This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In comments that prompted a headline warning about his plans to "end the separation of powers" in the U.S. Constitution and "impose his own rules on the Supreme Court," Joe Biden promised Americans in his final months as president he is calling for the court to be changed up.

Democrats and other leftists and liberals have been enraged by the court over the past couple of years, following President Donald Trump's appointment of three relatively conservative justices, because the decisions have not come down the way they want.

Specifically, they have repeatedly lost their cool over the loss of the federal abortion "right" that had been created in the faulty Roe decision that was overturned.

There suddenly was speculation and discussion about changing the court, even though extreme rulings, to the left, drew no such comments for years that the liberals were the majority.

Packing the court with a bunch of new leftists, demanding individual justices stay out of cases when Congress tells them, and more, we're on the plate.

Now a report from the Epoch News notes that Biden, in a speech this week from the Oval Office, said the Supreme Court changes will be one of the projects on which he'll work for his remaining weeks, others being gun control and fighting global warming.

"And I'm going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy, Supreme Court reform," Biden claimed during his speech filled with stutters and stumbles.

The report cited speculation that Biden wants an "enforceable ethics code."

And he wants to be able to get rid of justices after a certain time.

His spokeswoman, Karine Jean Pierre, explained, "The president believes that when you hold a high office, you should be held by a certain ethics and transparency. That's something that the president believes, and so he certainly will continue to do everything that he can. I don't have any policy announcements to make at this moment."

The progressives in Biden's political party already have said they want term limits, they want to pack the court and they want to review what justices do.

Biden earlier set up a commission to look at recommendations, but it failed the progressives, not endorsing the packing scheme and taking a neutral stance on term limits.

Also triggering fear for progressives is that Biden already has suggested that the next president, elected in November, probably will appoint justices to replace several who may retire in the coming years.

MSNBC voiced the concerns of leftists, saying, "To be sure, the number of justices a president appoints can be more a matter of chance than skill, especially when it comes to variables like a justice's health. That unpredictability alone underscores the importance of each election, as Republican appointees Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are in their mid-70s and Democratic appointee Sonia Sotomayor is 70. It's hard to imagine a Republican-appointed justice stepping down voluntarily during a Democratic administration, and vice versa. Of course, that political reality hasn't played out equally across party lines, leading to today's 6-3 Republican supermajority that has delivered significant wins for the Republican Party."

And the report noted the Supreme Court itself could strike down "reforms reportedly backed by Biden like term limits and an enforceable ethics code."

NPR noted that changes would need to be made by a constitutional amendment, an unlikely scenario, or congressional action, an equally unlikely scenario now with the GOP in the majority in the U.S. House.

Recently, leftists have tried to push to the scandal level some actions by conservative justices, but they had been silent in years gone by when a leftist, the late Ruth Ginsburg, openly blasted a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, while sitting as a justice.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats and other radicals for a long time have been donating money to Joe Biden's campaign for re-election. Now he won't be on the party's ticket in November, and it appears there are complications, under federal law, for Democrats simply to say now that Kamala Harris, or someone else, is their candidate and transfer the cash.

It's because of the federal law that states, "If the candidate is not a candidate in the general election, all contributions made for the general election shall be either returned or refunded to the contributors or redesignated …, or reattributed …, as appropriate."

The dispute already has triggered a complaint to the Federal Election Commission by GOP nominee President Donald Trump's campaign.

The Democrats are accused of violating campaign finance laws, for making moves to transfer the $91.5 million left in Biden's campaign coffers to Harris.

The law had been posted online by Sean Cooksey, the chairman of the FEC, who cited Section 110.1(b)(3).

The Washington Examiner reports that Republican lawmakers already are considering whether to bring legal challenges to the Democrats' schemes.

The report said, "Holzman Vogel partner and campaign finance expert Steve Roberts told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday that the 'FEC issue is very much live' due to the entirely unprecedented nature of Biden's withdrawal."

He's already working on behalf of clients to challenge the Democrat flip-flop.

