This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Peter Strzok is the ex-FBI agent who orchestrated a lot of the Democrats' lawfare against President Trump back a few years ago.
Lisa Page was the FBI lawyer, his paramour, with whom he exchanged messages about how they would not allow Trump to be president. They talked about an insurance policy against that.
According to reports, now they're being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in an investigation into John Brennan, who then was Barack Obama's CIA chief and appears to have been instrumental in that lawfare against Trump.
The developments were reported by Fox News after earlier reports that subpoenas were being created and sent out.
And yes, Brennan has been subpoenaed too, according to the report from Fox News Digital.
WND had reported only a day earlier that the investigation into Brennan would address, among other things, "probes by the CIA and FBI into Russian interference in the 2016 election."
Those claims included that Trump's campaign was coordinating with Russia, a claim that has proven to have been made up.
Jason Reding Quinones, the U.S. attorney in South Florida, is developing the evidence, along with senior staff at the DOJ in Washington.
The investigation was confirmed by the White House weeks ago after reports surfaced that Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the probe based on a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
A lawyer advising the DOJ has confirmed that the grand jury will consider "whether top Obama and Biden officials engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate Donald Trump's civil rights through the Russia investigations and the probes by special counsel Jack Smith," MSNBC reported.
Smith brought two lawfare cases against Trump, both of which have since died.
Brennan, now working for MSNBC, claims he's innocent.
He has separately been accused by the House Judiciary Committee of lying to Congress, an allegation he also disputes.
WND previously reported that the Steele dossier, that collection of wildly false claims about President Donald Trump that was funded by supporters for twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and used by Democrats to undermine Trump's presidency, was coming back with a bite.
It was the CIA, through an officer, that drafted an annex containing a summary of the dossier, which actually came from a hired former British agent. And it was Brennan, then CIA chief, who decided to include information from the dossier in an "Intelligence Community Assessment." And it was Brennan who overruled senior CIA officers who opposed the inclusion of that material.
The claim is that Brennan "made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" about the dossier when testifying under oath to the House Judiciary Committee.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the committee, said, "We write to refer significant evidence that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan knowingly made false statements during his transcribed interview before the Committee on the Judiciary on May 11, 2023. While testifying, Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the CIA.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if he 'knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false . . . statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of the Congress[.]' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony. Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight," the letter said.
Brennan's accused of "denying that the CIA relied on the discredited Steele dossier in drafting the post-2016 election Intelligence Community Assessment; and … testifying when he told the Committee that the CIA opposed including the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)."
This scenario was detailed on Jordan's letter:
On January 6, 2017, the CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and National Security Agency published a declassified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. The ICA stated, among other things, that Russia 'developed a clear preference' for President Trump and 'aspired to help' him win the election. This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which 'was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.' The Steele dossier was a series of reports containing baseless accusations concerning President Trump's ties to Russia compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump's purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier. In July 2025, the Trump Administration declassified numerous documents showing that the ICA's main findings were false and that the Obama Administration knowingly fabricated the findings for the purpose of undermining the Trump Administration.
Further, evidence now confirms "Brennan falsely testified to the Committee. During a transcribed interview on May 11, 2023, Brennan stated that 'the CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier.'"
Brennan's claims, the letter charged, "cannot be reconciled with the facts."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Stacie Laughton, a man who was elected to the New Hampshire legislature as a woman multiple times and resigned multiple times, now is facing a potentially lengthy prison sentence after pleading guilty to the sexual exploitation of children.
Laughton, 41, a Democrat, had been arrested and charged in 2023 in a case where authorities alleged his "former intimate partner," a daycare worker named Lindsay Groves, "admitted" taking sexually explicit photographs of children at the center where she worked and sending them to Laughton.
The report said the sentence for Laughton could be up to 30 years.
The Gateway Pundit said Laughton was charged with sexual exploitation of children, aiding and abetting.
The Department of Justice announced, "According to the charging documents, a preliminary forensic review of Groves' cellphone allegedly revealed over 10,000 text messages between Laughton and Groves that included discussion about, and transfer of, explicit photographs that Groves had taken of children while employed at Creative Minds daycare – including at least four sexually explicit images of children who appear to be approximately three to five years old, as well as explicit descriptions of sex with each other and others, including children."
Groves also is facing various charges.
