. They’re not living together," a source said. The Daily Mail noted that the two live about twenty minutes from each other in the Palm Beach, Florida, area.
"She comes over maybe a few nights a week," the source said. "They just love hanging out, having dinner, and schmoozing together," the person added.
"They’re sticking close to home, have decided not to make it a thing and go out in public. Not just yet, anyway," the source said.
It's possible the couple hasn't made public appearances because Woods is still recovering from a torn Achilles tendon. Notably, Vanessa Trump took her daughter to watch a round of TGL golf, a league Woods co-created with Rory McIlroy.
Their Breakups
Vanessa Trump's 2018 split from Donald Trump, Jr. was an uncontested divorce and hasn't caused any public stir. While her ex-husband has had some high-profile relationships, Vanessa Trump hasn't been linked publicly to anyone since then.
By contrast, Woods had a very public and tumultuous breakup with ex-wife Elin Woods in 2009 after she found out that he was unfaithful to her, Fox News reported. An incident outside their Orlando home made headlines at the time.
Tiger Woods reportedly backed into a fire hydrant while coming out of his home in a gated community. Elin Woods confessed that she "broke the back window with a golf club," Windermere, Fla., Police Chief Daniel Saylor said.
"She supposedly got him out and laid him on the ground. He was in and out of consciousness when my guys got there," Saylor told the press then.
Tiger Woods and Vanessa Trump are public figures, but they still have a right to their privacy. If their relationship progresses, there will no doubt be public announcements and features written about them.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
ActBlue is a fundraising operation that has raised, literally, billions of dollars for Democrats in recent years.
It also could be one of the biggest money-laundering schemes ever assembled, and there could be charges coming.
That's according to multiple reports that have confirmed an investigation currently under way in Congress.
"We're investigating ActBlue the same way we investigated the Bidens," explained Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chief of the House Oversight Committee.
"We're starting with the suspicious activity reports — bank violations that flag financial crimes. And let me tell you, the evidence is overwhelming."
Multiple Democrat fundraisers have been investigated in recent years, including video reports that confirm some of those organizations have been benefiting from thousands of donations from individuals who have confirmed they were unaware of those donations running under their names.
The suggestion has been money-laundering, with massive amounts of cash being funneled, sometimes from overseas, into Democrat campaigns in America.
It is the Gateway Pundit that published a transcript of an interview with Benny Johnson in which Comer "laid out a damning case against the far-left fundraising juggernaut, accusing it of funneling billions in suspicious cash – potentially from foreign adversaries – into Democrat coffers under the guise of 'grassroots' donations."
The report said the investigation is being accompanied by "chaos" inside ActBlue, where "key executives are resigning, lawyers are jumping ship, employees are getting locked out of their computers…."
Johnson, a conservative commentator, pointed out, "When the lawyers flee, you know you're cooked."
Comer's committee actually started investigating "after discovering a flood of small-dollar donations from untraceable sources, many from elderly Americans who were unaware their names were being used to funnel cash into the Democrat machine," the report said.
Comer said his work had been obstructed under the Joe Biden administration by his appointee, Janet Yellen, who "would not reply to my request" for information about "suspicious activity reports."
"Heck, my opponent—whom I beat by 50 points—raised several hundred thousand dollars on ActBlue, despite having zero chance of winning. If you ranked the races from 1 to 435, hers wouldn't even be in the top 400 in terms of competitiveness. Yet she was still getting all these mysterious donations. You had House candidates whose campaign budgets were 80% funded by anonymous small donors on ActBlue,"
Eventually, his staffers found "several hundred" such reports from banking institutions.
Under President Trump, he's hoping for more details now.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has chosen not to run for a Senate seat in Michigan, a decision he announced on Thursday.The choice captures Buttigieg's strategic focus on the broader picture, both in supporting fellow Democrats and weighing a potential presidential bid in 2028.
After moving to Traverse City in 2022, speculation grew around Buttigieg's political ambitions in Michigan. The landscape seemed ripe for his candidacy, especially with Sen. Gary Peters planning not to seek reelection in 2026. Despite this opportunity, Buttigieg decided to refrain from pursuing a state or gubernatorial role.
Buttigieg’s statement emphasized his continued commitment to promoting candidates who align with a shared vision of leadership. "I care deeply about who Michigan will elect as Governor and send to the U.S. Senate next year, but I have decided against competing in either race,” Buttigieg said. His decision suggests a long-term strategy, potentially preserving his prospects for a presidential campaign in 2028.
Speculation Of A Presidential Run In 2028
The discussions about Buttigieg possibly aiming for the presidency in 2028 have intensified after his recent announcement. A source close to Buttigieg indicated that avoiding a Senate bid in 2026 could place him in a favorable position for a national campaign. This aligns with the views of many in the political arena, who see this decision as a move that strategically keeps his options open.
As a respected figure in the Democratic Party, Buttigieg’s support for like-minded individuals aiming for electoral victories demonstrates his commitment to influencing political outcomes from the sidelines for the time being. "I remain enthusiastic about helping candidates who share our values,” Buttigieg expressed, pinpointing a focus on supporting candidates with a vision for an alternative to current policies.
