This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – The incoming National Security Adviser Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., told conservative talk-show host Ben Shapiro there's a new sheriff in town with the upcoming inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, and any terrorist organization which thought about holding U.S. hostages captive should think long and hard about whether the costs would outweigh the benefits.
Waltz pointed out the four remaining U.S. hostages held in Hamas captivity in Gaza have now been there for longer than the 444-day U.S. embassy siege in Tehran in February 1979.
"That's totally unacceptable, and I think writ large, there have never been enough consequences," says Waltz. "That's what we need to be talking about with these people. [If] You take an American … there is going to be all hell to pay. There are going to be nothing but consequences for you financially, and maybe even a bullet in your damn forehead."
"The next time you think about it … a lot of these groups are going to say, 'Whoa, it's just not worth it under Donald Trump,'" he surmised.
Waltz added there seemed to be a perverse incentive structure in place, which far from deterring terrorists seems to encourage them to chance their arm and take hostages, including Americans. He stated clearly in the interview that if the cost of capturing U.S. citizens became prohibitively high – which he expected to be the case under President Trump – then they would stop doing it.
Away from the Palestinian issue – although linked – Waltz claimed President Biden's victory in the 2020 election was a disaster, and particularly a foreign policy standpoint. He drew attention to how close Israel and Saudi Arabia were to inking a normalization deal following the successful signing of the Abraham Accords in Sept. 2020, between the Jewish state and four Arab/ Arab-majority countries.
Indeed, the incoming NSA drew a direct causal link between the proximity of a normalization deal between Saudi and Israel, and Iran's decision – despite its protestations of being kept in the dark – of lighting the fuse for the Oct. 7 attacks.
"We've had a lot of good discussions with the Saudis [about] normalization," the top Trump aide notes, adding that he is still reviewing the issue.
And to that point, Israeli news outlet Haaretz published an article last week, which suggested Saudi Crown prince Muhammad Bin Salman, who is de facto ruler of the kingdom, dropped his previously stated intransigence about a pathway to Palestinian statehood being a precondition for normalization with Israel.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two days before the 2024 presidential election, pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register released "results" that purported to reveal how now President-elect Donald Trump was down by three percentage points in deep-Republican territory in Iowa.
Forty-eight hours later, he was elected, and in Iowa he won by 13 points.
Now columnist Wayne Root is citing Trump's decision to sue over the "election interference" and is suggesting it might be the beginning of something big.
Root, host of "The ROOT Reaction" and a regular on Rumble, Roku, Dish TV, RootforAmerica and more. Explained how Trump is suing for "consumer fraud and election interference" for the polling from Selzer and the Register.
"It's HUGE. It's the biggest news of the year. It may be the biggest news of the decade (since Trump came down that escalator at Trump Tower in 2015). Here's why…," he wrote. "First, this lawsuit is so significant because it shows Trump and the GOP will no longer accept rigged and stolen elections. This fake poll in Iowa was clearly a brazen attempt at fraud and election interference. Democrats were trying to steal 2024 by using a fake poll to gaslight voters. Democrats have used fake news and propaganda to steal elections for far too long."
He noted Trump now is "putting the liars, frauds and scam artists of the Democrat Party, Deep State and DC Swamp on notice. Criminal acts will no longer go unpunished. Finally, someone is doing something about attempts to rig and steal elections."
He said he knew there was something "rotten" when the "results" were released, as Trump had won Iowa by eight points in 2020.
"After four years of Biden, the GOP voter edge in Iowa grew dramatically. I was loudly predicting an electoral landslide and popular vote victory for Trump, yet here was a poll showing Trump losing in a deep red state," he explained.
He looked at the polling and its demographics and methodology, and asked another pollster to review.
"All the numbers were dead wrong," he noted. "We believed this poll was rigged to look terrible for Trump."
He said besides the numbers, the instant publicity campaign from the "ridiculous national media" also gave away the plan.
"The liberal liars of the media were obviously told in advance to expect a shocking poll that showed Trump losing in a deep red state. The PR wing of the Democrat Party couldn't wait to scream about a fake poll that painted Trump as a surefire loser. They wanted to demoralize GOP voters 48 hours before the election," he wrote.
