This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Tom Cruise has competition. It looks like President Donald Trump is suddenly the No. 2 top gun in America.
The commander in chief late Saturday posted an epic artificial intelligence video of himself piloting an American fighter jet called "King Trump," dumping what appears to be loads of feces on "No Kings" protesters who are voicing their objections this weekend against the president.
Among the protesters is left-wing influencer Harry Sisson, who is seen getting completely doused with poop.
The video even includes music from the popular "Top Gun" film, specifically the song "Danger Zone" by Kenny Loggins.
"We truly live in historic times," noted journalist Benny Johnson.
One of those flushed with amazement by the clip is Democrat U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, (no pun intended), who wonders: "But seriously why would the President post an image on the Internet of airdropping feces on American cities?"
Sisson was also perplexed.
"Can a reporter please ask Trump why he posted an AI video of himself dropping poop on me from a fighter jet?" Sisson posted on X Sunday.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democratic U.S. senator has introduced a bill that would allow federal workers not being paid during the government shutdown to forgo their rent or mortgage payments, without penalty.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and 17 Democratic colleagues, would relieve workers and contractors from their obligations to pay rent, mortgages, insurance premiums and student loan payments during shutdowns, reports Reason.
In addition, it stays eviction and foreclosure proceedings for 30 days after the shutdown ends, with a penalty of fines or even jail time.
Said Schatz: "Right now, hundreds of thousands of federal workers, federal contractor employees, and their families don't know whether they'll be able to pay rent and make ends meet. Our bill will protect these workers and make sure they aren't harmed during this shutdown."
What Schatz does not mention is that once the shutdown ends, all back pay owed will go to those same federal workers — money that can be used to catch up with rental payments.
As Reason reports, a recent study published in the Journal of Urban Economics compared the strength of tenant protections to rents. It found that stronger tenant protections reduced evictions but also reduced vacancies and were correlated with higher rents and higher rates of homelessness.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A settlement agreement has been approved by council members in Castle Hills, Texas, and the vote brings to an end a years-long fight over the retaliatory arrest of a former councilwoman.
According to the Institute for Justice, the vote follows a landmark free speech victory at the Supreme Court by Sylvia Gonzalez in 2024.
That decision revived her First Amendment retaliation claim and sent the case back to federal district court. With this vote, the case is over and Sylvia's victory against the city is now final, explained the IJ.
"The council's vote closes one chapter for Castle Hills and opens a new chapter for free speech," said Anya Bidwell, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who argued Sylvia's case before the Supreme Court. "The First Amendment doesn't come with handcuffs. This outcome sends a message to officials everywhere: if you retaliate against critics, you can be held to account."
The deal involves city payment of about a half a million dollars and also a commitment from officials to work with the Texas Municipal League to offer a statewide training on First Amendment retaliation.
Reportedly up to 1,100 cities will learn the lessons of the fight.
"It's been more than five years, and today I can finally breathe," Gonzalez said, in a statement. "I never wanted to end up in a Supreme Court fight, but I kept going because what happened to me shouldn't happen to anyone. Those who went after me have been held accountable. I didn't do this just for myself. I'm proud that this win will make it easier for ordinary people to stand up when officials try to punish them for speaking out."
The attacks on her began after she was elected the first Hispanic councilwoman and helped spearhead a citizen petition calling for the removal of the city manager.
During a heated council meeting, Sylvia was accused of briefly and inadvertently having the petition among her papers – an allegation the city used to orchestrate her arrest under a rarely used law.
Prosecutors dismissed the charge but not before the authorities confined her to jail for a day.
She then charged retaliation in her arrest – for her criticism of city officials.
The Supreme Court agreed.
"Now as always, retaliation by government officials is a clear threat to our constitutional rights," said Will Aronin, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "By sticking her neck out and fighting back, Sylvia paved the way for countless others to hold power to account. This settlement closes the chapter on her story, but it will live on as binding precedent—and as a testament to Sylvia's courage."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A bi-vocational pastor has been fired from his position at a Louisiana library for rejecting orders to violate reality and address a woman as a man.
