A campaign spokesperson told Fox News Digital that an intern at the campaign’s Phoenix office opened an envelope with a suspicious substance and a note that said, “caution anthrax.”
BREAKING: @KariLake’s office and the entire building is locked down after a staffer opened a letter with a suspicious substance. The staffer is nervous and the substance will be tested. @PhoenixPolice & @PHXFire as well as a hazmat team are there. @RMEJimClark sent the photos. pic.twitter.com/sGMh9IohXU
The campaign called authorities, prompting a response from multiple law enforcement agencies and a hazmat team.
Authorities have not confirmed if the substance was anthrax. The campaign spokesperson said the substance is now being tested.
“The radical left, with help from the mainstream media, has escalated its attacks against me from baseless smears and legal harassment to physical threats. Today, my office received a suspicious envelope, potentially containing anthrax — an attempt to intimidate and silence me,” Lake said in a statement. “This isn’t just about me; it’s an attack on our movement. I won’t be intimidated, and those responsible must be brought to justice. The time to unite against these dangerous, un-American tactics is now.”
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are facing an internal divide over a sensitive and politically risky question: whether Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted associate of Jeffrey Epstein, should be considered for a presidential pardon in exchange for cooperation with investigators.
The discussion has largely taken place behind closed doors, but it reflects a broader tension between uncovering new information and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) acknowledged the split, noting that some Republicans believe Maxwell could provide valuable testimony about Epstein’s network if offered clemency. Still, Comer made clear he is not among them.
He warned that a pardon “looks bad” politically and ethically
He emphasized Maxwell’s central role in the underlying crimes
He argued that granting leniency could undermine trust in the investigation
Comer summed up his position bluntly, describing Maxwell as one of the most culpable figures in the case.
Democrats Firmly Opposed
Democrats on the committee are unified in rejecting any potential deal.
Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) strongly criticized the idea, arguing that offering clemency to Maxwell would be offensive to victims and damaging to the integrity of the investigation.
Key concerns raised by Democrats include:
The impact on survivors of Epstein’s abuse
The credibility of any testimony obtained through a pardon
The risk of public perception shifting toward a “cover-up”
Garcia warned that even considering such an arrangement could erode confidence in the process and send the wrong signal about accountability.
Maxwell’s Leverage and Conditions
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Epstein’s trafficking operation. So far, she has declined to cooperate with congressional investigators under existing conditions.
Her legal team, however, has signaled a willingness to engage if circumstances change.
According to her attorney:
Maxwell would be willing to testify “fully and honestly”
Any cooperation would be contingent on clemency
She is positioned as a key source of information about Epstein’s network
Her attorney has also claimed that Maxwell could shed light on the involvement, or lack thereof, of high-profile figures, including former presidents. Those assertions have not eased skepticism among lawmakers.
The Political and Legal Stakes
President Donald Trump has not ruled out the possibility of granting clemency, leaving the issue open and politically charged.
The debate highlights a difficult tradeoff:
Potential benefit: New details about Epstein’s network and associates
Potential cost: Perceived erosion of justice and accountability
For many lawmakers, the question is not just what Maxwell might reveal, but whether the price of that information is too high.
Why This Matters
At its core, the disagreement reflects a broader challenge facing investigators and policymakers:
How far should the government go to obtain critical information?
Can justice and transparency be balanced in a case with this level of public scrutiny?
There is no clear consensus, and the path forward remains uncertain.
What are your thoughts? Should a pardon be considered if it leads to new information about Epstein’s network? Share your perspective in the comments below.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer delivers remarks during a press briefing at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich., on April 29, 2025. The visit marked President Trump’s 100th day in office, during which he announced the basing of F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets at Selfridge—underscoring the installation’s growing strategic role. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by 2nd Lt. Paige Bodine)
Speaking to reporters Wednesday from the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump said he is open to reviewing the cases of those convicted in connection with the 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, calling the prosecutions potentially unjust and saying “a lot of people think they got railroaded.”
“I’m going to look at it. I will take a look at it. It’s been brought to my attention,” Trump said in response to questions about possible pardons for the men convicted in the case.
“I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job, I’ll be honest with you. It looked to me like some people said some stupid things—you know, they were drinking—and I think they said stupid things.”
The comments come as President Trump continues to highlight what he calls the Biden administration’s weaponization of federal law enforcement and the justice system—a message that resonates with many conservatives concerned about double standards in legal prosecutions.
“A lot of people think they got railroaded,” Trump repeated. “And probably some people don’t. But I’ll take a look at it.”
The case involved Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., who were convicted in 2022 for what federal prosecutors described as a plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer from her Michigan vacation home during the COVID lockdowns. The prosecution’s narrative focused on the pair’s frustration over pandemic mandates, which they said amounted to government overreach.
Fox was sentenced to 16 years in prison, and Croft to 19 years, on multiple conspiracy charges, including a scheme to use a weapon of mass destruction. Prosecutors claimed they were part of a larger militia movement called the “Wolverine Watchmen.”