But the legal action is significant for other reasons, too. Those include that the polling is "Exhibit A" for the "bribes paid by Democrats, the Deep State, DC Swamp and foreign interests to rig and steal elections."
He said, "My hope is this lawsuit is a sign Trump is going after everyone in the Democrat Party and Deep State who has been rigging and stealing elections."
Then there are others, too, he said.
"The next obvious Trump target should be Biden's Labor Department. Not only did they make up 818,000 phantom jobs that never existed from March 2023 to March 2024, but even worse, the Philadelphia Fed just found that 100% of the jobs supposedly created by Biden in Q2 of 2024 were fake and non-existent. Talk about election interference. And of course, the greatest example EVER of election interference is the open border. Democrats waved in 20 million illegal foreign invaders in the past four years to try to steal the 2024 election (and future elections for decades to come). Go after Biden, border czar Kamala, Homeland Security fraud Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland. This was their criminal conspiracy."
He continued, "Once President Trump proves a massive complex conspiracy of voter fraud, money laundering, election interference and stolen elections, it's time to bring his case to the Supreme Court. Trump should demand every single Executive Action, regulation and bill passed by Biden in the past four years to be null and void."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In what may be one of the more gruesome financial arguments ever, a lawmaker in Scotland has argued that people who die through assisted suicide won't have many end-of-life care costs, and the savings will cover the expenses of those suicide drugs.
It is the Christian Institute that reported on the arguments from Liam McArthur, a lawmaker in Scotland who designed that nation's assisted suicide scheme.
McArthur told the Finance and Public Administration Committee of the government's legislature in Holyrood of the "potential savings" from a lower level of palliative care would mean his bill to expand assisted suicides would be "cost-neutral."
"Members of the committee questioned McArthur about the costings in his Financial Memorandum, published to accompany his Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill," the institute reported.
His argument in his memorandum document states, "Community Pharmacy Scotland estimated that, as an example, one substance that may be used in such circumstances would cost an estimated £80 ($100) for each dose provided to a terminally ill adult to end their own life."
It continued, "On the basis of the estimate of 25 people having an assisted death in year one following the bill's enactment, rising to 400 by year 20 it can be estimated that the cost of the required substances would be around £2000 ($2,500) in year one, rising to £32,000 ($40,000) per year by year 20."
However, the documented explained that easily would be covered because of the fact the dead people would no longer require palliative care.
"McArthur informed MSPs the memorandum acknowledged that 'the legislation is likely to result in savings as well as costs and that broadly speaking it is anticipated to be cost neutral.'"
"This is because there is a cost associated with the processes involved in a person being assessed and potentially provided with assistance to end their own life, such as clinical and associated administration costs, and a commensurate cost-saving due to a person no longer receiving care for however long they may have lived."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In 2023, "Muhammad" became the top choice for parents naming their baby boys in England and Wales. Data from Britain's Office for National Statistics confirms not only that Muhammad is the most popular name, but that it has been a consistent top-10 favorite since 2016.
To gain perspective on why the Muslim prophet's name is so wildly popular in formerly Christian Great Britain, WorldNetDaily spoke to Raymond Ibrahim, a widely published author and expert on Islam and the Middle East. For over eight years, Ibrahim has produced a monthly report titled "Muslim Persecution of Christians," dedicated to chronicling the abuse and slaughter of Christians throughout the Islamic world.
In an article for The Stream, Ibrahim wrote recently, "Baby Muhammads are, in fact, taking over all of Western Europe (once a bastion against Muhammad)." He told WND the name's popularity is a clear reflection of growing Muslim numbers and smaller native indigenous British numbers. And, added Ibrahim, this can be attributed both to higher birthrates of Muslims, and to high levels of Muslim migration.
Even without a Muslim majority, Ibrahim warned, a nation can be subject to increased threats of persecution or violence. Calling it "the rule of numbers," he explained that a Muslim population of 10% often results in "a lot of problems." Considering this, he pointed out, places like France, Germany, the U.K. and Sweden regularly face various Islamist threats.