Electoral Landscape In Michigan
Buttigieg's decision not to enter the Michigan Senate race shifts attention to other potential candidates. With a Senate seat classified as a "toss-up" by the Cook Political Report, the race remains competitive. Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow reacted to the news, acknowledging the increased anticipation around her potential candidacy. “Busy morning, huh? Thank you to everyone who encouraged me to run for Senate. I’ll have more to share soon,” she noted, hinting at a possible announcement from her side.
Previously, a polling memo from Blueprint suggested that Buttigieg would have had significant support in a Democratic primary for the Senate, with 40% of the respondents favoring him. This further underlines the complexity of his decision.
His Political Journey And Current Focus
Buttigieg's background as a former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and his subsequent role as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation highlight his journey in public service. His experience and leadership style have positioned him as a distinctive voice in the Democratic Party, particularly among younger generations.
Over the coming months, Buttigieg implies that he will concentrate on fortifying and sharing a vision that serves as a "better alternative" to existing governance. As he continues to interact with the public and elected officials, he aims to sway the political discourse in a direction that promises proactive change. His engagement reflects an approach to impact politics by fostering unity rather than direct candidacy.
Potential Implications For Political Dynamics
Buttigieg’s choice may affect the dynamics of political campaigning in Michigan and beyond. His withdrawal from local races allows room for emerging Democratic candidates to gain ground and potentially reshape the political field. His support and endorsement could serve as a critical influence for these candidates moving forward.
Meanwhile, as a speculative 2028 presidential candidate, Buttigieg remains a pivotal figure in national politics. His focus on national issues during this period ensures his readiness and visibility, potentially leveraging his influence more broadly within the party.
As the narrative unfolds, Buttigieg's decisions and actions will be closely monitored by political analysts and voters alike. His present choices may well shape his future trajectory, presenting interesting developments in the coming years.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Too many decide cases 'on their personal preferences rather than what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent'
Mostly leftists across America have flooded the nation's court system in their rage over the election of President Donald Trump.
He is doing, in office, exactly what he promised during the election: clean out the Deep State in Washington, cut federal waste, fraud and crime, and purge the government of activists who are profiting from their manipulation of taxpayers' money.
Polls show vast majorities approving.
But those 119 lawsuits already have been advanced with frivolous injunctions that cost taxpayers millions, even billions of dollars, from activist judges trying to maintain the power the left has wielded under presidents like Joe Biden and Barack Obama. One analyst called the movement and agenda a "judicial insurrection."
For example, one judge said Trump cannot fire a member of the executive branch's National Labor Relations Board. Another ordered other fired employees back on the public payroll. Still another ordered the president to disburse two billion dollars of tax money he had withheld.
And much more.
Now a column in the Washington Examiner by Tom Fitton, of government watchdog Judicial Watch, explains there is a solution.
"Many are asking if federal judges can be impeached as a consequence of judicial activism, deciding a case based on their personal preferences rather than what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent and in usurpation of legislative and executive power. The answer is yes," he wrote.
"A series of extreme and activist decisions against President Donald Trump's constitutional authority exercised through the Department of Government Efficiency and his appointees such as Elon Musk have brought the question to the fore."
He cited Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, who explained, "The threat to democracy — indeed, the existential threat to democracy — is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime, tenured civil servants who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for."
Fitton continued, "So, you can see why conservatives are disturbed several judges went beyond their constitutional powers in constraining Trump and other executive branch officials from exercising legitimate constitutional powers, such as firing bureaucrats and making sure tax money isn't being spent corruptly."
Fitton cited Amy Jackson, a Washington judge who ordered Trump to restore Hampton Dellinger to his job in the Office of Special County.
That was reversed and Dellinger himself gave up.
But that order from Jackson "outrageously" had demanded Trump not "recognize the authority of any other person as Special Counsel."
Fitton cited, however, the "complete security" the founders gave Americans when they provided for impeachment of the judiciary based on cause.
"The use of the impeachment power to restrain judicial department usurpations has essentially lain dormant in Congress since 1804, when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House for, among other alleged misconduct, 'tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan,'" Fitton noted.
"That dormancy may end in the coming days. House members led by Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) filed a bill in February to impeach Southern District of New York Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee who last month issued an order blocking DOGE access (and even the treasury secretary's access!) to the Treasury Department system for government payments."
Trump himself, meanwhile, as WND reported, has instructed government entities to start asking courts to require that bonds be posted when injunctions are issued.
Thoe bonds would cover the cost to taxpayers of those injunctions should the government ultimately prevail.
That's already allowed, but seldom has been used, in federal law.
But it will be now, under orders from President Donald Trump, who explained in a new order Thursday, "In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process."
Those cases include challenges to Trump's decisions to fire executive branch employees, to cut off inappropriate funding and to eliminate fraudulent activities in the federal spending.
"This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail. Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for. Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the nation's chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety," Trump said.
He said a key to fighting such abuse is "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c))."
That mandates "that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued," Trump explained.
He said enforcement of that provision "is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice."