"There are frankly a few different angles that are worth pursuing here. The one in my mind that stands out the most is that they shouldn't even have the opportunity to figure out what to do with the money because it should be refunded to the donors in the first place."

Cooksey charged that Democrats are trying to silence him for simply citing federal law. That claim came when Rep. Joseph Morelle, D-N.Y., wrote to "clarify a possibly misrepresentation" of FEC law, responding to Cooksey's concerns.

"All I did was quote federal regulations. Why are Democrats afraid of the law?" Cooksey said.

He expects challenges both before the FEC and in the courts.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former President Donald Trump has promised to end the reign of dangerous Mexican drug cartels and outlined plans on foreign policy, during an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters and Trump's running-mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio.

During the interview, Trump stated it was "absolutely" on the table to destroy Mexican drug cartels if the election goes in his favor this November, despite Mexico being the U.S. largest trading partner.

"Absolutely…Mexico is going to have to straighten it out fast, where the answer is absolutely. They're killing 300,000 people a year with fentanyl coming in, and China, by the way, will do what they have to do. They're gonna do it just like I had to deal with President Xi…They [China] were gonna give the death penalty to anybody sending fentanyl our way, and that was part of my negotiation, " Trump told Watters.

Trump added China never carried through with these plans, because the Biden administration did not enforce it.

"You know, China has the death penalty for drug dealers…and I said, 'they're drug dealers'…he [Xi] agreed with me. Death penalty for drug dealers, the death penalty for people that send fentanyl into our country, and that would have made a big difference," Trump said.

Trump noted the Biden-Harris administration is "soft" on China, and as a result, almost 100% of fentanyl has Chinese origin and is then smuggled over the U.S. southern border by the cartels.

"Mexico is going to be given a very short period to police their border. I'm sure they're going to do not well, and then you're going to see the action start, and you know what's gonna happen? We're gonna have a lot of people living," Trump said.

Trump pointed out that not only is fentanyl killing people, but it's also destroying the lives of those who are addicted to it, their families, and the community.

"Even if there's no death, they're destroying families. The families are decimated and they're destroyed," Trump said.

It is well known Vance's mother was addicted to illicit drugs, and Watters asked how his mother was able to beat her addiction.

"You know, she just kept getting back on the horse. I know a lot of families struggle with addiction. I think my message is there is hope on the other side of addiction, you just have to keep on at it, and she's getting close to 10 years clean and sober," Vance told Watters.

Vance added if his mother had been addicted to fentanyl 20 years ago, she would not be here today.

"It's funny that people accuse us of being bombastic for saying the cartels, we need to go after them. What about American citizens who are losing their lives by the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands because we won't do something about the cartels? That's what's reckless," Vance told Watters.

Vance noted he believes the Mexican government wants Trump to do something about the cartels because it is destabilizing Mexico too.

"$14 billion coming to the cartels, and that was a couple of years ago, it's probably more today. They're not gonna be a real country anymore. They're gonna become a narco-state unless we get some control over this," Vance said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Bad ideas can often get accepted long after they were initially rejected. One generation recoils at a proposal. The next generation might cozy up to it. And the one after that might accept it.

Some on the left, including the lame duck President Joe Biden and AOC, want to gut the Supreme Court. They haven't gotten their way with the Court in recent years, so they want to try and term-limit justices out.

Of course, there are three basic branches of the federal government – the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Now, not pleased with some decisions from the Supreme Court, members of the first two branches are trying to seize and reshape the judicial branch.

They want to propose what Senator Mike Lee, an expert on the U.S. Constitution, calls "nakedly authoritarian … unconstitutional" proposals against the High Court.

They want to impeach justices like Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito because of their conservative opinions. They also want to impose term limits on justices. This could undermine the independence of the judges and cause them to base their decisions purely on the shifting winds of politics – not what the Constitution says or the founders' intent.

For decades, conservatives rightfully complained about decisions from liberal justices that seemed to have no basis in the Constitution.

Here's an example. Roe v. Wade (1973), the now-defunct holy grail of the left, only cites two parts of the Constitution: the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment. But neither provides any direct or indirect statement along the lines of "the right to abortion" or even "the right of privacy."