And Liberty Counsel, which has taken up the case on behalf of Luke Ash, has suggested officials at the Baton Rouge Parish Library fix the problem quickly, before it gets expensive.
It sent a demand letter, explaining under the First Amendment the state "may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees."
Then too, both the First Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution recognize and protect "religion" and religious "free exercise." And the organization's "inclusion policy" does not override those protections for Pastor Ash to speak or not.
"[The] Library has no compelling government interest in requiring employees to speak pronouns that do not accurately reflect biological sex, when employees are not required to speak at all; nor in requiring employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs," wrote Liberty Counsel.
Explained Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, "The East Baton Rouge Parish Library acted unlawfully in firing Pastor Luke Ash for the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana law protect his right to uphold his beliefs and refuse false pronouns. The library also violated Title VII for not even considering a religious accommodation for Pastor Ash. There is no compelling interest in requiring Pastor Ash to lie or affirm false sex-based pronouns. Employers cannot force people to choose between their faith and their livelihood. The library has a chance to reinstate Pastor Ash and rectify this potentially costly mistake."
The legal team pointed out the library's actions also raise concerns about the state constitution, the Louisiana Protection of Religious Freedom Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The letter calls for reinstatement, back pay and a revised pronoun policy.
The library has insisted that employees have a "right" to choose their pronouns, which would require others to mouth their support for radical gender agendas.
Ash's religious beliefs explain he must speak truth.
A report at the Washington Stand said such a demand letter typically is precursor to a lawsuit.
"Ash serves as pastor of Stevendale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge and, until this July, also worked at the Baton Rouge Parish Library. When introduced to a new coworker, a biological female who wanted to be referred to using masculine pronouns, Ash continued using female pronouns, in accord with his Christian beliefs on sex and gender," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Democrats' leader in the U.S. House, Hakeem Jeffries, has lashed out at White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt as "demented, ignorant, a stone-cold liar, or all of the above," and she has responded with a sledgehammer.
It started when Leavitt unleashed a critical statement about Democrats.
She suggested the party is loyal to its "main constituency" of "Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals."
Jeffries bashed her, complaining that Republicans are "ripping the sheets off in plain view."
"You've got Karoline Leavitt, who's sick, she's out of control. And I'm not sure if she's just demented, ignorant, a stone cold liar, or all of the above," he charged.
He said that's why Republicans are on "the wrong side of public sentiment."
However, polling actually has revealed that huge numbers of Americans support President Trump in his Middle East policy, his economic policy, his border security policy and more.
It then was Leavitt's turn to explain:
"Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats are lashing out because they know what I said is true. The Democrat Party's elected officials absolutely cater to pro-Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals. House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning Hamas following the horrific October 7th terrorist attacks, and Democrats cheered on pro-Hamas radicals while they hijacked America's college campuses and harassed Jewish students."
She continued, "Democrats opened our borders and allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens into our country over the past four years, including rapists and murderers, because they view them as future voters. Democrats coddle violent criminals and support soft-on-crime policies like cashless bail that let violent offenders back on the streets to hurt law-abiding citizens. Democrats do NOT serve the interests of the American people. Hakeem Jeffries is an America Last, stone-cold loser. Now open up the government and stop simping to try to get your radical left-wing base to like you."
The Democrat party is responding with increasingly strained rhetoric as the Schumer shutdown approaches its fourth week. They refused to support a routine continuing resolution to keep the government funded as they were angry that Obamacare subsidies are set to expire.
That expiration was scheduled in legislation that they originally created.
They've been demanding Republicans add another $1.5 trillion in spending for favored Democrat projects to the continuing resolution before they'll support it. Republicans have refused to reach into taxpayer pockets for that amount of spending.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For years, India has marketed itself as the world's next great innovation hub, the emerging Silicon Valley of the East. Politicians, business leaders and industry groups have celebrated the nation's engineers as global talent, proudly pointing to every Indian-origin CEO leading a major American tech firm as proof of India's global prominence. The narrative being pushed has been that India was no longer just the world's back office – it was the future of technology.