In addition, Ibrahim told WND, "there's the ghettoization of Muslim regions, [to include] enclaves or no-go zones that proliferate with increases" in Muslim population. "And all the while, it's hard to point out that Muslims are a problematic minority without facing accusations of racism."
Can anything be done to reverse the rapid Islamization of the U.K. and the rest of Europe?
With the challenges brought on by higher Muslim birthrates and Muslim migration, Ibrahim suggests the obvious: ceasing Muslim migration. But what about the already existing large Muslim population? "Deporting those who are illegal may help, but may not be that significant," he conceded.
It's a dilemma the United States faces as well. Not so much a problem of Muslim migration per se, but of massive non-Western migration, Ibrahim explained. For those that have illegally crossed the U.S. southern border, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, Ibrahim is concerned "these people are bringing a different set of priorities and cultural norms, often not representative of Christian ethos or Christian civilization."
"While Muslims are more problematic in Europe," he said, "[illegal immigration] could, one day, lead to a war on the identity of America, particularly on its founding identity as Christian in culture and outlook."
He fears this could be the reason why the Left embraces "the infiltration." For Ibrahim, "it's because they hate Christianity and its culture, and want to undermine it any way they can." While he is hopeful president-elect Donald Trump will stop illegal immigration into the United States, he said he is "on the fence" until he sees what actually happens.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
While fentanyl kills tens of thousands of Americans every year – indeed, it's the No. 1 cause of death for younger Americans aged 18 to 45 – now there's an even deadlier drug on the rise.
Two milligrams of fentanyl, equal in volume to just a few grains of table salt, is considered a deadly dose. Hundreds of thousands have been poisoned by the dangerous drug.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 76,226 and 74,702 deaths attributed to the use of synthetic opioids containing fentanyl in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
WorldNetDaily spoke to Derek Maltz, a former head of the Special Operations Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration and well-respected advocate for families who have lost their loved ones through fentanyl poisoning and more.
The spread of fentanyl through the United States, Maltz tells WND, is nothing less than "a chemical bombing coming out of China." As a recent Reuters report explained, "Chemical brokers are the supply chiefs of the illicit fentanyl trade, funneling Chinese ingredients to Mexico's producers, [using] bribery, tricks and violence to feed the pipeline."
For years, says Maltz, the Chinese regime has been "taking advantage of the drug addiction in America," flooding the streets with "very powerful synthetic drugs," and adding that the goal is to "destabilize and destroy America's future generations."
With the CDC's recent warning about a significant rise in illegally manufactured fentanyls (so-called IMFs) like carfentanil, the regime is moving closer to its objective, says Maltz. Incredibly, according to the Department of Justice, "Carfentanil is a synthetic opioid approximately 10,000 times more potent than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl." Carfentanil was originally developed as an opioid analgesic to be used by veterinarians for anesthetizing huge animals like elephants and rhinoceroses.
Yet in the last year, carfentanil deaths of humans rose by more than 700%. "Chinese laboratories are selling [fentanyl and carfentanil] directly to customers in America, and people are getting sick and people are dying," Maltz told WND.
How could the United States get the upper hand and save the lives of those being poisoned?
The flow of these drugs into the country must be recognized as a national security threat, Maltz said, and agencies then must take a comprehensive approach to bring the massive assault on America to an end. "The next director [of the DEA] would have to integrate meetings between both law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community, and take a collective step to halt this stuff," he explained. In addition, each of these federal agencies and soon-to-be President Donald Trump would have to "sit down and develop strategies to end the money laundering, the cartels' involvement, and keep China in check."
"All of higher-level leadership needs to be discussing strategies to stop this madness," Maltz stressed. "Precursor chemicals and money are the root of the problem, and without the chemicals from China and without the money to the Mexican cartels, America would see a drastic drop in deaths."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court in Georgia has tossed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis off of her own case, a series of wild organized crime claims against President Trump based largely on his own expressions of his dissatisfaction with the process and results of the 2020 presidential election.
The move technically leaves the case against Trump and more than a dozen others alive, but analysts suggested it ultimately might not survive.