However, even mainstream legal analysts and civil liberties watchdogs raised concerns at the time about the FBI’s heavy involvement in the case, including the use of over a dozen informants and undercover agents who appeared to guide, encourage, and escalate the planning efforts.
Some defense attorneys went so far as to claim that the plot was manufactured by federal operatives, with one legal team calling it a “federal setup from day one.” In fact, three other men tried later in connection with the plot were acquitted on all charges in 2023, further fueling criticism that the entire case may have been an exercise in political theater during a heated election cycle.
President Trump’s interest in revisiting the case follows his recent high-profile pardon of former Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins, a well-known Virginia conservative convicted in a controversial cash-for-badges case. Trump described Jenkins as a victim of a “corrupt and weaponized Biden DOJ,” echoing his belief that the justice system has been used selectively to punish his political allies.
Could Trump’s legal troubles come back to haunt him?
President Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon predicted Thursday that President Trump will go to prison if a Democrat wins back the White House in 2028.
“God forbid we don’t win in ’28, President Trump is going to prison,” Bannon, who was Trump’s advisor in his first presidency, said Thursday during an appearance on Real America’s Voice.
“And people are sitting around – still with the glow of November 4th and all the inaugurations and all the balls. We’re at war and things that’ve happened in the last 72 hours, if you don’t understand we’re in political warfare, you’re not awake,” he said, in remarks highlighted by Mediaite.
Trump’s flurry of executive actions since taking office in January has spurred myriad legal cases. Courts have repeatedly paused actions like mass firings of federal workers and sweeping moves on immigration.
Bannon did not specify what charges might send Trump to prison. He also warned Democrats would seek to remove Trump from office if they win back the House next year.
“We are kidding ourselves if we don’t think that Democrats are pulling all stops out to stop President Trump to take the House through any means necessary to impeach Trump,” he said.
Last year, Special Counsel Jack Smith dismissed his two cases after Trump’s electoral victory, referencing the Department of Justice policy that prohibits prosecuting sitting presidents. A fourth case in Georgia remains technically open, though it is effectively inactive. He was convicted on 34 felony counts in a hush money case in New York.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is once again sounding alarms ahead of a major election—this time warning that Republicans aligned with Donald Trump could attempt to manipulate voting systems in the 2026 midterms.
In a sit-down interview with MSNBC’s Ali Vitali, the former House Speaker—long one of Trump’s most vocal critics—predicted Democratic success in the upcoming elections but cautioned supporters to stay vigilant against what she suggested could be underhanded GOP tactics.
“There are so many things that you can do to protect the election, and they are being done, whether it’s litigation or legislation or just mobilization, communication, all of that. But in addition to that, we have to be on guard as to what they may try to do to the technology. They may try to creep into the technology and create a false count,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi, who has spent years opposing Trump and his political movement, framed her concerns as part of a broader battle over the integrity of American democracy. She has consistently accused Trump and his allies of undermining democratic norms—particularly following the 2020 election—and her latest comments reflect that ongoing distrust.
Her remarks come as Democrats continue to push back against Republican-led redistricting efforts and the SAVE Act, a GOP-backed bill that would require stricter voter identification. While the legislation has passed the House, it faces steep odds in the Senate.
Pelosi didn’t hold back in her assessment of Republicans’ motivations.
“Pelosi accused Republicans of having ‘no commitment to the rule of law and doing things the appropriate way.’”
Despite her warnings, Pelosi struck a confident tone about Democratic prospects, outlining what she sees as the party’s core mission heading into the midterms.
“We have three purposes now. One is to win the midterm. Two is to make sure the elections are safe. And three, tell people what we will do when we win. That is the mission,” she said.
The longtime Democratic leader also reflected on the party’s future, predicting that a woman will eventually become president—though she does not expect to see it herself. She credited Vice President Kamala Harris with energizing voters during the 2024 election cycle.
“She turned out so many more people than who would have voted,” Pelosi said.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams is looking for support anywhere he can get it.
Adams said he would “welcome support from every American” in response to a question from the Washington Examiner about whether he would accept former President Donald Trump’s favor.
Trump recently said he had predicted Adams would be “indicted within a year” as the mayor called for federal government funds to deal with the city’s migrant crisis.
“Listen, I welcome support from every American,” Adams said Tuesday at a press conference. “No matter where they are and who they are, I welcome support from every American. Those who know me and know how I am, and those who are just reading up on this. So every American in this great country, I welcome support from.”
Trump’s comments last week suggested that he sympathized with the mayor.
“I watched about a year ago when he talked about how the illegal migrants are hurting our city, and the federal government should pay us, and we shouldn’t have to take them,” the former president said. “And I said, ‘You know what? He’ll be indicted within a year,’ and I was exactly right.”
Watch:
An Adams spokesman believes press coverage of Adams’s remarks has been misguided.
“This is a distortion of what the mayor said today,” Fabien Levy, Adams’s deputy mayor for communications, said in a social media post. “He never said he was looking for Trump’s support. Mayor Adams has said multiple times that he supports Kamala Harris for president. In fact, the mayor traveled to Chicago to support her historic nomination in August.”