The DOJ's charges continued, "The charge of sexual exploitation of children provides for a sentence of at least 15 years and up to 30 years in prison, at least five years and up to a lifetime of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case."
Laughton's guilty plea came during a court appearance in Boston.
Social media responses included:
"Shocking."
"Sick."
"Ick."
"I was reliably told this doesn't happen."
And, 'Psychos."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Far-left Colorado,, where its state Supreme Court bench-sitters, all Democrats, wildly tried to exclude President Trump from the 2024 election ballot, has orchestrated a years-long war against a now-former county clerk who expressed concerns about the integrity of the election in 2020 and worked to preserve records.
Long has there been the suspicion that the Democrat state's actions against former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, now jailed on state counts, were "oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives."
Trump, in fact, has called for her to be freed.
Now a report at Just the News reveals the Department of Justice has asked the federal Bureau of Prisons to research paths for her to be transferred out of state custody and into a federal facility.
The report said the office of Deputy Attorney General, led by Todd Blanche, has dispatched an email to Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall, calling on the BOP to do the necessary research.
"At the request of the Deputy Attorney General, please have the Bureau of Prisons explore any and all avenues within BOP's authority to seek and request the transfer of Ms. Tina Peters from the Colorado Department of Corrections to a federal BOP facility," the DOJ instructed.
"We ask that BOP send out a request to Colorado as soon as possible and that BOP begin preparations for any possible transfer into federal custody."
In a trial clouded by the comments and behavior of a state judge, Peters was convicted last year on multiple counts linked to an alleged election security breach after 2020's vote.
She was given nine years in jail, despite the fact her security "breach" was completely overshadowed by a similar "breach" committed by Democrat Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who was found to have posted pages and pages of election systems security passwords online, and was given no punishment whatsoever.
Trump, just weeks ago, said, "FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State.Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election. She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!"
In fact, Colorado now is controlled by leftist extremists, from the office of homosexual Jared Polis to an all-Democrat state Supreme Court, and Democrat-majority bodies in the legislature.
Of course, evidence of vast levels of serious misbehavior remains in the state, and not just in the halls of state government in Denver. Records show the sheriff's office in one foothills county, Gilpin, had to pay out $700,000 some years ago for maintaining in official records references to a black resident as "N—– Roy." And Todd Vriesman, a state judge in that same county, recently had a case overturned because he violated the U.S. Constitution by clearing his courtroom out and sealing the doors, thereby depriving a defendant of a public trial.
The judge in Peters' case, Matthew Barrett, also made extra-judicial comments such as "you are a charlatan."
Trump several times has addressed, and opposed, the "weaponization" of the law enforcement and judiciary against him and his supporters.
Attorney General Pam Bondi already has established a group to review the "weaponization" actions under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, "to identify instances where a department's or agency's conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice or legitimate governmental objectives."
Peters has appealed her case and she filed a federal application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The DOJ previously had filed a statement of interest in her case, which said, "Tina Peters has sought relief in this action through an Application filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517. Ms. Peters is currently incarcerated while pursuing a direct appeal of her underlying nonviolent convictions and combined nine-year sentence. The Application explains that Ms. Peters suffers from serious health issues and that, while incarcerated, her physical and mental health have deteriorated. Reasonable concerns have been raised about various aspects of Ms. Peters' case."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A church congregant, who for now remains a lawyer, is facing a long list of criminal counts for allegedly pulling a fake grenade out of his pocket and threatening pro-life activists with it.
A report at the Myrtle Beach, S.C., Sun News explained it is Richard Meredith Lovelace Jr. who is facing four counts of waving a hollowed-out hand grenade in front of pro-life protesters at St Anne's Episcopal Church.
The stunt was caught on Instagram.
After the threats, he shortly was handcuffed and arrested by police in Conway, and a day later he was released from the J. Reuben Long Detention Center on $15,000 bail.
The report said protesters with the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust organization had responded to the church because it calls itself an "inclusive and affirming" church, in support of abortion and various alternative sexual lifestyle ideologies.
"According to accounts from the Conway Police Department incident report, Lovelace exited the church and approached the protesters with his hands in his pockets before pulling out the grenade," the report said.
"I thought Mr. Lovelace was coming up to me to have a conversation, and when he came up, he pulled out of his pocket this hand grenade, and he said, 'I have a gift for you protesters,'" said Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust South Carolina team lead Jessica Newell. "And I was just so confused, and everybody was scared, and so we just called the police immediately to get that investigated."