Yet beneath the glossy slogans of "Digital India" and "Make in India," reality dictates a very different story.
The promise of innovation has rarely matched the results. As noted in a report by The Wire, India's allure for investors stems not from its depth of talent, but from the fact that its "labor is cheap and laws are lax." Still, American venture capitalists, eager to stake a claim in the "next tech frontier," have bought into the illusion. Capital flowed, partnerships multiplied and billion-dollar valuations were built, not on genuine technological breakthroughs, but on carefully crafted narratives that sold success.
Why India copies well but fails to lead in innovation
When "multinational educational technology company" BYJU's emerged, it quickly became the perfect poster child for India's startup dream. It was marketed as a unicorn – that is, a privately held startup company with a valuation of over $1 billion – proof that India could not only serve Silicon Valley, but become it. The company promised to transform how children learn and to usher in a new age of digital education. Yet, true to the national pattern, the promise unraveled quickly.
From unicorn to black sheep
Before its eventual financial and legal collapse, BYJU's stood as one of India's most celebrated startup success stories.
Founded in 2011 and officially being dubbed a unicorn by 2018, it grew from a small tutoring operation into India's most valued startup by 2022, ultimately being valued at $22 billion.
Its learning app soon became a household name across India and founder Byju Raveendran earned a spot on the Forbes list of India's richest people, celebrated as a self-made visionary transforming education. Former employees recalled his taste for five-star hotels and luxury cars, while his wife and co-founder, Divya Gokulnath, was seen networking in elite tech circles and Silicon Valley gatherings. Together, they emerged as global power players, symbols of a new generation of Indian entrepreneurs reshaping the country's image on the world stage.
At its peak, BYJU's went on a buying spree, acquiring 19 companies for more than $2.6 billion. The goal was to expand its main products and strengthen its presence in the United States. The company added new areas such as coding, job training and lifelong learning to its offerings and even pushed into the Middle East by becoming the official sponsor of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
BYJU's also hinted at plans to go public within a year, through an initial public offering (IPO) either in India or the United States. Both options were said to be under review, with no immediate deadline. Industry reports also suggested a possible merger with a U.S. special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that could have valued the business at around $40 billion, though co-founder Divya Gokulnath declined to comment.
Yet, beneath the optimism, warning signs were already visible. Despite being valued at $22 billion in September 2022, BYJU's parent company, Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd., reported a staggering $554.77 million loss for fiscal 2021, largely attributed to soaring marketing and employee expenses, leading to layoffs and cost-saving measures to push towards achieving profitability. The company's rapid rise had been built on hype and expansion, but the financial foundation was already starting to crack.
A fall from grace
In December 2022, when India's child-rights commission called out BYJU's over complaints of overly aggressive sales targeting families and first-generation learners. In the months that followed, scrutiny widened to its coding unit, WhiteHat Jr, amid allegations regarding advertising claims and hard-sell tactics. WhiteHat Jr filed defamation suits against critics, but then withdrew the cases after public backlash.
In April 2023, India's Enforcement Directorate raided BYJU's offices and later issued a $1.12 billion show-cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The agency reported uncovering "incriminating" documents and digital evidence during the raid, citing serious financial violations, including missing regulatory filings, delayed export payments and unreported foreign direct investment transfers totaling about $3.37 billion between 2011 and 2023.
Investigators also found that the company had transferred about $1.18 billion to multiple foreign jurisdictions during the same period, allegedly under the guise of overseas direct investment. Despite being issued multiple summonses, founder Byju Raveendran repeatedly failed to appear before authorities, remaining evasive throughout the investigation.
The troubles didn't stop there. The startup, backed by major investors including Prosus, Peak XV, Sofina, BlackRock, UBS and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, missed its revenue target for the financial year ending March 2023, according to financial statements released months behind schedule.