The irony of using the 14th amendment to justify killing preborn babies, which is Roe v. Wade (up to three months) and its companion decision issued the same day, Doe v. Bolton (up to the moment of birth), is that that particular addition to the Constitution actually mentions the right to "life" as an inherent right. The 1973 Court obviously didn't see that right applying to the unborn.

Since 1973, conservatives have spoken against Roe v. Wade as the quintessential example of "judicial activism" – judges coming up with desired results by twisting the Constitution to their desired end.

I once interviewed the late Henry Hyde, author of the pro-life Hyde Amendment. He spoke of the problem of the justices using the Constitution like "silly putty" to achieve their fore-ordained aim.

But through all the gnashing of teeth against judicial tyranny, conservatives did not advocate changing the court itself – just its occupants.

No conservative spoke of impeaching Ruth Bader Ginsberg for her radical pro-abortion decisions.

Conservative scholars are pushing back at these recent proposals to gut the court. Kelly Shackelford is the founder and director of First Liberty, a group that fights on behalf of religious liberty in the courts of the land, including the courts of public opinion.

Shackelford wrote, "Transforming the Supreme Court into another partisan body would destroy the independence of the judiciary and threaten the civil liberties of all Americans. Joe Biden once said that changing the structure of the Court was 'a bonehead idea' that would 'put in question … the independence of the … Supreme Court.' He was right. The last thing we need in this country right now is a Supreme Court coup that would threaten judicial independence and our democratic republic. This is a radical attempt by a desperate politician."

Shackelford adds, "Ending life tenure is just the Left's way to purge conservative justices on the Court. It's simply court-packing by a different name."

And a majority of Americans agree, he says: "Polling has revealed that 72 percent of Americans believe that the politicization of the Supreme Court threatens judicial independence and 69 percent do not want Congress taking over and setting rules for judicial ethics."

One of the brilliant aspects of the founders and the Constitution is the division of power so that no one person or small group of persons could lord it over others.

The framers knew the Bible. They knew world history. They knew man is basically sinful. Therefore, power must be divided. In effect, the judicial branch could say to the other branches, "Hey, stay in your own lane."

James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, warned us in Federalist #47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris long has had a reputation for word salads, those long, often incomprehensible strings of words that make little sense.

One ramble was: "My mother used to — she would give us a hard time sometimes, and she would say to us, 'I don't know what's wrong with you young people. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?' You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."

Another: "I think it's very important…for us at every moment in time and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualise it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future."

Pundits poked fun at her condition, but amid the obvious decline in Joe Biden's cognitive abilities in recent months and years, Harris performances were little more than entertainment.

But with her ascension to possible Democrat nominee for president, with Biden's withdrawal over the weekend, there is new concern.

A report in the Daily Mail confirmed there "is no indication" that she suffers from a specific ailment, but said such uncontrolled speaking can "indicate brain injury, autism or serious condition."

Or it can be a "symptom of anxiety or over-confidence."

The report explained, "Kamala Harris's rambling 'word salad' speeches may be a symptom of a little-known but common psychological condition called logorrhoea — also known as verbal diarrhea."

She is "known for her jumbled, sometimes incoherent speaking style," the report said.

The report explained, "A 2009 study of the condition in Spain found the risk of logorrhoea was linked to level of schooling. Those with lower educational achievement were more likely to 'speak in circles,'"

It explained, "Logorrhoea is also associated with laughing wildly at random moments, something Ms. Harris has become known for, with Donald Trump even nicknaming her 'Laughin' Kamala.'"

Her cackling, in fact, has made headlines at times, too.

The report cited behavioral specialist Gregg Levoy who explained the condition can be "a holdover from that original egocentric stage around one or two years old, when children naturally feel grandiose and at the center of the universe."

But it also can be a result of "a common frontal lobe deficit that many traumatic brain injury survivors suffer, and is linked to several serious psychiatric and neurological disorders. These include schizophrenia, lesions on the brain, damage to areas of the brain that deal with language, and ADHD."

Another Harris stumble: "You need to get to go, and you to be able to get where you need to go, to do the work and get home."

Add there was her famed "passage of time" passage: "The governor and I and we were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time. The significance of the passage of time. So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children."

And, "We celebrate and we honor the women who made history throughout history, who saw what could be unburdened by what had been."

She's often talked of her love for Venn diagrams, which are illustrations that use overlapping circles to show links between groups.

"I just love Venn diagrams. I really do, I love Venn diagrams. There's just something about those three circles and the analysis of that, where there's the intersection, right?"

The report said, "Republican strategist Matt Whitlock has previously accused Ms Harris of being unable to speaking 'normally.' He posted: 'It's pretty striking that she is simply incapable of speaking normally. Is she actually smoking weed before grabbing the mic? It would explain so much."

WND reported earlier when she was lampooned for her performances.

The skit, by "The Daily Show," featured correspondent Desi Lydic joking about the vice president, whose comments are advised by her "holistic thought adviser, Dahlia Rose Hibiscus."

"It means that I am the one by whom the thoughts are being advised, from a place of advisement."

She explained that Harris is not so much into sentences as "idea voyages."

"It's a process I call speaking without thinking," she continues. "It's not about the destination of the thought, it's about the journey and how many words you use to describe the journey."

Interspersed in the explanations were clips of Harris rambling.

The video cites Harris's comment, "Well, we are the United States of America because we are united… and we are states."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Is Michelle Obama about to make an entrance into the 2024 presidential race?

A statement by former President Barack Obama reacting to Joe Biden's withdrawal from the race Sunday is raising eyebrows, as Barack is not endorsing Biden's new pick for commander in chief, Kamala Harris.

"We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead," Barack Obama said. "But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges."

"I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond.

"For now, Michelle and I just want to express our love and gratitude to Joe and Jill for leading us so ably and courageously during these perilous times – and for their commitment to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on."

He added: "Joe Biden has been one of America's most consequential presidents, as well as a dear friend and partner to me. Today, we've also been reminded – again – that he's a patriot of the highest order."

"Holy Sh**. The Obamas DO NOT endorse Kamala Harris," said Bill Clinton sexual assault accuser Juanita Broaddrick, author of "You'd Better Put Some Ice On That."

"Obama doesn't endorse Kamala what the hell is going on?" wondered Karli Bonné.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

From a coalition of far-left radicals who dreamed up the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory for the 2016 election, then fell for "Trump Impeach 1," which failed, and the subsequent, and also failed, "Trump Impeach 2," it was only a matter of time before this appeared.

"We still don't know for sure whether Donald Trump was hit by a bullet. We know almost nothing," claimed Joy Reid, of MSNBC.

A report in the Daily Mail noted Reid went to social media "to share another round of conspiracies."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

I hope it's not too soon after the attempted murder of Donald Trump to share a chuckle or two. And let's not forget Corey Comperatore, who used his body in a heroic act to shield his family from gunfire. Now a man is deserving a statue in Butler, Pennsylvania.

At a recent rally in Florida, Donald Trump challenged Joe Biden to an 18-hole golf match. Trump also promised to give Biden a 20-stroke advantage – and if Biden wins, he'll get a million-dollar donation to his favorite charity, courtesy of the former president.

Well, it looks as though the golfing world will have to wait since the assassination attempt has changed the timeline. My research staff found the plans and rules that were to be used for the match, and it looks like it would've been a real hoot.

If you'll recall, this subject came up during the June debate debacle where Biden suggested that in addition to the golf, an added feature for the two contenders was carrying their bags. Dr. Jill heard the bag-requirement comment, and though she is a doctor, she misunderstood it as an insult.

Though the contest has been put on the back burner for now, here are the details my staff found about what was to be marketed as the Big Boy Codger Classic.

Both contenders will have a caddy to advise each golfer on yardage and clubs to use. The Biden staff is not requesting a caddy; rather, their choice is a Visiting Angel.