Lovelace is on video telling activists that the grenade is "for y'all."
"The arrestee had the grenade held up in the air and was seen [waving] it around," police reported. "The arrestee immediately attempted to get rid of the grenade after presenting it to the protestors by going back inside of the church prior to the officers' arrival and handing it to another person."
His law office said his work was in banking law, business law, elder law, estates and real estate.
Newell confirmed, "After what happened, it did kind of freak everybody out, so we are continuing to reconvene with the team and seeing what the best next course of action would be, but we are asking the church to cut ties with Women and Gender Studies, and we told them that that's what it will take for us to stop protesting."
At Christian Newswire was a report the protest, on Sunday, was because members of the church were linked to the Palmetto State Abortion Fund via The Women and Gender Studies Program at Coastal Carolina University.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An federal appeals court has ruled that a trial court judge failed to adequately consider President Donald Trump's immunity, confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling, in a dispute created by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that claimed Trump's description of legal fees as legal fees was wrong in the so-called hush money fight.
Courthousenews said it was a panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returned the case to Alvin Hellerstein a district judge, in Manhattan.
The decision revived Trump's fight against the Bragg-driven case that also featured a number of holes.
The appeals judges did not direct Hellerstein's decision.
They wrote, "We cannot be confident that … the district court adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review. For example, the district court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the state's case into one that relates to acts under color of the presidency."
The Manhattan DA has fought any review of his political case against Trump.
The jury's claim in the case was that Trump was guilty of 34 felonies for falsifying business records.
The report charged, "The jury found that Trump orchestrated his former personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who Trump was concerned would share details from their 2006 sexual encounter at an inopportune time during the election. When repaying Cohen, Trump disguised the payments as standard legal fees, sometimes signing those illicit checks from the Oval Office during his first presidential term, witnesses testified."
Legacy media reports often ignore the fact that both alleged participants in that encountered denied it happened.
Trump repeatedly has described the case as just another in the Democrat party's weaponization of the courts against him, not without evidence.
Trump already is appealing the same fight in New York state courts.
WND had reported on the state system appeal that the case all erupted because of Bragg.
When Bragg made the allegations, the judge, Juan Merchan, censored Trump's statements about the case. He allowed prosecutors to leave a vague "secondary" crime claim in place without any specifics. He delivered pro-prosecution jury instructions which seemed to allow a verdict without unanimity.
And all the while, Merchan's daughter was making money advising Democrats on issues that could include her father's courtroom rulings.
The basis of the most recent rulings is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have complete immunity for actions as president, but not for private actions.
Trump charges that ruling means prosecutors should not have been allowed to say some of the things they claimed about him.
The Washington Examiner reported Trump's legal team confirmed the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "means prosecutors should have been barred from using evidence connected to Trump's 'official' acts as president in the case against him."
It was in 2024 that a jury in leftist-majority Manhattan said he was guilty of falsifying records dealing with a payment to onetime porn star Stormy Daniels, 34 counts total.
The errors made in the trial court, however, mean the conviction should be scrapped, the report said.
Merchan, a donor to a Democrat cause, in fact, barred some of Trump's defense evidence, including statements that appeared to exonerate him from Daniels herself, censored Trump's speech, delivered pro-prosecution instructions, and more.
"One of the mistakes some legal critics believe was committed during the trial involved allegations that the New York district attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, never committed itself to what the second crime was. Rather, his office theorized that the crime could have been a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation," the report explained.
The law violation brought by Bragg is a two-part crime, meaning it depends on violation of another statute, and the prosecution never clarified that. That means some members of the jury may have assumed one law, or another, leaving their verdict not unanimous.
"The court permitted the jury to convict if some jurors believed only that President Trump had conspired to violate FECA, while others believed only that he had conspired to help others commit tax fraud, and still others believed only that he had conspired to help others make false statements to a bank," appeals court filings said. "Due process and Section 17-152 do not permit a conviction based on such a haphazard 'combination of jury findings.'"
At sentencing, Merchan spent seven minutes complaining that he was limited in his sentencing, then gave Trump an unconditional discharge, allowing for no fines, jail or probation while continuing the felony convictions.
Merchan, whose daughter is a consultant who was making money off of her father's multiple rulings against Trump, claimed "extraordinary" legal protections handed to the president of the United States required him to hand down a minor sentence that Trump would allegedly not have received without being reelected.