Adams was recently indicted on five corruption charges, including bribery and wire fraud, for his actions allegedly soliciting benefits from foreign nationals, namely Turkish government officials, in exchange for favors.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams could be facing a bevy of new charges after being indicted last week in a federal corruption case. On Wednesday, prosecutors said that further counts are “quite likely” and that more defendants may be implicated.
Another disturbing example of political intolerance turned violent this week in Florida, where a 72-year-old man wearing a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat was allegedly attacked by a woman enraged over his support for President Donald J. Trump.
According to authorities, Laura Garrett, 33, approached the elderly man at Northeast Park and Paw Place in Largo, Florida, and began interrogating him about his political views and why he supports President Trump. The man has not been publicly identified, but what followed was anything but a civil conversation.
Police say Garrett became physically aggressive, ultimately pouring the contents of a can over the man’s head and then striking him on the back of his head and shoulders with it. While Garrett later denied striking him, officers noted her conflicting statements and eyewitness evidence in the official arrest affidavit obtained by FOX 13 Tampa Bay.
After the assault, Garrett jumped a fence and fled the scene, leaving behind a shaken elderly victim whose only “offense” was expressing his support for a former U.S. president.
Police located Garrett shortly afterward, but her combative behavior didn’t stop there.
When officers attempted to arrest her, Garrett resisted and escalated the situation. According to the report, she intentionally dropped to the ground to avoid being handcuffed and later wrapped both legs around an officer, causing him to fall and suffer a bruised knee. That altercation resulted in a second battery charge—this time against a law enforcement officer.
Even after being restrained, Garrett continued to kick and struggle with police, making her arrest anything but routine.
She now faces multiple charges, including:
Battery on a person over 65 (a more serious offense under Florida law)
President Donald Trump’s controversial settlement with the IRS is drawing mounting criticism after reports revealed the agreement may shield Trump, his family, and affiliated business entities from certain future tax scrutiny while dramatically expanding the administration’s new “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
According to multiple reports, the Justice Department quietly added language to the deal that would permanently bar the IRS from pursuing certain examinations involving Trump family tax filings submitted before the agreement was finalized. The protections reportedly extend beyond Trump himself to related family members, trusts, businesses, and affiliated entities.
The additional language surfaced after Trump agreed to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the disclosure of his tax returns. In return, the administration established an approximately $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” designed to compensate people who claim they were targeted through politically motivated government actions.
As Politicoreported, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the broad addendum — a move that appears aimed at ending Trump’s long-running conflicts with the IRS.
But questions surrounding the agreement have quickly followed.
The document reportedly does not include signatures from any IRS official or any attorney currently representing Trump. Metadata embedded in the file indicates it was created or scanned at roughly 7:50 a.m. Tuesday.
Blanche also was not among the officials who signed the original settlement agreement, which instead included signatures from Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and Trump attorney Daniel Epstein.
The Justice Department did not immediately explain why the new waiver language was absent from the agreement publicly released earlier or why different signatories appear on the updated document.
Former IRS officials are warning the arrangement could establish a major precedent.
John Koskinen, IRS commissioner from 2013 through 2017, argued that exempting a sitting president from future scrutiny raises significant concerns.
“It makes you wonder what the President has to hide in those tax returns,” Koskinen said in a statement. “Not auditing his returns is the same as giving him an easy way to, in effect, receive money from the government.”
Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner from 2023 to 2025, said he was unaware of any precedent in which the IRS had “agreed in advance to permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business.”
Critics say the controversy extends beyond tax policy itself. Because Trump reached the agreement while leading the executive branch, opponents argue he was effectively negotiating with agencies operating under his own administration — a dynamic they say creates an extraordinary appearance of conflict.
Some opponents have also described the new Anti-Weaponization Fund as a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” that could disproportionately benefit Trump allies and politically connected figures.
The administration has defended the settlement as a lawful response to improper disclosures of confidential taxpayer information and broader allegations that federal agencies had been politically weaponized. Legal analysts, however, continue debating whether portions of the agreement — particularly the reported audit restrictions — could face future constitutional or legal challenges.
Is FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino circling the drain? His former Fox News colleague says so.
On Sunday, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson essentially hosted a funeral for Bongino’s career and credibility after the former Fox contributor reportedly threatened to resign over Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
On Culture Apothecary, host Alex Clark asked Carlson to weigh in on the feud.
“Well, as we’re recording this, Dan Bongino is threatening to resign if Pam Bondi does not resign as AG. What does that tell us, in your opinion?” she inquired.
“Well, it tells us that Dan Bongino got shafted, completely shafted. And I’m saying this as a friend of his, and someone who respects and likes him, but also just as an observer, I’m an informed observer of it,” replied Carlson. “So Pam Bondi, who’s, by the way, I don’t hate Pam Bondi, she’s a totally nice person. If he was here, you would enjoy-, I don’t know if you know her, but she’s a very nice person. I’m not against Pam Bondi in the slightest. But the fact is she got on television on Fox News and started saying stuff like, ‘I’ve got the client list on my desk!’ And actually, no, you don’t. And, ