This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly posted video online shows a police officer delivering Chick-fil-A food to a Doordash customer – because the delivery driver ignored a traffic ticket and was arrested en route.
"Hello sir, I got your Doordash. Your driver didn't take care of a traffic ticket," the officer explains.
The customer expresses gratitude and the officer continues, "He's going to jail. He's a good kid. Give him five stars."
He said, "He just didn't take care of a simple insurance ticket. He'll get out of jail real quick. Somebody's already on the way there. He'll just check in and leave."
The officer figured he would keep the situation from escalating, and deliver the food.
Actually similar situations have developed in multiple locations, sometimes officers deliver pizza when the driver gets caught and stopped, other times, other food.
Reports confirm officers who have made the extra effort to deliver to customers have been in Chicago, Arkansas, Arizona and several other states.
Reports said the latest video comes from body cam footage of a Rio Rancho, New Mexico, officer, Officer Steve Lucero, who "made sure the Chick-fil-A didn't get forgotten."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump confirmed on Friday that it's possible that federal rebates – cash returned to the American public – are possible.
And it's because of the probable revenue to America of some $200 billion by the end of the year from his new tariffs on other countries.
Trump has been using tariffs, high and low, as a method of bringing those nations to the bargaining table and reaching fair trade agreements for American businesses and consumers.
Some deals already have been made final, but many have not been concluded.
The tariff income is from those other nations, and likely will continue even after deals are reached, as Trump has promised not to allow other countries to take advantage as they have in the past.
Trump said, "We're thinking about that [a rebate], actually. We have so much money coming in we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. We're thinking about a rebate. That's a very good question. You just made a lot of news."
Sen. Josh Hawley responded immediately.
His plan is to introduce legislation in the Senate to do exactly what Trump discussed.
Others said Trump's first plan, paying down the national debt, is the higher priority.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
At least seven people have been arrested on charges related to what authorities have described as a huge Alabama child sex trafficking ring.
A report from WJTV explained the Bibb County Sheriff Jody Wade said, "I've been in law enforcement for 33 years, and this is absolutely the most horrible thing I've ever seen when it comes to the victimization of children.
"I know God's forgiveness is boundless. But if there was a limit to it, I think we reached it."
The suspects could have made up to $1,000 a night victimizing children, the report said, citing law enforcement documentation there were at least 10 victims from 3 years old to 15.
Arrested were William Chase McElroy, Dalton Terrell, Andres Trejo-Velazquez, Timothy St. John, Rebecca Brewer, Ricky Terrell and Sara Terrell, and pending charges allege rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, sexual torture, human trafficking and kidnapping, the report noted.
"No child deserves this. That's the most horrible thing you can do. The power and control of it, the stealing the innocence of a child and the horrible victimizations they went through with these monsters," Wade said.
The report said Wade believes the violence to have ties to the Sureños gang, which he said is mostly funded through child sex trafficking.
Wade explained in the report the investigation began in February when the Alabama Department of Human Resources got allegations of child abuse. Sheriff's officers eventually have the children in a bunker behind a home.
Wade described the confinement of the children. "It depends on what appointment time the offenders had. Sometimes, the children would be there, tied to a pole that was there, bound to a bed that was there, or a chair that was there. Sometimes, there would be multiple people that would come by and victimize these children on a nightly basis."
The sheriff said his hope was that the abuse would end up a "blurry memory" for the youngest victims, but he said for the older children, "They'll carry this vividly for the rest of their lives. … You can't heal from this, but you can move on as best as you can."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a huge blow to one state's attempt to impose its own transgender ideologies on its residents, specifically adoptive parents, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that single mother Jessica Bate's First Amendment rights likely were violated in Oregon's orchestrated attempt to force her to embrace its gender campaign.
"No one thinks, for example, that a state could exclude parents from adopting foster children based on those parents' political views, race, or religious affiliations," the 9th Circuit wrote in its ruling in Bates v. Pakseresht. "Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone. And a state's general conception of the child's best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights."
Bates had applied to become certified to adopt children from foster care two years ago. But the state agency overseeing child welfare programs denied her application based only on the fact Bates would not agree to lie about a child's gender by using inaccurate pronouns, or to take children to "Pride" parades.
The court decisions leaves Bates free to begin the process of adopting siblings from foster care without violating her religious beliefs while the legal fight continues.