Merchan, in extraordinary fashion, allowed a wide range of inflammatory testimony to come into his courtroom against Trump. A long list of legal experts charged that the case never should have been created by Bragg. Merchan, in fact, inexplicably told the jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
The "offenses" actually were misdemeanors until Bragg theorized they were part of the furtherance of another, unidentified, crime, and that made them felonies. Experts called Bragg's machinations "legally creative."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A "democrat socialist" politician, supporting much the same agenda as communism demands, was elected to be the next mayor of New York City, and Zohran Mamdani used his victory speech to threaten President Donald Trump.
That may not go well.
"Yeah, I thought it was a very angry speech, certainly angry toward me. I think he should be very nice to me. I'm the one that has to approve a lot of things coming to him, so he's off to a bad start," Trump said during an interview with Fox.
Mamdani had boasted, "So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us."
The Gateway Pundit explained Trump also pointed out, "You talk about danger. I think it's a very dangerous statement for him to make. He has to be a little bit respectful of Washington. Because if he's not he doesn't have a chance of succeeding."
Trump spent much of his business career in New York, creating buildings, boosting the economy and providing jobs.
The president said, "I'm so torn because I would like to see the new mayor do well because I love New York. I really love New York. When I left New York for Washington, New York was doing really well, but there were some bad signs. The bad sign was a guy named De Blasio. So, the signs of De Blasio—that was the beginning, and it was bad."
He continued, "This one, we're going to look— for a thousand years, communism has not worked. Communism, or the concept of communism, has not worked. I tend to doubt it's going to work this time."
Mamdani, in fact, has talked about his extremism, including such concepts as taking the means of production, having the government run grocery stores, and more. Within hours of his election, he was demanding people send him more money, and he's openly talked about massive tax hikes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new insider survey from Democrats themselves confirms the party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and now Muslim "democrat socialist" Zohran Mamdani is in "a progressive fog," unmoored from the realities of regular people.
In fact, 70% of respondents say the party is completely "out of touch," up from only 51% with that perspective about a decade ago. At the same time, those considering Republicans "out of touch" dropped from 70% to 65%.
Voters want, at their highest priorities, Democrats to protect Social Security and Medicare, lower everyday costs and make healthcare affordable, all goals that current Democrat leaders essentially have left unaddressed.
The voters say the Democrats lowest priorities should be protecting illegal aliens, raising taxes for social agenda programs, and creating special considerations for LGTB Americans, which all are high priorities for the party.
It was a commentary by Jon Caldara at Complete Colorado that took the party apart. His conclusion was that the insider report "shows Democrats are detached from reality."
"Outside of Colorado, Democrats are still panicked about President Donald Trump's victory, trying to figure out how Americans can be so stupid as to reject their elitist-driven, woke socialism. But inside Colorado, Democrats see no need to worry. Unchecked power tends to do that," he noted, citing the report from "Welcome."
Its report, "Deciding to Win," involved six months of work and hundreds of thousands of voter interviews.
"Here's what voters told them: the Democrat Party is too consumed by climate change, identity politics and 'saving democracy,' and not nearly enough about the stuff that decides whether you can pay your mortgage or afford meatloaf (of course, meatloaf is murder. How many meat-out days do you need to get that?)," the analysis confirmed.
"Specifically, their deep dive found voters want the Democratic Party to prioritize (in this order): protecting Social Security and Medicare, lowering everyday costs, making health care more affordable, creating jobs and economic growth, cutting taxes on the middle class, lowering the rate of crime, and securing the border."
And Democrats should run away from issues like, "Protecting the rights of undocumented workers, raising taxes to increase spending on social programs, protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans, fighting climate change, promoting unions and union jobs, promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, and reducing police brutality."
Caldara, left stunned writing his commentary, said, "Holy crap — voters want Democrats to turn into Republicans, sans the social stuff like abortion."
He said in Colorado, which is under the thumb of Democrats in the governor's office, the state Supreme Court and the legislature, it gets worse.
"Our legislature treats every session like a grad-school seminar in progressive performance art. They churn out bills on pronoun policies and green-energy mandates faster than their fans can spray-paint 'No Kings' on a highway viaduct. Meanwhile, working Coloradans are stuck choosing between paying their Xcel bill and making rent," he warned.
He cited the poll's confirmation of an extremist leftist exploding among Democrats.
