Jerome R. Corsi's Blog, page 18

The abject failure of the sexual revolution

Read Hanne’s The Herland Report.

“The worst we have done is spiritual. We privatized morality and destroyed the moral order. We took that essential moral order that keeps people together and decided that it is up to you to find your own values. If what is right and wrong depends on what each person feels, then we are outside the bounds of civilization. Without a strong moral order it is hard to have trust, it is hard to find your meaning in life,” says author and political commentator David Brooks in his 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizens (ARC) speech in London.

The left-wing elite has since the 1960s purposely destabilized traditional institutions and moral norms without offering a positive conservative vision. Mental health issues, loneliness and societal despair have risen sharply as a consequence of these cultural shifts.

TheMarxist contemporary vision of isolated liberal individuals pursuing personal desires often mirrors an immature, hedonistic pursuit likened to that of a child acting on immediate gratification. This immature model of selfhood is unsustainable and leads to societal and individual dysfunction. The higher aim is not to love oneself only, but to care about others and create a society in which trustworthiness, honesty, faithfulness and compassion with others are key ideals.

Clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto Jordan Peterson covered this topic in an ARC Conference panel, in which journalist and author Louise Perry pointed out: “Traditions are experiments that worked. What we have found, having rejected the sexual norms of the past, is that they were there for a reason.”

When Friedrich Nietzsche pronounced the “death of God,” it implied that humanity must create its own atheist values. His fellow atheist Karl Marx had been remarkably blunt about the desire to destroy Christian morality to establish a new set of ethics detached from the traditional Christian values that strongly influenced Western civilization. If God is removed from the equation, only meaninglessness remains. Materialism and the tangible world – with its bodily pleasures – becomes man’s only goal.

Hailed since the 1960s, the Marxist ideal implied the rejection of traditional sexual norms based on faithfulness in a marriage, in favor of an approach including a rapid change of sexual partner and a culture of aborting unwanted children. The 1960s sexual revolution established that consent is the only rule governing sexual relations, without the constraints of the conscience. The social legalization of hedonism idealized women that freely engaged with numerous sexual partners and not only their husbands. A social consequence is the breakdown of traditional family structures, and children growing up without biological fathers, which is linked to highly negative outcomes.

The modern hedonist focus on selfish pleasure as the goal of life demonstrates its greatest flaw – the failure to recognize that compassion for others is a fundamental component of genuine happiness.

While human beings are naturally inclined toward short-term gratification impulses, it can be detrimental if not moderated, the Peterson panel pointed out. We need good cultural influences and moral boundaries that will integrate these self-destructive impulses, guiding individuals to make decisions beneficial for long-term well-being and not only short-term self-gratification. A healthy culture nourishes the development of virtue, meaning and higher-order values. Nihilism and social fragmentation arise when culture fails to provide this nourishing environment.

The conclusion of the ARC panel discussion is that a society organized around individualistic, hedonistic values is doomed to fail. Such a model neglects the necessity of higher-order values essential for survival and flourishing, namely the ability to look beyond self-gratification, greed and selfishness and evolve into the realm of selflessness, humility, honesty and accountability.

The atheist, socialist groupthink creates borderless individuals, devoid of deeper meaning and disconnected to the historical greatness of Western civilization. Philosopher Friedrich Hayek criticizes this extreme form of relativism in “The Constitution of Liberty.” He points out that in history, to be a liberal meant fighting for personal freedoms and performing one’s duties and obligations to the community. Freedom is not the right to be selfish, but rather the right to be a responsible citizen. Egoism is a path to bondage and a form of slavery in which the individual, in his loneliness, slowly enters a state of depression and meaninglessness.

Without compassion, empathy, humility and self-discipline, stability in society will crumble. If man is no longer bound by the social contract or responsibilities toward others, the sole goal becomes to serve the self and its passions. So, true education must guide individuals to embody virtues that transcend mere personal liberty and impulse satisfaction, rooting identity and freedom in transcendent truths, compassion for others and commitments to the broader good for society.