Bates was represented by the ADF in her 2023 lawsuit challenging an Oregon Department of Human Services rule that categorically excluded her from adopting any child—no matter their age or beliefs—"because she would not lie to children and tell them that girls can be boys and vice versa," the ADF reported.
The ruling said Bates likely will succeed in showing that Oregon is violating the First Amendment.
"Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from the adoption and foster system. Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa," said ADF lawyer Jonathan Scruggs.
"Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon's dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state's ideological crusade."
Bates had confirmed to the state she would love and accept any child placed with her, but she still was rejected.
The ADF also noted that earlier this year, a coalition of foster and adoptive parents, religious liberty organizations, free speech advocates and those who promote families, 20 states and others argued in support of Bates in documents with the 9th Circuit.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court ruling has declared class action status for all the victims of a government cash confiscation scheme that has been operating in Indianapolis.
It is the Institute for Justice that confirmed a ruling from Marion County Superior Court established the new ground rules for the dispute.
Magistrate Judge Anne Flannelly confirmed that there were several issues at stake, including that the state was confiscating cash at a FedEx transit location where parcels "have no link to Indiana beyond the parcel's temporary en route presence."
Further, she said, the state's lawsuits to confiscate cash use "boilerplate forfeiture complaints that give property owners no notice of the factual and legal basis on which the state claims forfeiture."
The IJ confirmed that last year, Henry and Minh Cheng sued the Marion County prosecutor over that office's practice of forfeiting cash routed through the busy FedEx processing center at the Indianapolis airport. Prosecutors tried to forfeit the $42,000 inside the Chengs' package, and did so without alleging any specific crime.
That money was returned, but they have gone to court seeking a permanent end to the "unconstitutional" practices.
Now it's a class action case.
"No one should have their money handed over to the government when the government cannot say what they did wrong, but this was happening routinely for years in Indianapolis," said Marie Miller, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. "With the court approving the Chengs' suit as a class action, we get to seek justice for many people who find themselves fighting to get their money back simply because it happened to be mailed through Indianapolis."
The IJ pointed out that for years, "police have seized cash at the busy FedEx processing center, and the Marion County prosecutor has filed civil forfeiture actions on behalf of the state of Indiana to keep the seized money."
That leaves innocent people like the Chengs having to fight in court for their own money – sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away from their homes.
The Chengs live in California.
"It's a profitable practice. Since 2022 alone, Indiana has sued to forfeit more than $2.5 million from in-transit FedEx parcels, and the state has already raked in approximately $1 million from those parcels. To get their money back and to end these predatory practices, Henry and Minh teamed up with the Institute for Justice," the organization said.
The Chengs' experience is typical: "Henry and Minh's experience is typical of many people who find themselves caught up in Indianapolis' FedEx forfeiture regime. The couple started their wholesale jewelry business about 30 years ago. They travel across the country serving retail shops. And last year, they made a bulk sale to a retailer in Virginia, who was slow to submit payment. A few months after the sale, in April, the retailer informed the couple that she could pay promptly with cash. Henry and Minh agreed to accept that form of payment."
The retailer shipped the money using FedEx, and it went through Indianapolis, where police jumped on it.
A K-9 had alerted to the cash, allowing police to get a warrant.
Police then found the cash, and no contraband. The county prosecutor then went to court to keep the money, claiming without evidence that it was the result of a violation of a criminal statute.
IJ also is suing the DEA and TSA for seizing money at airports.
The magistrate noted that a class action resolution will provide "relief" to each member of the class.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal Research chief Jerome Powell has been under pressure from President Donald Trump because of Powell's agenda to keep interest rates at current levels.
With the nation's economy booming, inflation low, mass revenue coming in from tariffs, and a series of international trade deals being developed, Trump wants the interest rates lower, to spur even more economic development.
Powell has resisted, and that resistance has been weaponized because of the hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns under his watch as the Fed refurbishes its HQ buildings in Washington.
That work was supposed to come in at $1.8 billion. Then it was estimated to be $2.5 billion.
Now it's at $3.1 billion, according to documentation that Trump handed Powell during a briefing to reporters.
The two were at the site Thursday to look at the progress being made for all those hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars.
Already, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., has referred Powell to the Department of Justice for criminal charges, accusing him of two specific instances of lying under oath.