Since Obama left the White House, he noted, "[Democrat] support for a ban on so-called 'assault weapons' grew from 41% to 88%; support for giving full voting rights to federal prisoners grew from 4% to 44%; banning all state abortion limits from 66% to 98%; and support "studying" reparations for descendants of slaves from 1% to 57%."
Nationwide voters dislike and oppose any use of tax dollars for EVs, for "funding someone else's luxury car purchase."
In Colorado, "The EV gravy train just keeps rolling, you know, to save democracy."
Huge "trust deficits" for Democrats are found on crime, border security, and he said for Colorado Dems, "If they spent half as much time worrying about grocery prices as they do about greenhouse gases, they might notice working families are suffocating — not from CO2, but from the cost of living under their web of regulations and mandates."
The survey told Democrats to focus more on "the economy, the cost of living, health care, border security, public safety" and less on "climate change, democracy, abortion, identity and cultural issues."
It also warned the number of voters insisting Democrats are "too liberal" has exploded while at the same time those who think Republicans are too conservative has plunged.
It shows 46% said Barack Obama was too liberal, 52% said the same of Hillary Clinton, 39% said that of Joe Biden and 50% said that of Kamala Harris.
And support for the party from non-college-education Latinos is down 16%, from non-college-educated AAPI voters is down 15% and from all black voters down 11%.
It claimed that political institutions are biased against Democrats, but warned that had there been more voters in 2024, President Trump would have won by a larger margin.
It also charges that Democrat donors and elites are far more liberal than other party members.
And it devastatingly found, "Voters trust Republicans more on most of the issues they see as top priorities."
Hugely unpopular are agendas Democrats have adopted like abolishing police, abolishing prisons, free health care for illegals, lowering the voting age, boosting alien admissions and returning to racist affirmative action plans.
Ideas Democrats oppose, but are supported by the GOP and are very popular with voters, include calling cartels terrorist organizations, banning man from women's sports, eliminating taxes on Social Security, and requiring IDs to vote.
It reported Biden was on a losing path in the 2024 race, before being replaced by Harris, because of his surging inflation, his unpopular immigration practices, and an overemphasis on abortion.
To win? The party must change its priorities to align with and listen to voters.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Muslims follow the Quran, which instructs them to behead Jews and Christians. Many Muslim organizations around the world even today include in their agenda the destruction of Israel – and Jews.
So now that a radical Muslim has been elected mayor in New York, which has one of America's largest populations of Jewish families, the Anti-Defamation League has confirmed plans to watch him.
His agenda already is known to include a wide range of pro-communist points, as Zohran Mamdani openly has declared his allegiance to "democrat socialism" including ideals like high taxes, government-owned stores, reduced property rights and massive government controls. He waited only hours after his election to start telling people he needed more money and to send it to him.
"We are deeply concerned that those individuals and principles will influence his administration at a time when we are tracking a brazen surge of harassment, vandalism and violence targeting Jewish residents and institutions in recent years," explained Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the nation's biggest organizations promoting Jews.
He accused Mamdani of promoting "anti-Semitic narratives" and showing "intense animosity toward the Jewish state that is counter to the views of the overwhelming majority of Jewish New Yorkers."
A report from the Center Square explained what's being launched is called the "Mamdani Monitor" to check on anti-Semitism.
The ADL described the effort as plans to scrutinize Mamdani appointees "and review the funding of organizations tied to the Israel-critical administration to gauge hostility to Jewish people," the report said.
A phone hotline to report offenses also is in the works.
Mamdani faces open doubts about his actions because of his "alignment with pro-Palestinian groups, criticism of the Israeli government, and his use of the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' which has been linked to acts of violence against Jewish people," the report confirmed.
He also brazenly posted a photograph of himself with Siraj Wahhaj, who was linked to those behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Also of concern is his "previous" support for the anti-Israel Boycott Divestment and Sanctions agenda.
"We will hold the Mamdani administration accountable to this basic standard," said Greenblatt. "If New Yorkers experience anti-Semitism, where they work or where they worship or where they shop or where they socialize, tell us at ADL, and we will make sure that the authorities follow up."
The report noted the New York Board of Rabbis has warned that Mamdani "holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community's deepest convictions and most cherished values."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Subpoenas are being prepared – and sent out – in the Department of Justice's case to hold Barack Obama's CIA chief, John Brennan, accountable.
He reportedly was one of the instigators of many of the lawfare cases against President Donald Trump.