Before Trump became a ‘racist’

Trump Derangement Syndrome prevents those who dislike President Donald Trump from giving him credit for virtually anything.

In the first nine months of Trump 2.0, his detractors failed to credit him for: securing the southern border in a matter of weeks; gas prices now at a four-year low; the steep decline in the price of eggs; a stock market hitting record highs, benefiting the nearly half of American adults who invest in the market either directly, via mutual funds or through 401(k)s; income growth exceeding inflation; inflation at 3%, less than the 5% per year average under Biden/Harris; pressuring our NATO partners into increasing their financial commitment when failure to do so provoked complaints by former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush; orchestrating the release of remaining hostages and remains of those seized by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023; the successful bombings of three of Iran’s nuclear facilities; a reduction in crime in Washington, D.C., and in other cities through the deployment or the threat of deployment of the National Guard – and the arrests of violent criminal aliens, causing a reduction in gang-related criminal activity; and other foreign and domestic achievements.

“Those things do not matter to me,” said an angry caller to my radio/TV show. “Trump is a bad person. He is a racist who wouldn’t rent to people who look like you.”

“Did you vote for Joe Biden?” I asked.

“Yes, but what difference does that make?”

This difference is hypocrisy, selective outrage and double standards.

Biden lied for over 50 years about his alleged civil rights record. No, he did not engage in desegregating movie theaters and restaurants. No, he was not arrested attempting to visit an imprisoned Nelson Mandela during apartheid South Africa. No, he was not “raised in the black church.” If being a “racist” is bad, where does one rank lying about not being one?

For decades, Biden, elected to the Senate in 1972, bragged about his ability to “get things done” with the segregationists in his party. Biden opposed court-ordered busing – as did many blacks and whites – to achieve integration. But note how Biden, at a 1977 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, framed his opposition: “Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point.”

In 2010, Biden called Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Exalted Cyclops member in the Ku Klux Klan who had recently died, “one of my mentors” and said, “the Senate is a lesser place for his going.” About his working relationship with another Southern Democrat racist, Biden said: “I was in a caucus with (Mississippi Sen.) James O. Eastland. He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.'”

Well, glory be!

It wasn’t until 2019, during his third campaign for president, that Biden apologized for touting his good graces with his party’s racist senators.

As for Trump, the caller referred to the consent decree the Trump Organization agreed to in 1975 – when Trump was in his 20s – with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice over allegations of refusing to rent to black would-be renters. The decree did not admit liability, but the Trump Organization – then headed by Trump’s father – agreed to change practices. In his 1987 book “The Art of the Deal,” Trump said, “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black.”

Over 20 years after the consent decree, the Rev. Jesse Jackson praised Trump in a 1998 Rainbow Push Coalition event as a “friend” who supported “the under-served communities.” Jackson said, “When we opened this Wall Street project … (Trump) gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our having a presence there.”

The following year, at another coalition event, Jackson said to Trump, “We need your building skills, your gusto … for the people on Wall Street to represent diversity.”

There you have it, Trump is a racist. The 1975 consent decree stands as Exhibit A.

As for Biden, CNN’s Van Jones, who attributed Trump’s 2016 victory to “whitelash,” tearfully said after Biden dropped out of the 2024 race, “I just know that I love this man, I care about this man.”

Politicians destroy ‘affordability’ – why go to them to fix it?

Affordability. It’s the word on everybody’s lips.

Ever since self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani became the frontrunner in the New York City mayoral election by saying the word “affordability” with talismanic regularity, we have been told that the key to modern politics is that word’s repetition. Say “affordability,” and watch your polls rise.

And yet the world becomes ever more unaffordable.

Why?

Because there is, in the end, only one way to make things more affordable: to reduce prices. And there are only two ways to reduce prices: to reduce demand, or to increase supply.

But governmental interventionism tends to do precisely the reverse. Government interventions are generally designed to increase demand through subsidies, thus increasing prices; or they are designed to reduce supply through restrictions and regulation; or both.

Here is a list of products that have become more expensive since 2000: hospital services; college tuition and fees; college textbooks; medical care services; child care; food and beverage; housing. Here is a list of products that have generally remained the same in terms of price or declined: new cars; household furnishings; clothing; cellphone services; software; toys; televisions. It is no coincidence that the first list includes heavy government regulation and subsidization; the second list includes products that have been left to the supposed predations of the free market. That is because free markets – through competition and its consequent efficiency-seeking – generate more supply and more efficiency.

And yet.

Virtually no politician is willing to say the obvious: that in order to achieve affordability, politicians must be deprived of their power, not given more of it. It’s far easier electorally to pander – to tell voters that if only politicians are given more power, they can fix all voters’ problems.

That’s a lie.

But it’s an increasingly ubiquitous lie on both sides of the aisle. And when politicians deign to tell the truth, they are quickly savaged for it.

Take, for example, H-1B visas. Now, there are many honest questions to be asked about H-1B visas: Do they properly screen for assimilative capacity? Are the jobs for which they screen truly empty of competitive options from American workers? Are employers taking advantage of immigrant laborers? Are we offering too many or too few of these visas? But the overall objection to H-1B visas is broader: It is the general notion that legal skilled immigrant labor harms affordability.

That isn’t true.

Obviously, restricting the supply of labor drives up wages in a protected industry – which makes life more affordable for those particular workers in those particular industries. At least temporarily. But at the other end of the production pipeline is more expensive products. And those prices are passed on to all consumers. And if those products become uncompetitive, consumers turn to other suppliers, those impoverishing precisely the industries targeted for protection – or forcing businesses to offshore or turn to technological substitutes for human labor.

Again, none of this is an argument for unfettered immigration. Mass migration damages America culturally – and unskilled mass migration damages America economically as well. But if we wish to address the affordability crisis, we must actually address it – not just repeat slogans about it, and then hope that, magically, government will be able to solve it.

Media are wrong about pardons for 2020 presidential electors

Fake news was working overtime on Monday by declaring, without authority, that the “full, complete” presidential pardons related to the 2020 presidential election cannot protect against bogus state charges arising from that election. The liberal media wrongly insisted that the Pardon Clause in the U.S. Constitution applies only to charges brought by federal prosecutors.

Not so. The Pardon Clause states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Every attempt in court to narrow the scope of the Pardon Clause has failed.

Our system of dual sovereigns, federal and state, is subject to the Supremacy Clause, which means that state sovereignty cannot limit the scope of the Pardon Clause. It was modeled on the vast, nearly unlimited pardon power of the king of England.

The newly pardoned 77 alternate electors, federal officials, attorneys and activists who objected to voter fraud in 2020 were acting in defense of the integrity of a presidential election, and thus in defense of the United States. Their conduct is fully pardonable by the president, which Trump has appropriately done.

Yet naysayers argue that the term “United States” in the Pardon Clause means only crimes prosecuted by the federal government. If that were true, then the Supreme Court would not have upheld in Ex parte Wells (1856) the last-minute commutation of a death penalty by President Millard Fillmore of a man convicted of murder in a District of Columbia court, as there were no federal common law crimes.

Federal law never denied women the right to vote, but New York prosecuted Susan B. Anthony for voting illegally in the 1872 presidential election, and prosecuted local officials for allowing her to vote. After his reelection as our 18th President, U.S. Grant pardoned the state officials for their violation of state law, and in 2020 President Trump pardoned Susan B. Anthony for casting an illegal vote.

Just last week an all-Democrat panel of the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of Trump’s argument that the charges against him in the so-called hush money case that resulted in 34 felonies should have been heard in a federal court. The charges brought by the New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg accused Trump of violating campaign finance laws during his 2016 campaign for president of the United States.

If a case can be heard in federal court, as all Trump-related cases can be, then the charges are pardonable by the president. No one credibly doubted that President Ford’s pardon of President Nixon protected him against all potential charges relating to the Watergate scandal, including non-federal ones.