Soon after, the company's chief financial officer, Ajay Goel, resigned to return to Vedanta, marking yet another senior exit following the abrupt departures of auditor Deloitte and three key board members in June. The turmoil deepened when Prosus, one of BYJU's earliest and largest investors, holding over 9% of the company, publicly criticized the firm in July for failing to evolve and for repeatedly ignoring investor guidance.
These cascading resignations and public rebukes signaled that BYJU's once-glowing image had fully unraveled and its troubles were only beginning.
BYJU's has raised a total of $4.45 billion over 27 funding rounds: 2 Early-Stage, 22 Late-Stage and 3 Debt rounds. BYJU's' largest funding round so far was a conventional debt round for $1.2 billion in November 2021. BYJU's had a total of 132 investors, 105 being institutional investors and 27 Angel investors.
From loan disputes to courtroom battles
Through 2023 and into early 2024, BYJU's mounting troubles spilled into the courts as disputes over a $1.2 billion U.S. term loan escalated. Court filings and investigative reports revealed that about $533 million had been routed through BYJU's U.S. subsidiary, Alpha, into accounts tied to Camshaft Capital Management, a fund linked to a 23-year-old portfolio manager whose Miami business address once corresponded to an International House of Pancakes. The findings painted a picture of questionable transfers and lax oversight surrounding the billion-dollar loan.
The financial strain only deepened. On July 16, 2024, the Board of Control for Cricket in India filed an insolvency case against BYJU's over roughly $19 million in unpaid sponsorship dues. By the end of the year, both Deloitte and BDO had resigned as auditors, while major investors, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Prosus and Peak XV (Sequoia India) quit the board entirely.
India's Byju's can't pay employees
At the same time, Qatar Holding petitioned the Karnataka High Court to enforce a $235 million arbitral award against Byju Raveendran and Byju's Investments Pte Ltd tied to a 2022 $150 million loan for the Aakash acquisition, with interest sought at 4% per annum compounded daily from Feb. 28, 2024.
The legal blows culminated in February 2025, when a U.S. bankruptcy court issued a summary judgment finding actual fraudulent transfers and breach of fiduciary duty related to the movement of funds through BYJU's Alpha, marking one of the most significant legal setbacks in the company's dramatic downfall.
The myth of India's innovation engine
Once hailed as the future of Indian innovation, BYJU's now serves as its cautionary tale. What began as a symbol of national pride, the story of a small startup that conquered global markets, has become a lesson in how hype and ego can outpace substance.
In one of his last public interviews, founder Byju Raveendran dismissed the crisis, determined that he would see success again, saying,"Why I am confident of a comeback is that the most valuable thing I had is still with me," referring to himself. It was a statement that perfectly captured the misplaced faith that defined BYJU's rise, a belief not in innovation, governance or results, but in personality and perception.
For years, U.S. investors, from BlackRock and UBS to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a single man and his myth, while American innovators back home struggled to break into markets dominated by foreign-backed giants. The question now is unavoidable: If so many investors were willing to stake billions on a person halfway around the world, why are they unwilling to back the homegrown entrepreneurs and talent right here in the United States, those who are locked out of markets increasingly monopolized by global capital and offshore influence?
BYJU's collapse is more than the downfall of a company; it is a mirror held up to a global investment culture that prizes narrative over national interest and speculation over stewardship. It is a reminder that the same investors who helped inflate the illusion of India's innovation miracle have ignored the innovators in their own backyard.
In the end, BYJU's didn't just fail as a business, it exposed the moral and economic blind spots of an era. The myth of India's innovation engine has once again met the hard truth of execution and the cost was paid not only in rupees, but in large amounts of misplaced American capital.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A stunning statement from the British royal family on Friday revealed that Andrew, the younger son of Queen Elizabeth, is giving up any and all use of any and all of his royal titles or honors.
The statement left unclear whether the honors were being stripped from him, or whether he was just relinquishing using them.