Along with the Visiting Angel, team Biden would like two sherpas to assist the president from any bunker exits that may be quite steep. If not sherpas, a portable staircase chairlift would do the trick.

There will also be the presence of oxygen and a porta-potty on wheels to follow the Big Boy.

A Bible will be provided along with a fire extinguisher to swear in the tag-a-long Kamala Harris just in case there's a need.

Another presidential demand to be met is an ice cream cone for the Big Boy to enjoy in between each hole. Along with the ice cream treat, the presidential staff demands that Big Girl Dr. Jill be waiting at the end of each hole to cheer on her husband. "I'm so proud of you, Joe. You hit the ball on this hole 98 times, and you only missed it 14 times – but you got right back up and never quit. And you put it into the hole all by yourself. Oh my gosh, I'm such a silly. I said 'put,' which almost sounds like that evil Putin."

In case the Codger Classic goes past the bewitching hour of 4 p.m., a mobile bed will be made available for the president if he chooses to take a nap before going on to the next hole.

Trump suggested the ratings for this event would exceed any other golf event in history, which may be true. That also leads to the speculation of who would win the sponsorship rights for each of the 18 holes. No doubt Prevagen would be there telling us, "When you've taken 78 shots to complete hole number one, Mr. President, you're going to need our product to even remember your score."

Add to that Med Alert telling us, "When you're in a bunker after 84 swings and you're still there, you're going to need us to get you out."

And at the final 18th hole when the disaster ends, it will be Relaxium's turn to say, "It's time to go home, Joe. It's highly doubtful, but you may need Relaxium along with a chaser of Balance of Nature to erase the day from your mind."

This tournament will be accompanied by a public service announcement assuring that America is safe while President Biden is away from the White House. Hunter Biden, his trusted son, and the smartest man Joe knows, has the nuclear football secure in his not too shaky hands.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

WASHINGTON – The turn of a few key events may change the fate of the Jan. 6 political prisoners now staring down the dark tunnel of a decade or more in prison for seditious conspiracy.

While the re-election of Donald Trump in November would almost guarantee the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers a presidential pardon, a series of recent Supreme Court rulings may likewise end up cutting time off the lengthy prison sentences they were handed for what many consider no greater crime than "wrongthink."

On June 28, SCOTUS ruled the Justice Department’s use of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), in conjunction with the most serious criminal charges leveled against former President Donald Trump and an ever-growing number of Jan. 6 defendants, is unconstitutional.

The statute says an offender who "(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

The trouble is, in all of American history the DoJ had never used this statute to prosecute demonstrators, even when protests descended into skirmishes, riots, arson, assault, death or worse. Prosecutors, in effect, invented previously non-existent crimes, as if they were the U.S. Congress.

The Supreme Court's ruling should put a precipitous halt to the government's over-prosecutorial adventurism of nonviolent offenders whose only crime amounts to misdemeanor trespassing, and consequently vacating the convictions of possibly more than a hundred J6ers.

But as criminal defense and civil rights attorney Norm Pattis drafts the appeal for the Proud Boys who were handed the lengthiest prison sentences of all the J6 protesters, he is preparing to face defiant federal prosecutors who remain hellbent on circumventing the Constitution and the Supreme Court so they can bury their political opposition when they return to the courtroom.

"It appears the Justice Department is just digging in, pretending nothing ever happened, and baiting the defendants to raise the 1512 Obstruction issues on appeal on the theory that the DOJ may be able to salvage those convictions," Pattis told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview.

Pattis represents J6 political prisoners Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl, Infowars founder Alex Jones and Infowars host Owen Shroyer, all of whom are high-profile targets at the center of the DOJ's war on what it labels "domestic terrorism."

"I am still trying to understand it – I don't think anybody understands it yet," Pattis told WND. "I'm expecting to raise the 1512 issue on appeal on behalf of Biggs and Rehl and I expect the government will contend that their conduct that day made it impossible to count votes, and therefore 1512 applies even under the Supreme Court's new ruling."

He added, "The Justice Department [has gone] haywire in the J6 case, especially the Proud Boys' case – the use of 1512, the use of the terrorism enhancement."