Her accusations include that last month Powell "provided testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding the renovation of the Federal Reserve's Eccles Building. In his statements, he made several materially false claims," she said.
Trump has said it is unlikely he'll fire Powell, although he apparently could.
In video from the tour of the construction site, Trump noted the new, and higher, estimated of $3.1 billion, which apparently came from Fed staff members.
Powell pointed out that it included a third building, while the lower estimate apparently was for work only one two.
At the press availability, Trump was asked what would happen if he, as a real estate developer, came across a project manager who was over budget.
"Generally speaking, what would I do? FIRE HIM!" he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hulk Hogan, the pro wrestling superstar who became probably the most recognized face of the sport, has died at the age of 71.
Police in Clearwater, Florida, revealed Hogan died of cardiac arrest. Emergency responders were dispatched to his home, where he was treated, but he was pronounced dead after being transported to a hospital.
He was known for his theme song, "Real American," and he became known for his national patriotism.
It was in the 1980s when he became the World Wrestling Federation's heavyweight champion, with a win over the Iron Sheik, that cemented "Hulkmania."
He was born Terry Gene Bollea and grew up in Florida.
He later lost the championship to Andre the Giant and stepped away from the WWF, later known as the WWE after a steroid controversy in the 1990s, but he already was into acting, with roles in "Rocky III," "Gremlins 2: the New Batch," "Suburban Commando," "Mr. Nanny" and more.
WWE, in a statement, confirmed, "WWE is saddened to learn WWE Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan has passed away. One of pop culture's most recognizable figures, Hogan helped WWE achieve global recognition in the 1980s. WWE extends its condolences to Hogan's family, friends, and fans."
Donald Trump Jr. Posted on social media, "R.I.P."
Hogan made a public demonstration of his belief in Jesus Christ public just months ago.
He rejoined the WWE in the early 2000s.
He was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2205, removed in 2015 over a leaked tape scandal then reinstated in 2018.
He endorsed President Donald Trump for a second term at the Republican National Convention in 2024.
He is survived by his wife, Sky Hogan, as well as his former wife, Linda Hogan and their children.
President Trump said Hogan was a "great friend."
"He entertained fans from all over the world, and the cultural impact he had was massive. To his wife, Sky, and family, we give our warmest best wishes and love. Hulk Hogan will be greatly missed."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Iranian regime is facing an unprecedented crisis – like three guillotine blades suspended above its head, each poised to fall at any moment.
Blade one: Israel
The first blade is the threat posed by Israel. Should the regime resume aggressive uranium enrichment or covert efforts toward building a nuclear weapon, a military response from Israel is almost inevitable – especially given Tel Aviv's deep intelligence infiltration at the highest levels of Iran's leadership. From sabotage of nuclear facilities to targeted assassinations and open threats of military action, Israel has shown clear readiness. The Trump-era doctrine that "Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon"\ continues to influence U.S. policy, reinforcing Israel's position.
Blade two: The snapback mechanism
The second blade is the potential reimposition of U.N. sanctions. If Iran fails to reach a deal with Europe by October, the snapback mechanism may be triggered – automatically reinstating all previous U.N. Security Council sanctions.
Blade Three: Economic collapse
The third blade is the regime's collapsing economy. With chronic inflation around 40%, over 80% of the population living below the poverty line and livelihoods in crisis, Iran is a powder keg. If either of the two previous scenarios – an Israeli strike or renewed U.N. sanctions – comes to pass, the result could be an economic explosion. Macroeconomic indicators would crash: Inflation, currency devaluation, widespread poverty and social unrest could rapidly trigger mass protests and street uprisings.
Why is the regime so passive in the face of these existential threats?
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who holds absolute authority over all state affairs, is now conspicuously absent – reportedly retreating to an underground bunker in fear of further bombings. Other high-ranking officials have gone into hiding. No major meetings are taking place. This paralysis at the top reflects a broader system-wide inertia.
Khamenei's strategic deadlock
Khamenei is trapped. He can neither continue with the regime's nuclear ambitions nor retreat. Admitting failure in a nuclear project that has impoverished millions would signal the beginning of the end for the repressive apparatus. Meanwhile, the regime is so deeply corrupt and structurally hollow that even if it desired reform, it lacks the capacity to implement it.