The tradition of complete pardons by the president, which began with President George Washington, has always precluded prosecution of the underlying conduct in state court. Those who doubt this broad scope of the pardon power cannot cite any example of a beneficiary of a presidential pardon being prosecuted in state court for the same conduct.

Even Democrat-dominated New York courts shut down an attempted prosecution of Paul Manafort after President Trump granted him a pardon. While the rationale for that decision was based on New York’s strong rule against double jeopardy, the result was to prohibit a first-of-its-kind state prosecution of conduct excused by a presidential pardon.

The ban on slavery in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits its use “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” This is not a reference to the federal government but to all of the States and territories, as demonstrated by the plural pronoun for jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court emphatically held after the Civil War, in Ex parte Garland (1867), that the presidential pardon “is unlimited, with the exception” for cases of impeachment. “It extends to every offence known to the law,” not merely to federal crimes.

Alexander Hamilton, a framer of our Constitution, wrote favorably of a broad pardon power in The Federalist No. 74. Hamilton explained, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

The use of the term “United States” to mean only the federal government and only federal laws is a modern distortion of the elite in Washington, D.C., to puff themselves up. The national liberal media distorts this further by obsessively reporting on D.C. as if that enclave represented the entire United States.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Schick v. Reed (1974), the Framers of the Pardon Clause stated that this power is a “prerogative” of the president, which ought not be “fettered or embarrassed.” The presidential pardon power would be impermissibly undermined if federal charges could be refiled as state charges by an unscrupulous local prosecutor like Alvin Bragg.

BBC issues apologies to Trump, White House for misleading edits of president’s words

President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the America Business Forum Miami at the Kaseya Center in Miami, Florida, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. (Official White House photo by Molly Riley)

Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Donald Trump’s legal team, and BBC chief Samir Shah has penned a separate, and personal, letter to the White House, apologizing for the network’s edit of the president’s words that falsely suggested his responsibility for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

“Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday,” a BBC spokesperson has confirmed. “BBC chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the corporation are sorry for the edit of the president’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.”

The BBC’s Panorama program about the events that day took comments from Trump, omitted his statement about supporters protesting “peacefully” and linked the comments with remarks an hour apart, “to make it appear like one long statement,” according to a report from Fox News.

The BBC statement added, “While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.”

Trump earlier had cited the “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” when he confirmed consideration of a $1 billion lawsuit.

Already, BBC News chief Deborah Turness and BBC director-general Tim Davie have resigned because of the scandal.

At the time he walked away, Turness claimed that, “BBC News is not institutionally biased.”

He added, “Mistakes are made.”

Trump’s legal team had written to the BBC, explained, “the BBC’s reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements.”

They demanded a full and fair retraction.

“If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. EST, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages. The BBC is on notice,” their letter warned.

WND previously reported Trump’s lawyers said statements by the network’s “Panorama” documentary were “fabricated and aired by the BBC,” leaving him no other option than to seek legal remedy.

The broadcast segment, called “Trump: A Second Chance,” was aired in 2024, just before the presidential election.

The president’s lawyers charged the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump’s speech to supporters.

EXCLUSIVE: The BBC is accused of editing a Trump speech to make him seem to back the Capitol riot.

A whistleblower memo says Panorama “completely misled” viewers by cutting key lines

Watch @gordonrayner‘s full breakdown pic.twitter.com/A6nngI44Ll

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) November 3, 2025

“The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: ‘We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.'”

Trump’s actual statement was: “We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

Also edited out, according to the letter, was Trump indicating: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

INSANE: BBC Panorama *edited footage* of Trump’s speech to make it look like he encouraged the Capitol Hill riot.

The Trump hating leftists at the BBC broadcast the programme a week before the US election.

Scrap the licence fee. pic.twitter.com/b40Njc9mIp

— Lee Harris (@addicted2newz) November 3, 2025

‘Political retaliation’: Judge won’t let ICE-storming congresswoman off the hook

U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J.