According to reports he will give up using Duke of York and the Order of the Garter, after the scandal over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein revived.
The statement said, "In discussion with the king, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of his majesty and the royal family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life. With His Majesty's agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me."
His connections to Epstein, who died in jail several years ago while awaiting further sex charges, erupted into the headlines when Virginia Giuffre in 2014 alleged that, as a 17-year-old, she was sex trafficked to him.
The scandal's staying power prompted him to resign from public roles in May 2020, and his honorary military affiliations and royal charitable patronages were removed by the Queen Elizabeth in 2022.
Giuffre sued, and settled out of court for millions.
His nephew, the other "bad boy" of the royal family, Harry, gave up all his family duties when he and his actress wife moved to California years ago.
His titles, reports have suggested, are in jeopardy when his older brother, William, eventually assumes the crown.
Charles, Andrew's older brother, now holds that position.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a stunning move that has developed in reaction to the extreme liberal positions being adopted by the Church of England, including a plan to change the Bible to remove homosexuality from its defined sins, the organization has lost 40 million members.
Actually, the few million members in the United Kingdom essentially have been tossed out of the fellowship, the worldwide Anglican church.
"As has been the case from the very beginning, we have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion," charged a letter from a church chief in Rwanda.
It is the worldwide Anglicans who have announced a separation from the British component of the church.
A report at Protestia explained it was a "major blow" that developed as a "punishing reminder that theological treason has consequences."
The "departing" membership is some 10 times the number of Anglicans who remain, in England.
"We cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate the revisionist agenda, which has abandoned the inerrant word of God as the final authority," the worldwide Anglican Communion has announced.
The British portion of the organization for years has adopted changes to the Bible that allow homosexual leadership in the church, approval of wide range of other progressive issues like abortion, and more.
It recently was considering formally blessing same-sex unions and changing the Bible so that homosexuality no longer was a sin, but abruptly backed away.
Explained Protestia, "Over the past two decades, the denomination has been liberalizing at a rapid rate, recently appointing Sarah Mullally, a pro-choice feminist as the new Archbishop of Canterbury and allowing the church to bless same-sex couples, with a major contingent pushing the church to deem homosexuality no longer sinful."
It is the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the conservative branch, that already had been pushing back against the denomination's "abandonment of the scriptures and historic Anglican teaching."
The report explained the denomination uses four authorities: "the Archbishop of Canterbury, (someone first among equals) the Lambeth Conference (a meeting of bishops around the world that gathers once a decade), the Primates' Meeting (a meeting of the bishops and archbishops of each of the church's 41 provinces, with the last one held in 2020), and the Anglican Consultative Council, which includes everyone from bishops to deacons to laity and meets every three years."
The conservatives already had replaced the Lambeth Conference with the Jerusalem Conference, and they had issued a "Declaration," affirming Christian beliefs including the marriage as between one man and one woman.
"They further formed their own Primates' Council, held meetings, and recently released a statement that they 'no longer recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion' or the 'first among equals' of global Primates," the report said.
Now, the report explained, the conservatives have confirmed they are not splitting from the historic Anglican Church, but "rather that they ARE the true Anglican Communion and will be reordering themselves accordingly."
The changes will include a replacement for the Archbishop of Canterbury, as that office now is occupied by Sarah Mullally, "an illegitimate usurper."
The conservative organization said the actions are in response to "the abandonment of the Scriptures" by traditional leaders.
They first sought to persuade those leaders to repent, but they did not.
Their statement:
We resolved to reorder the Anglican Communion as follows:
1. We declare that the Anglican Communion will be reordered, with only one foundation of communion, namely the Holy Bible, "translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading" (Jerusalem Declaration, Article II), which reflects Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion.
2. We reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.
3. We cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate the revisionist agenda, which has abandoned the inerrant word of God as the final authority and overturned Resolution I.10, of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
4. Therefore, Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, and we are now the Global Anglican Communion.
5. Provinces of the Global Anglican Communion shall not participate in meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, including the ACC, and shall not make any monetary contribution to the ACC, nor receive any monetary contribution from the ACC or its networks.