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly used the government's now-discredited claim of 1512 "obstruction" to add terror enhancements to the Proud Boys' convictions – for pushing over flimsy gated bike racks surrounding the Capitol building during the first breach, with a crowd of approximately 300 people.

However, examination of footage of the first breach event shows that neither Biggs, Rehl nor their co-defendants ever physically touched the gate.

"These guys were declared terrorists for destroying a $34,000 fence – pushing over the 40 or so bike racks. As far as any of their offenses that remotely serve as predicates for the terrorism enhancement, that's the only one that was so committed. Others who have been handed terror enhancements before Jan. 6 had hijacked airplanes and assassinated people," Pattis told WND.

Having participated in hundreds of criminal trials since 1993, Pattis contends the government's prosecution of the Proud Boys is "the most chilling case for criminalizing protected speech in United States history."

In all the thousands of hours of Jan. 6 footage that Congress withheld from the American public for years, neither Biggs, an Army veteran who earned two purple hearts in combat and later became an Infowars reporter, nor Marine Corps veteran Zachary Rehl are seen committing a violent crime.

Alongside their co-defendant Ethan Nordean, who likewise committed no violent crimes, they roamed around "The People's House" for approximately 15 minutes and exited the restricted premises.

The U.S. government designated Enrique Tarrio, the iconic Proud Boys national chairman who was not even present in Washington, D.C., during the Capitol riot, the mastermind of the "terror attack."

Last September, Judge Kelly sentenced Tarrio to 22 years in prison, the lengthiest sentence handed to any Jan. 6 defendant to date; Nordean to 18 years; Biggs to 17 years; Rehl to 15 years. Pezzola, who is now grappling with esophageal cancer while incarcerated, was not found guilty of seditious conspiracy but was sentenced to 10 years.

Kelly added terror enhancements to all of their sentences for anti-Biden sentiments they had expressed in interviews with news media. After they were sentenced, prosecutors appealed for even longer prison sentences – still seeking life in prison for Biggs and 30 years for Rehl, following their decision to stroll through the Capitol building for approximately 15 minutes.

The barbaric political persecution of his clients, contends Pattis, serves one main purpose for the enemies of America.

"There's a systematic effort to scare the hell out of people to make sure they stay home in 2024 and are afraid to ever attend a rally again. It's a terrifying precedent," he told WND. "There has never been, in my view, a set of prosecutions in the United States like the Jan. 6 cases. We had a riot that lasted for several hours on Jan. 6, 2021, and we're still making arrests three-and-a-half years later, and people are still going to jail over their participation in a riot.

"Why are we still criminalizing misdemeanors? Why are they still looking to lock people up? After the United States Civil War, in which 600,000 people lost their lives in a conflict, we've repatriated almost everybody within two or three years. This doesn't make any sense to me at all. When people talk about 'politicization of justice,' this is what they mean."

All others who have been convicted of sedition in American history committed crimes that resulted in mass casualties. The only casualties during the Capitol riot were those killed by the government.

Even more outrageous than the obstruction charge against Jan. 6 defendants, Pattis added, are the sedition convictions that amount to nothing more than criminalizing thought.

"I defy anyone to show me proof of a plan for insurrection on Jan. 6. In the Proud Boys trial, AUSA Connor Mulroe proceeded on the basis that an 'implicit conspiracy' to violently overthrow the United States government formed the moment the crowd overreacted," he said.

"In other words, that people standing around at the Capitol on Jan. 6 got the idea in mind, all at the same time, to engage in the use of force against the government.

"This prosecution never proved there was a plan, as proof of the state of mind of the co-conspirators. They used protected political speech as their sole evidence, speech which, if uttered in any other context, would be protected. They criminalized protected speech in a very thin and unusual conspiracy theory to prove criminal intent in a case where there really was no plan for a riot or for an insurrection. It sets a very dangerous precedent for what may happen at future political events across the country."

Not only are Pattis' clients at risk of losing their freedom and facing additional financial penalties for what are essentially "thought crimes" – saying things that offend deep-state gatekeepers – the task of defending "political hostages" amid unprecedented lawfare and creative prosecution has been "catastrophic" for the veteran attorney.

"You're walking into these new rules, this misuse of law by the government that is really historic, really unprecedented," he said. "The most chilling thing is the need to be careful about where you speak and what you say, and who you say it to."

The Jan. 6 trials, in which the government and judges are getting away with what many knowledgeable legal minds regard as pillaging the U.S Constitution, are taking place in the dark. That is, no recording devices are allowed in the courtroom. Transcripts cost roughly $500 for the defense, but are free for the government. The judges are intent on keeping the trials as secret as possible.

Pattis described more peculiarities that have transpired in the courtroom, demonstrating how the judges are acting essentially as arms of a radically weaponized Department of Justice.

"Judge Kelly is not a friend of the First Amendment," Pattis told WorldNetDaily. "The number of times that the public was thrown out of the courtroom was shocking to me. The public didn't hear the full story about confidential human sources and, as a court officer, I'm ordered not to tell it.

"There was an occasion where national security interest data was mistakenly leaked into the courtroom. The public was thrown out, and they'll never know about that. There was an issue with a juror and the public was thrown out. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant a public and speedy trial. The court made a lot of factual findings that kept things from the public in violation of the Proud Boys' rights."

"The combination of my potential suspension over the Alex Jones' case and the Proud Boys case has made this probably the two worst years of my life. I'm still fighting my suspension in the appellate courts, and I remain optimistic.

"But the combination of being suspended for defending Alex Jones and going without compensation for six months while I defended the Proud Boys put me to the test, and that is, how much did I care about these issues? And the answer is, a lot."

As WND exclusively reported, the Veterans Department and U.S Treasury Department is demanding Rehl repay the military benefits he received following Capitol riot to the tune of $100,000 with interest. He and Biggs were revoked of their military pensions when they were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

The DOJ's misuse of law has also left Pattis in financial ruin.

"My involvement with the Jan. 6 cases has been catastrophic. I was given assurances that there would be crowdsourced legal resources in their work. It was a deep disappointment that the community walked away from them. A lot of people talked a lot of committed talk about 'being there for them.' In the end, maybe they are, but as far as the legal fees are concerned, we've been left with about a half-a-million-dollar hole."

"There's no place I would have rather been during those five-and-a-half months than in that courtroom. I'm proud of my participation in both cases. If I would do it all over again, I would have taken greater care to be paid on behalf of the Proud Boys. If there are folks out there that are inclined to help, we are appealing for their help."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden has been a walking cognitive question for months now. He left behind a disastrous performance from the presidential debate. He was at a NATO event and said Ukraine's president was "Putin" and his own vice president is "Trump."

And those are the highlights of his recent displays of misunderstanding, misspeaking and mistakes. He drops sentences, words, and his thoughts trail off with "anyway … ."

The result is that leaders in his own party are calling on him to step out of the 2024 presidential race so Democrats can nominate someone else.

But there is one issue that would change his mind, he has now confirmed.

A new health issue.

The Washington Examiner said Biden confirmed his intention of staying in the race in an interview with BET, unless there’s a new health issue to consider that his doctors tell him about.

Besides age, he's 81 heading toward 82 in a few months at full throttle, experts also have suggested he's got Parkinson's, based on his public symptom displays.

The report explained Biden had just finished a "fierce defense" of his candidacy for the presidential term that wouldn't end until he's 86.

Previously, Biden has said the only thing that would convince him to leave would be a "sign" from God, persistent demands from his immediate family, or if polls said he held "no chance" of winning.

A report at Huffington Post said Biden claimed to have figured out how to do things for the nation.

"I think I've demonstrated that I know how to get things done for the country."

This despite runaway inflation totaling well over 20% during his time in office, outbreaks of war in multiple locations around the globe during his tenure, huge majorities of Americans expressing their dissatisfaction with his policies and a huge plunge in American influence around the world.

He said there's still more he wants to do.

A recent poll, however, does show that two-thirds of members of his own party want him booted from the ticket.