A judge has ruled against Rep. LaMonica McIver’s claim of immunity from charges over her interference with operations at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.

The ruling also rejected the New Jersey Democrat’s claim of selective enforcement, which she said was a result of President Donald Trump’s antipathy to her.

She was indicted by a grand jury and pleaded not guilty to counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding and interfering with a federal officer.

The incident triggering the case was at an ICE facility in Newark, N.J., where she and other leftists arrived and demanded to be given access to the facility, because as a member of Congress she was exercising “oversight.”

The charges explain she hit a federal agent with her arm, grabbed him, and struck another agent in a scuffle.

She earlier avoided censure in the House.

But the new ruling keeps alive the case against her.

U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper denied McIver’s motion to dismiss the case. She had claimed vindictive prosecution and immunity under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause for Congress.

“The alleged criminal conduct did not occur during Defendant’s inspection of Delany Hall, instead it occurred during an inexplicable delay of Defendant’s oversight inspection. Although Defendant bears no fault in the delay, her alleged intervention into the Mayor’s questionable arrest had no cognizable connection to any legislative function protected by the Speech or Debate Clause,” the judge ruled.

“Defendant’s active participation in the alleged conduct removes her acts from the safe harbor of mere oversight. Lawfully or unlawfully, Defendant actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties,” he wrote.

A leftist legal team claimed that the prosecution now is “a brazen act of political retaliation and a worrying misuse of federal power and resources.”

This after the Joe Biden administration weaponized the CIA, the FBI, and the DOJ against President Trump and brought a long list of different cases against him, going so far as to secretly spy on the telephone records of sitting U.S. senators.

According to the Hill, federal law allows Congress to conduct oversight visits of ICE facilities, but prosecutors said McIver, after arriving, sought to block the arrest of Democrat Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who is not a lawmaker and was ordered to leave. McIver tried to restrain and ‘slammed her forearm’ into one officer as she and others circled the mayor, the indictment charges.

Judge allows prosecution of New Jersey Democratic Rep McIver on assault charge to proceed https://t.co/vNfIb4cZQy

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 13, 2025

Yikes!

A federal judge just refused to dismiss assault charges against New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver, noting she “actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties.”

No one is above the law. pic.twitter.com/K5WERgLoKT

— Gina Milan (@ginamilan_) November 13, 2025

JUST IN: Biden Judge Refuses to Toss Federal Criminal Charges Against Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver https://t.co/I9AxVIHtUu

— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) November 13, 2025

‘Most vocal critic of Donald Trump’: Eric Swalwell referred to DOJ for prosecution for alleged tax and mortgage fraud!

U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., as House impeachment manager on Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2021.

Yet again, a high profile politician who joined the Democrats’ years-long lawfare against President Donald Trump has been referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.

This time it’s California Democrat Eric Swalwall, who schemed with others in a failed impeach-and-remove campaign against Trump. He’s facing alleged tax and mortgage fraud charges,

Already, there have been cases filed against multiple politicians who attacked Trump through that lawfare, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on a promise to “get” Trump. She then accused him of mis-valuing his properties in a case in which the “victims” were happy with the results and wanted to do more business with Trump. An appeals court tossed the resulting unconstitutional penalty.

Also a defendant is fired FBI chief James Comey, whose charges stem from his alleged lies to Congress about leaking secret information to the media. He also prominently posted – just weeks ago – an “86-47” message online, claiming he found seashells in that configuration. The “86” designation was understood to mean end, or get rid of, and “47” is because Trump is the 47th president, after being 45 as well, of course.

The claims against Swalwell come from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who brought allegations against James as well other Trump detractors, California Democrat Adam Schiff as well as Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

The allegations often stem from the individuals’ own claims on federal paperwork, such as designating a home as a primary residence, when it’s not, in order to get getter mortgage terms.

James had been indicted on one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution last month and pleaded not guilty. James’ attorneys have argued the case is politically motivated, saying the administration is targeting her for her role in bringing civil fraud charges against President Trump in New York.