Reports now confirm that the DOJ is preparing a set of grand jury subpoenas as part of an investigation, being run out of Florida, into Brennan, "and the probes by the CIA and FBI into Russian interference in the 2016 election."
Those claims included that Trump's campaign was coordinating with Russia, a claim that has proven to have been made up.
Jason Reding Quinones, the U.S. attorney in South Florida, is developing the evidence, along with senior staff at the DOJ in Washington.
The investigation was confirmed by the White House weeks ago after reports surfaced that Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the probe based on a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
A lawyer advising the DOJ has confirmed that the grand jury will consider "whether top Obama and Biden officials engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate Donald Trump's civil rights through the Russia investigations and the probes by special counsel Jack Smith," MSNBC reported.
Smith brought two lawfare cases against Trump, both of which have since died.
Brennan, now working for MSNBC, claims he's innocent.
He has separately been accused by the House Judiciary Committee of lying to Congress, an allegation he also disputes.
WND previously reported that the Steele dossier, that collection of wildly false claims about President Donald Trump that was funded by supporters for twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and used by Democrats to undermine Trump's presidency, was coming back with a bite.
It was the CIA, through an officer, that drafted an annex containing a summary of the dossier, which actually came from a hired former British agent. And it was Brennan, then CIA chief, who decided to include information from the dossier in an "Intelligence Community Assessment." And it was Brennan who overruled senior CIA officers who opposed the inclusion of that material.
The claim is that Brennan "made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" about the dossier when testifying under oath to the House Judiciary Committee.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the committee, said, "We write to refer significant evidence that former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan knowingly made false statements during his transcribed interview before the Committee on the Judiciary on May 11, 2023. While testifying, Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the CIA.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a witness commits a crime if he 'knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false . . . statement or representation' with respect to 'any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of the Congress[.]' Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony. Making false statements before Congress is a crime that undermines the integrity of the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight," the letter said.
Brennan's accused of "denying that the CIA relied on the discredited Steele dossier in drafting the post-2016 election Intelligence Community Assessment; and … testifying when he told the Committee that the CIA opposed including the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)."
This scenario was detailed on Jordan's letter:
On January 6, 2017, the CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and National Security Agency published a declassified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. The ICA stated, among other things, that Russia 'developed a clear preference' for President Trump and 'aspired to help' him win the election. This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which 'was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.' The Steele dossier was a series of reports containing baseless accusations concerning President Trump's ties to Russia compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump's purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier. In July 2025, the Trump Administration declassified numerous documents showing that the ICA's main findings were false and that the Obama Administration knowingly fabricated the findings for the purpose of undermining the Trump Administration.
Further, evidence now confirms "Brennan falsely testified to the Committee. During a transcribed interview on May 11, 2023, Brennan stated that 'the CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier.'"
Brennan's claims, the letter charged, "cannot be reconciled with the facts."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has been handed another victory at the Supreme Court, where the justices on Thursday ruled that he could limit gender ideology statements on American passports.
Lower courts, responding to lawsuits by leftist activists, had claimed that they had the authority to order Trump to issue passports that claimed special sex designations for nonbinary and transgender people.
The Supreme Court halted those orders that would have allowed passport holders to creatively dictate whatever gender ideology they adopted for their passports.
"Displaying passport holders' sex at birth," the majority said, "no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
A report posted at Scotusblog noted that Ketanji Jackson, a far-left member of the court, was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in claiming the ruling actually "paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent."
The lower court order had come from Julia Kobick, a judge who heard the complaints from transgender plaintiffs and insisted the White House follow her orders.
Trump's executive order simply had said the federal government would only "recognize two sexes, male and female."
That was followed by instructions to the State Department that government documents reflect the holder's sex, not sex ideology.
Joe Biden, while in office, had promoted such alternative sex beliefs in multiple forums.
The activists claimed Trump's order violated their equal protection rights, their rights to travel and more.
The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had sided with the progressive ideology, but U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Kobick was injuring the United States "by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President's foreign policy and scientific reality.'
Following the science, transgenderism is a fantasy, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level.
Now the justices have granted the government's request to pause Kobick's demands.
The ruling pointed out Trump like will "succeed on the merits" of the arguments.
Jackson complained that now the plaintiffs won't be able to get passports "with sex markers that match their gender identity" and that could lead to "psychological issues."