"Fani Willis hired her dumb, unqualified boyfriend to go after Trump and 18 others. Fani paid Nathan Wade $700,000 in taxpayer funds. Fani took illegal kickbacks. Fani lied about them under oath. Now Fani got disqualified. And Fani must go to prison," charged Mike Davis, of the Article III Project, which advocates for judicial integrity and independence.
The Washington Examiner reported it was the Georgia Court of Appeals that tossed Willis – and her entire office – off the case.
She had created a long list of "election subversion" claims against more than a dozen people, including Trump. She had been allowed to stay on the case by a lower court after her scandalous behavior involving her appointment of her paramour, Wade, to a special position and use of some $700,000 of tax money to pay him.
The two then took exotic vacations together.
A lower court judge said the ethics problems could be resolved if Wade was dismissed from the case, and he left. But the judge left Willis on the case, a move the appeals court said was wrong.
The panel, 2-1, found the lower court "erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis."
The ruling said, "The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times."
It was Judge Scott McAfee who had allowed Willis to continue her work on the case, despite the massive ethics issues involved.
"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings," the judges wrote.
That the court didn't dismiss the case outright left it struggling in "a state of uncertainty," reports said. Legal experts explained the removal of Willis now puts the case in the hands of a state agency, which could decide to begin again with another prosecutor, or simply consider the attack on Trump at a dead end.
The result continues the massive collapse of the Democrats' lawfare cases against Trump. Special counsel Jack Smith's two cases, over election issues and handling of government documents, were killed after Trump won the election.
"Trump's hush money case in New York was the lone case of the four to have resulted in a guilty conviction against Trump, for falsifying business records. However, the judge there is facing roadblocks to sentencing Trump, because he is an incoming president, and Trump's attorneys are also threatening to challenge every aspect of the case until it is paused indefinitely or dismissed," the report said.
In that case, the judge is known to have supported financially Democrat candidates and his daughter was working with Democrats during the trial, making money off of the court rulings her father was issuing against Trump inside the court.
Further, the original charges probably never would have been brought had the defendant not been named Trump. It was Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg, who boasted of going after Trump, who turned misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired into felonies because they were in pursuit of some other, unidentified, crime. Further, the judge inexplicably said the jury's verdict against Trump did not have to be unanimous.
Fox reported Trump, in an interview, said, the "whole case has been a disgrace to justice."
"It was started by the Biden DOJ as an attack on his political opponent, Donald Trump," he said, "They used anyone and anybody and she has been disqualified and her boyfriend has been disqualified and they stole funds and went on trips."
He continued, "There is no way such corrupt people can lead a case and then it gets taken over by somebody else. It was a corrupt case, so how could it be taken over by someone else?"
And, "The case has to be thrown out because it was started corruptly by an incompetent prosecutor who received millions of dollars through her boyfriend—who received it from her—and then they went on cruises all the time. … Therefore, the case is entirely dead. Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An expert who not only has testified before Congress on the U.S. Constitution but has represented members in court cases is warning about Joe Biden's speculated agenda to deliver to his friend and supporters preemptive pardons.
It is Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and author of "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," who wrote, "After years of lying to the American people about the influence-peddling scandal and promising not to consider a pardon for his son, Biden would end his legacy with the ultimate dishonesty: converting pardons into virtual party favors."
There has been much speculation about those preemptive pardons from Biden, who lied about allowing juries and courts to determine the outcomes of his son Hunter's criminal gun and tax cases, flip-flopped and pardoned him.
Hunter Biden could have been ordered to jail for years for his felony gun convictions and his guilty pleas to felony tax charges.
However, Joe Biden handed him a get-out-of-jail-free card, then followed up with hundreds and hundreds more commutations and pardons to a long list of those with criminal convictions.
The activity triggered a rash of speculation about those preemptive pardons, and Turley explains what's going on.
"Democrats are worried about the collapsing narrative that President-elect Donald Trump will destroy democracy, end future elections, and conduct sweeping arrests of everyone from journalists to homosexuals. That narrative, of course, ignores that we have a constitutional system of overlapping protections that has blocked such abuses for over two centuries."
Thus, the talk of preemptive pardons, but Turley said it wouldn't work out.
"Ironically, preemptive pardons would do precisely what Biden suggests that he is deterring: create a dangerous immunity for presidents and their allies in committing criminal abuses," he said.
He noted if Biden delivers those pardons, "he would fundamentally change the use of presidential pardons by granting 'prospective' or 'preemptive' pardons to political allies. Despite repeated denials of President-elect Donald Trump that he is seeking retaliation against opponents and his statements that he wants 'success [to be] my revenge,' Democratic politicians and pundits have called for up to thousands of such pardons."
He explained there's politics all over the scheme.
"After many liberals predicted the imminent collapse of democracy and that opponents would be rounded up in mass by the Trump Administration, they are now contemplating the nightmare that democracy might survive and that there will be no mass arrests," he wrote. "The next best thing to a convenient collapse of democracy is a claim that Biden's series of preemptive pardons averted it. It is enough to preserve the narrative in the face of a stable constitutional system."
"Preemptive pardons could become the norm as presidents pardon whole categories of allies and even themselves to foreclose federal prosecutions. … It will give presidents cover to wipe away any threat of prosecution for friends, donors, and associates. This can include self-pardons issued as implied condemnations of their political opponents. It could easily become the final act of every president to pardon himself and all of the members of his Administration.
"We would then have an effective immunity rule for outgoing parties in American politics."
He noted that in the past, Bill Clinton pardoned both family members and political donors.
"Yet, despite that history, no president has seen fit to go as far as where Biden appears to be heading," he said. Promoters of the plan, he said, "would prefer to fundamentally change the use of the pardon power to maintain an apocalyptic narrative that was rejected by the public in this election. If you cannot prove the existence of the widely touted Trump enemies list, a Biden pardon list is the next best thing."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has apologized after an investigation determined an opinion piece he wrote and allowed to be published that called Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito "dumb" violated judicial ethics rules.
The apology is from Michael Ponsor, of the district of Massachusetts.
It got started when the New York Times said it got a photograph of an upside-down flag at Alito's home in Virginia just days after the protest-turned-riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021.
The comments claimed the inverted flag signaled support for claims by President Donald Trump about problems in the election.
Legacy media continues to describe those claims as "unsupported," although there now is evidence that the election was skewed by undue influences, including Mark Zuckerberg's handout of $400 million plus to leftist election officials who often recruited voters in Democrat districts and the FBI's decision to interfere by telling media groups to suppress truthful, but damaging, information about the Biden family scandals.
Alito had told the newspaper he had "no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag." And said, "It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."
The ethics complaint had been filed by the Article II Project and now has been sustained by Chief Judge Albert Diaz.
Ponsor had criticized Alito personally but did much more, Diaz found.
"The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary in violation of Canons 1 and 2A. Viewed in the timeframe during which the essay was published, including the substantial press coverage detailing the calls for Justice Alito's recusals from the then-pending January 6 cases, it would be reasonable for a member of the public to perceive the essay as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito's recusal," Diaz wrote.
A3P said it filed the complaint in order to protect the integrity of the judiciary and ensure that judges avoid any appearance of partisanship.
According to Law & Crime, Ponsor delivered an "unreserved apology" for his comments.
Diaz's order said that Ponsor's letter constituted "voluntary corrective action sufficient to allow for the conclusion of the complaint."
The Washington Examiner said Ponsor's criticisms of Alito aligned with criticisms also coming from Democrats at the time.
They claimed flying an upside-down American flag outside his home in Virginia and a Revolutionary War-era "Appeal to Heaven" flag outside his beach home showed a bias.
Ponsor, a Bill Clinton appointee, had blamed Alito for the flags, and said they were "improper."
He accused Alito of hurting the high court.
"You just don't do that sort of thing, whether it may be considered over the line, or just edging up to the margin. Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a 'Stop the steal' bumper sticker on your car. You just don't do it," he claimed.
The Ponsor essay, according to the complaint that was filed, was "highly inappropriate, baseless, and prejudicial political speech by a judge against another judge while he is deciding the legal fates of criminal defendants going through the judicial process."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new congressional report is calling for an FBI investigation of former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney over her behavior that "likely" violated federal law during ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan investigation into the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6. 2021.
Cheney is suspected of tampering with a witness who appeared before that special committee, which essentially took evidence about that day and put it in a report that blamed President Trump for everything, even to the point of leaving out details that exonerated him.
Just the News indicates a report from the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, and chairman Barry Loudermilk, was released and concluded the riot was preventable.
It also seeks a formal criminal investigation of Cheney for "tampering" with a committee witness.
Cheney decided to join in the Democrats' organized lawfare against President Donald Trump, and their allegations of his responsibility for the riot, even though he had told his supporters to protest peacefully.
Further, he had volunteered to have thousands of National Guard troops at the Capitol complex that day in order to prevent any disruption but was refused by Democrats in Washington.
"Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation," charged the report.
The report continued, "Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson's attorney's knowledge. This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates (the law). Such action is outside the due functioning of the legislative process and therefore not protected by the Speech and Debate clause."
The criminal law that prohibits tampering with witnesses could subject a defendant to a penalty of 20 years in prison.
The report also faulted Hutchinson, described as Cheney's "star witness at the nationally televised hearings, alleging that Cheney encouraged false testimony about a handwritten document and noting her sensational claim that former President Donald Trump tried to commandeer his presidential limousine that day to take it to the Capitol," a claim that was debunked by the Secret Service itself.
Loudermilk's report explains evidence obtained by his subcommittee suggests "Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee." Cheney's fault is with "violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury."
The report explained the report further charges that there is "evidence of collusion" between the J6 committee, led by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Cheney, who shortly after was thrown out of her congressional seat by her own voters.
The other side of the colluding parties would be special counsel Jack Smith, who had created a number of lawfare cases against Trump, all of which now have collapsed and been dismissed.
The report said the only way for Smith to have gotten that document was "from one of the two institutions which did not cooperate" with the subcommittee's investigation.
It also confirmed Pelosi's committee refused to preserve significant evidence, Hutchinson made "significant material changes" in her testimony "with the help of Vice Chair Cheney," and Pelosi "took some responsibility for not ensuring adequate Capitol security in unaired footage recorded" for a documentary.
Loudermilk also addressed a letter to colleagues with a warning: "Americans expect and deserve a government that is small in size, limited in scope, and fully accountable to the people, as our Founders intended. The actions of some elected officials and certain government bureaucrats in the aftermath of January 6, 2021, are evidence of how we have ventured far away from those basic principles of our constitutional republic. Transparency, accountability, and equal application of the law are the only solutions to return our nation to one that is free, safe, and full of opportunity."
Cheney has been one of the names suggested for Joe Biden to protect with "preemptive" presidential pardons.
That topic came up as Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of multiple gun felonies and pleaded guilty to multiple tax felonies and could have spent decades in prison.
Biden followed that up with hundreds and hundreds of commutations.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Steve Bannon, longtime adviser to President Donald Trump who served a prison term for refusing to cooperate with ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan attacks on Trump, has trolled Democrats with the suggestion that Republicans will do it again with Trump in 2028.
"Donald John Trump is going to raise his hand on a King James Bible and take the oath of office. His third victory, his third victory and his second term. The viceroy, Mike Davis, tells me, since it doesn't actually say consecutive, that, I don't know, maybe we do it again in '28. Are you guys down for that? Trump '28? Come on, man!"
The comments came as Bannon was speaking over the weekend at the New York City Young Republican Club annual Christmas dinner.
Trump several times has trolled Democrats with the idea of another term.
The 22nd Amendment, adopted in 1951, states, "no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice."
It came after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms from 1933 to 1945.
While the amendment can be parsed to point out that it doesn't say consecutive, it also can be parsed to point out the word "elected," suggesting the remote possibility a president could serve additional time if installed through the chain of succession. For instance, if Trump were to be House Speaker, and a sitting president and vice president would leave office.
Such arguments never have been the subject of any court ruling yet.
A much more likely scenario for Trump's influence to continue unabated into subsequent years would be for Vice President-elect JD Vance to be elected in 2028, and for him to staff the government with the same personnel chosen by Trump.
That strategy already has been used, since Joe Biden staffed his administration with many of the same characters used by Barack Obama during his two terms, essentially giving Obama a third term in office, at least regarding policies and influence.