The 'No war, no peace' limbo
This ambiguous state – neither war nor peace – also helps explain the regime's inaction. It has become a tactical buffer, stalling the full activation of the Resistance Units linked to the opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), even as the hated regime itself grows weaker with each passing day.
The regime's survival playbook
Amid this deadlock, three factions are proposing strategies to rescue the regime:
Reformists – Figures like Mir-Hossein Mousavi, under house arrest for over 30 years, have called for a referendum and constitutional reform. But they overlook a critical truth: Even the smallest reform requires a degree of freedom – and even limited freedom would unravel the regime's rotten core.
Economic experts – A group of 180 economists and academics recently issued a public call for "reform of the ruling paradigm." For a regime like this, such a demand is tantamount to suicide.
Hardliners – The IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency openly praised the 1988 mass executions of political prisoners as a "successful experience" and has called for a repeat to suppress today's opposition.
Endgame
Diplomats like Abbas Araghchi continue to parrot outdated slogans about Iran's "right to enrich uranium" – failing to grasp that the regime now faces a binary choice: survival or collapse.
It can retreat, perhaps gain some sanctions relief, and temporarily stabilize the economy.
Or it can dig in – and accelerate its downfall.
But for a regime built on repression, any retreat marks the start of the end. The Iranian people, having lost faith in the regime's crumbling foundations, are turning to the Resistance.
Thousands of MEK-affiliated Resistance Units, the regime's sworn enemy, are ready to channel public anger into a force for overthrowing the dictatorship.
Only one question remains: Which of the three guillotine blades will fall first?
History will decide – and the streets will not wait
No regime chanting "Neither East nor West" has ever ended up this dependent on Russia, China and criminal trafficking networks. No regime shouting "No war, no surrender" has ever stood so close to both war and surrender.
And yet, the true threat to the regime today is not the snapback mechanism, nor Israel's jets, nor even the state's empty treasury. The real danger lies in the Resistance – advancing the Iranian people's vision of a secular, pluralistic republic free from tyrannical religious rule.
The Iranian people are alert. They are waiting for the next spark – just as in 2022. When it ignites, the regime will be called to account:
* For the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988,
* For sending tens of thousands of children to clear landmines in the Iran-Iraq War,
* For the deaths of millions across the region,
* For the mass emigration of the nation's best and brightest,
* For the destruction of Iran's rich culture at the hands of clerics who cloaked savagery in the name of Islam.
Above all, the regime will be held accountable by a nation that has neither forgotten nor forgiven what it has suffered at the mullahs' hands and is more prepared than ever to go the distance to bring about real change.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal fight in Kentucky that erupted when same-sex marriage activists demanded a Christian clerk violate state law and grant them a "marriage" license just hours after the Supreme Court created that status in America, now has returned to the Supreme Court.
The case is asking the justices to reverse their decision from 10 years ago, and it uses the same arguments used several years back to successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, that longstanding, and error-loaded, ruling from 1973 that created an abortion right.
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against "same-sex marriage." Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both "rights."
The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said.
To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
And the analysis said, "The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions."
Specifically, Justice Clarence Thomas stated at the time, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Now Liberty Counsel has revealed that that case, challenging the existence of the Obergefell decision, the same-sex "marriage" case, is before the court.
It involves multiple attacks on Kim Davis, a former Rowan County clerk in Kentucky.
She was the first victim "jailed, sued, and held personally liable post-Obergefell for her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage. Believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs. The courts then used Obergefell, which legalized 'same-sex marriage' nationwide, to deny her a religious accommodation that unconstitutionally forced her to choose between her religious beliefs and her livelihood," Liberty Counsel explained.
"This case began Friday, June 26, 2015, when 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court released the Obergefell opinion that declared same-sex couples have the right to be 'married,'" the Liberty Counsel reported.
The dissent at that time pointed out the creation of same-sex "marriage" was, in fact, unrelated to the U.S. Constitution.
Davis under state law had no authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples without specific direction from the state statutes. And doing so would violate her religious beliefs. Despite that Democrat Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear ordered all clerks to violate state law.
"The Kentucky Senate President sided with Davis and made clear that every action pertaining to marriage is highly regulated by the state. Therefore, any clerk that issued marriage licenses without the sanction of Kentucky law could be held liable for criminal charges. Clerks like Davis were paralyzed. If she followed the governor's order, she could have been charged with a misdemeanor. If she waited until the legislature acted, she would be sued," the report said.