6. Provinces, which have yet to do so, are encouraged to amend their constitution to remove any reference to being in communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England.
7. To be a member of the Global Anglican Communion, a province or a diocese must assent to the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, the contemporary standard for Anglican identity.
8. We shall form a Council of Primates of all member provinces to elect a Chairman, as primus inter pares ('first amongst equals'), to preside over the Council as it continues "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has emerged with a win from a fight with European officials over their agenda to create another carbon tax and raise the cost of items shipped to America.
It was in the United Nations where globalists who adhere to the ideology called climate change, called global warming before the warming essentially stopped, hatched a plan to charge shipping companies for their travels.
"Huge push by @SecRubio and the State Dept team. Strong diplomacy that put American business and consumers first WON THE DAY over an ideological carbon tax from the UN and EU," Mike Walz wrote on social media.
Fifty-seven countries voted in favor of delaying the adoption vote and 49 voted against. There were 21 abstentions.
The Washington Examiner explained the decision was "a shock, as many member states of the IMO, a London-based specialized agency within the U.N., were confident there were enough votes to adopt the measure as international maritime law."
Trump has been opposing the new world taxation plan for months, and recently escalated his objections.
Waltz, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the delay was to the component of the "net-zero framework."
The report said, "The motion to delay the vote on the measure was reportedly put forward by Singapore on Friday and called to a vote by Saudi Arabia, which was aligned with the Trump administration in its efforts to block the framework."
Trump expressed outrage that the International Maritime Organization was trying to pass a "global Carbon Tax."
The plan was to charge shipping massive fees for "greenhouse gas emissions."
Initially, ship owners were facing a minimum of $100 for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted over a baseline.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
WND reported a week ago that there was a campaign under was to seek the disbarment of Jack Smith, the one-time Joe Biden-picked special prosecutor who ran multiple lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, which eventually failed.
Now that request has formally been submitted.
It is the New York Post that has confirmed a letter from elected officials, led by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accuses Biden's DOJ of having "spied on duly elected members of Congress."
It demands that Smith be investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility.
"As part of Jack Smith's weaponized witch hunt, the Biden DOJ issued subpoenas to several telecommunications companies in 2023 regarding our cell phone records, gaining access to the time, recipient, duration, and location of calls placed on our devices from January 4, 2021, to January 7, 2021," Blackburn charged.
The letter continued, "We have yet to learn of any legal predicate for the Biden Department of Justice issuing subpoenas to obtain these cell phone records."
Other lawmakers joining the demand were Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Penn.
Smith is accused of using his power as a government appointee to infringe on the constitutional rights of elected officials and "trampled on this separation of powers principle that underlies our system of government."
The lawmakers continued, "This is especially true given the invasion of our privacy was directly connected to our core legislative functions protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of our Constitution. To the best we can tell, Smith's team went on this fishing expedition for one simple reason: we are Republicans who support President Trump."
They asked for Smith to be referred for disbarment to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility and the New York Attorney Grievance Committee, since he is licensed to practice law in both states.
They charged that the scheming from Smith and his team "harkens back to a dark chapter in American history that we have not seen since the days of J. Edgar Hoover, and the completely corrupt investigation and prosecution by the FBI and DOJ of the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. We must ensure that we never return to these disgraceful eras."
The other found lawmakers targeted by Smith's spying included Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
Commentators have speculated the spying was done by Smith as part of a scheme to possibly file additional legal cases against Trump should Kamala Harris win the election, and the lawmakers' telephone data would be used as evidence.
Harris, of course, lost in a landslide.
Blackburn previously sent letters to Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile asking why the phone carriers let "this invasion of privacy … occur wholly unchallenged."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chief of the Senate Judiciary Committee, described the scandal as "arguably worse than Watergate."