He then ordered that it now is the "policy" of the U.S. to demand that parties seeking injunctions "cover the costs and damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump talked about his goal of getting rid of America's income tax structure when he was a candidate.
He's repeated that desire multiple times in the White House, including making suggestions that taxing foreign corporations that do business in America, such as shipping companies, could generate significant revenue.
Now an analyst has explained how Trump's goal would put the goal of many Americans, to buy and own a home, much closer.
It is Marc Guberti for GOBankingRates who has written at Nasdaq.com about Trump's idea, explaining, "His objective of eliminating income taxes will have a significant impact on Americans and the global economy."
"The government will have to offset income taxes with another revenue source, and Trump seems committed to using tariffs. While tariffs increase the prices of products and services, consumers could have more flexibility with this tax. While necessities still have to be purchased, consumers can reduce their taxes by making fewer non-essential purchases. A tax system built on tariffs can offer more flexibility than income taxes and help savvy home buyers grow their savings," he said.
He said one obvious result would be that Americans would have greater take-home pay.
"The higher take-home pay will make it easier to save for a down payment and manage other expenses," he explained. "If you get to keep more of the money you earn, it becomes easier to pay off your current financial obligations."
That, in turn, gives consumers a better result when mortgage lenders analyze debt, credit obligations, student loans and such.
A higher purchasing power, combined with the plan to keep inflation stable, would "make home buyers feel more comfortable with embarking on the key milestone of homeownership," he explained.
Another factor would be the impact on real estate deductions, likely making more homes available.
He explained, "The elimination of income taxes can eliminate real estate deductions, and that's a huge deal for people who want to buy homes. Tax deductions have only been around since 1913 when income taxes were introduced at a large scale. While people can claim tax deductions through various expenses, none of them are as potent as real estate. The ability to generate high profits while reporting paper losses has made real estate — including single-family homes — very attractive investments. Ending income taxes can also end tax deductions, and that scenario can make real estate investing less desirable."
He pointed out Trump's leader at the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, has talked about eliminating tax credits, which likely would "rub off on tax deductions…"
"As the current tax code stands, it's possible for someone who nets $1 million per year to earn a tax refund with real estate. All it takes is to buy a $2 million short-term rental property and use a cost segregation study to immediately depreciate the property by 60%. Then, they report a $1.2 million paper loss on the property, which translates into a $200,000 income loss. Instead of paying taxes on $1 million, the investor in this scenario reports a $200,000 income loss and receives an 'appropriate' tax refund. This scenario highlights one of the reasons why real estate investing is so desirable. If deductions are eliminated, fewer investors may gobble up single-family homes," he pointed out.
WND previously reported on the Trump ideas for income taxes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Evidence 'he believed he did not have to abide by classification and document handling regulations'
A new report confirms that there was a "security risk" that developed when materials during Barack Obama's term in the White House were sent to Joe Biden's private and personal email account.
Biden, of course, was found later to have concealed classified government documents in piles of paperwork in his offices and the garage at his home, but never was charged for the violations of federal law.
A new report at Just the News explains the information included "briefing memos, sensitive foreign conversations, " "subjects and times for White House Situation Room meetings" and other "fallout from leaked National Security Agency intercepts."
The details come from a recent set of emails released by the National Archives.
According to the report, "Security experts and lawmakers, who reviewed the records, said they were disturbed by the nonchalant transmission of sensitive government information to Biden's insecure private email accounts and believed it put national security at risk."
Of course, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' failed 2016 presidential candidate, was embroiled in her own email scandal just years earlier, when she set up a private server in her home and sent all sorts of government documents to the unsecured location.
"The new set of emails from Joe Biden's time as Vice President are very troubling and are more evidence that Biden believed he did not have to abide by classification and document handling regulations," former CIA analyst and former Trump National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz confirmed to Just the News.
The report said hundreds of pages of emails dated from 2011 to 2015 were given to Just the News and a law firm, Southeastern Legal Foundation, in a Freedom of Information Act case.
The report explained, "They build on prior evidence that then-Vice President Biden was using the pseudonymous accounts for sensitive discussions with close advisors about official business ranging from domestic politics to sensitive foreign policy matters."
Whether any documents were classified hadn't been determined yet, the report said.
"Just like the classified documents Biden stored in his garage and home office, he again proved he didn't care about document security," Fleitz charged. "Biden's use of a gmail alias email address for work-related emails (robinware45@gmail.com) put sensitive government emails on gmail servers where they could easily have been hacked."
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and explained to the publication he'll get to the bottom of the scandal, and find out if laws were broken.
""Over the last several years, Sen. Grassley and I pressed the Biden White House and the National Archives for information and records on Joe Biden's use of pseudonyms and personal email addresses for official government business," he said. "The Biden administration failed to respond to those requests."
It is the Federal Records Act that governs the disposition of government documents of all sorts.
Chris Piehota, of the FBI, explained, "Government policy says you are not supposed to do business outside the government system," and that's for a reason.
"Those systems are not considered secure because they can be attacked from the outside or monitored by the provider. Providers can see anything. These are insecure systems for government business," he said