Pulte accused Cook of making misrepresentations on mortgage documents.

BREAKING: Disgraced Rep. Eric Swalwell has been referred to the DOJ for potential CRIMINAL CHARGES after evidence of mortgage fraud was found by FHFA Chair Bill @Pulte, per NBC

Swalwell not only committed mortgage fraud — he deemed himself INELIGIBLE to be a member of… pic.twitter.com/6jNvQH4RVA

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 13, 2025

Rep. Eric Swalwell’s $1.2 million DC home target of DOJ mortgage fraud criminal referral https://t.co/wmJmlp88WN pic.twitter.com/RD7OLwTS8O

— New York Post (@nypost) November 13, 2025

Swalwell immediately claimed to have been the “most vocal critic of Donald Trump over the last decade.”

He claimed he would not stop speaking.

On Targeting Political Opponents – Statement by Representative Swalwell pic.twitter.com/mEAGyBXqF7

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 13, 2025

Swalwell, in fact, has repeatedly been the aggressor against Trump, suing him in 2021 over the Capitol riot that year.

He claimed then that the president incited the violence, an allegation that has failed in other forums.

It was only a day earlier that WND had reported on a columnist’s conclusion that Swalwell apparently has no residence in California, which he represents, possibly running afoul of legal requirements.

It is columnist Joel Gilbert who charged that Swalwell, who has been criticized in recent years for his “alleged ties to the Chinese spy ‘Fang Fang,'” and his “removal from the House Intelligence Committee over national security concerns,” might be in serious trouble.

It’s because Swalwell, on legal documents, formally has declared that his Washington, D.C., property is his “principal residence.” That affirmation comes on his public Deed of Trust for his home.

He made that statement as a condition for a loan on the property.

He apparently has no residence listed, either as owned or rented by him, in California, the report said.

“Under Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress must be ‘inhabitants’ of the state they represent at the time of their election,” Gilbert wrote. “In California, maintaining this inhabitancy means holding tangible, verifiable ties to the state, such as owning or renting a residence, registering to vote, paying state income taxes, and possessing a California driver’s license.”

In fact, the California Elections Code insists a domicile is “the place in which his or her habitation is fixed” and “the place where a person intends to return and remain.”

The report explained, “If Swalwell’s true domicile is in Washington, DC, the city where he has declared his principal residence, he may no longer meet the basic requirement of being a California ‘inhabitant.’ Public records searches have not revealed any home ownership or lease under Eric Swalwell’s name in California.”

The report noted, “Failure to maintain a legitimate residence in California could expose Swalwell to legal, ethical, and electoral repercussions. A false declaration of residency risks tax violations, misrepresentation to lenders, and challenges to his eligibility for re-election.”

 

‘I was very angry about it’: Senators idea to sue over Biden DOJ’s spying hits dead end

Jack Smith

A plan inserted by senators into the hotly contested short-term funding for the U.S. government, which would have allowed them to sue over the actions by Joe Biden’s Department of Justice to confiscate their telephone records, has hit a dead end.

The DOJ, as part of its lawfare under Biden and against President Donald Trump, schemed with telephone companies to access records of the senators’ telephone calling records.

Online commentators have suggested the records were obtained because special counsel Jack Smith, running some of the lawfare against Trump, was planning to use the records in further cases against Trump had he not been elected, and possibly include the senators in some of the cases.

Smith’s cases disintegrated when Trump was elected.

But some senators had inserted into the recently adopted short-term funding plan a provision allowing them to sue, “for a whopping $500,000 each,” over the snooping on their records.

The provision was buried in the legislation and actually allowed senators to sue “if law enforcement seizes or subpoenas their data without proper notification.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson said the House would work immediately to repeal the plan.

Johnson said, of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, “He’s a principled leader; I’ve enjoyed working with him. We’ve got a great working relationship and a good friendship. He’s a trustworthy, honest broker. And that’s why I was so surprised when we found out about that provision. It was put in our clean CR at the last moment. I’m—just to be honest, I’m very transparent with you all—I was very angry about it.”

He said House members didn’t appreciate the move.

He said Thune likely “regretted the way it was done, and we had an honest conversation about that. I didn’t ask him for any commitment at that time because I had a lot on my plate today, and I’ve been busy ever since that conversation we had early this morning.”

He said he’s confident of a House repeal and expects the Senate to follow.

Some of the Senate Republicans already have said they do not intend to try to make their case under the provision.

CBS reported there were eight senators whose records were demanded: Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.

And already at least three, Hagerty, Johnson and Blackburn, have said they have no plans to seek compensation.

“I am for accountability for Jack Smith and everyone complicit in this abuse of power. I do not want and I am not seeking damages for myself paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Hagerty said.

I am for accountability for Jack Smith and everyone complicit in this abuse of power.

I do not want and I am not seeking damages for myself paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Jack Smith targeted President Trump and his most ardent supporters, which includes me.

Jack Smith and…

— Senator Bill Hagerty (@SenatorHagerty) November 13, 2025

Blackburn added, “This fight is not about the money; it is about holding the left accountable for the worst weaponization of government in our nation’s history. If leftist politicians can go after President Trump and sitting members of Congress, they will not hesitate to go after American citizens.”

She said she has no plans to seek payment.

House will vote to undo provision letting senators sue over cell data obtained without notification https://t.co/XsCWLAhmA5

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 13, 2025

BOMBSHELL: FBI Spied on Sitting Republican Senators Under Secret Program “Arctic Frost”

The Judiciary Committee just revealed something HUGE:
The FBI’s secretly pulled the phone records of sitting Republican senators as part of the Jan. 6 probe.
Names include Lindsey… pic.twitter.com/Qu9Jlzbizk

— Project Constitution (@ProjectConstitu) October 7, 2025

Who knew? Stunner in Epstein emails: Hillary doing ‘naughties’ with Vince Foster

Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster were longtime friends and colleagues at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas.

It may be true. Or not.

But a stunner has been found in the release of convicted sex offender Jeff Epstein’s emails.

One says it is his opinion that Hillary Clinton was “doing naughties with Vince,” presumably the suicided Vince Foster.

Jeffrey Epstein claimed that Hillary Clinton had a sexual relationship with former attorney and White House counsel Vince Foster.

Foster committed suicide in 1993.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/MYi9ufPkQq

— AF Post (@AFpost) November 12, 2025

Democrats since President Donald Trump re-entered the White House have been demanding the release of everything Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting that they include damning information about Trump.

Of course, the Biden administration had access to those items for years, and never was able to dig out anything that it could use against Trump. While Trump was acquainted with Epstein, he cut off the relationship years before the sex offender’s lifestyle was known. In fact, one Epstein case insider testified under oath that she was not aware of misbehaviors by Trump.

But now, some of those messages are becoming available, and it appears to have rebounded on the Democrats.

As, according to a report at the Gateway Pundit, one 2016 message from Epstein to disgraced author Michael Wolff “appears to allege that Hillary Clinton has a sexual affair with former White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster.”

Wolff had asked Epstein for a summary on “Nussbaum/foster.”

The May 25, 2016, message includes, “nussbaum white house counsel . . hillary doing naughties with vince.”

The Nussbaum apparently is White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum.

Foster, a longtime Clinton ally, was founded dead July 20, 1993, in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia.

Investigations concluded it was suicide, but, the report said, “Circumstances, such as the lack of fingerprints on the gun, inconsistencies in witness statements, and the missing bullet, have fueled decades of conspiracy theories suggesting foul play by the Clintons.”

The evidence on site, the report said, suggested the body may have been moved there from elsewhere.

And, the report said, no fingerprints were found on the gun, a strange circumstance for a suicide.

One social media personality wondered, “Is this evidence that the emails are real?”

 

Obamacare laundromat