Further, Davis, a Christian, could not violate her faith by doing what clearly was barred by biblical teachings.
She asked lawmakers to address the conflict, but meanwhile, a leftist, Judge David L. Bunning, put her in jail.
When a new governor, Matt Bevins, a Republican, took office in Kentucky, he issued an executive order granting clerks of faith a religious accommodation and the state legislature followed by establishing that in state law.
However, several duos who had demanded Davis violate her faith and state law sued her, personally, for not giving them what they demanded.
That their moves were targeted at Davis was documented by the fact they could have gone to multiple other locations for their "licenses" but refused to do so.
And they shared their videos on social media in a campaign of public harassment "to shame and humiliate Davis."
Two duos eventually sued her for "hurt feelings" and one jury found no damages. The other returned a total judgement of $100,000, to which a judge added $260,000 in lawyers' fees.
"According to the Eleventh Amendment, a government official acting in an official capacity has "immunity" and cannot be held personally liable. However, the court stripped Davis of this government shield. But even in her personal capacity, Davis (like any person) has an absolute First Amendment defense against a claim solely based on emotional damages, yet the court stripped this away as well," the legal team said.
Now Liberty Counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to "(1) overturn this unjust judgement against Davis by finding that she has an affirmative First Amendment Defense, and (2) overturn Obergefell v. Hodges."
The questions being delivered to the Supreme Court include:
1. Whether the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the Free Speech Clause under Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
2. Whether a government official stripped of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sued in her individual capacity based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages is entitled to assert individual capacity and personal First Amendment defenses in the same or similar manner as any other individual defendant like in Synder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), or does she stand before this Court with no constitutional defenses or immunity whatsoever.
3. Whether Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.
Liberty Counsel's petition opens by citing several dissenting justices from the 5-4 Obergefell opinion who predicted it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have 'potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
The filing explains, "That is what happened here. Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported emotional distress."
The filing warned, "A decision like that where government defendants are stripped of their immunity and stand before a court as an individual without any personal First Amendment defenses 'would mean government officials shed their constitutional rights upon election, appointment, or other entrance of government service. That cannot be right.'"
Cited is the 2022 Dobbs decision, which declared the Due Process Clause "does not secure any substantive rights," including abortion.
Liberty Counsel said that means "it does not secure a right to 'same-sex marriage' either, and 'especially not a right to receive a 'same-sex marriage' license from a specific government official, regardless of that individual's religious convictions."
"If ever there were a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it," said Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"Kim Davis' case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Notable is the fact that several of the far-left activists who were on the Supreme Court 10 years ago, whose votes all were required to release the Obergefell opinion, now are not, having been replaced by justices nominated by President Donald Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Department of Justice has created a new strike force to assess the Obamagate evidence that has been declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
A report from the Washington Examiner confirms the panel was created this week to assess the evidence that was used to create the "Russiagate" scandal in which Democrats falsely accused Donald Trump, first as candidate and then as president, of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election.
The task force is to decide what legal steps might be coming.
Several of those involved in the scandalous behavior and schemes that attempted to undermine a duly elected president already have been referred for investigation and possible prosecution.
"The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people," Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice."
The DOJ said it is taking seriously the "alleged weaponization of the intelligence community."
Gabbard's office only days ago released government evidence suggesting "former President Barack Obama undermined President Donald Trump's 2016 election victory," the report said. "Obama's White House claimed at the time that Russia meddled with the election results, despite the intelligence community's prior assessments indicating no foreign interference in the months leading up to the election."
It was just a few weeks after Trump's stunning 2016 election victory over twice-failed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton that Democrats in Obama's administration reversed course. That was when former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's office ordered "the creation of a new assessment that details the 'tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election,'" the report said.
Then members of Obama's entourage "leaked false statements to the press alleging Russia attempted to interfere in the election's outcome," the report said.
Obama has continued to claim that his administration's interpretation of alleged Russian interference was accurate and unbiased, despite the facts that those opinions were based on possibly misinterpreted statements from sources known to be unreliable.
Gabbard already has referred Obama and others involved in the anti-Trump agenda to the DOJ for investigation and possible criminal charges.
"There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Barack Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew that was false," she confirmed.
"The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact."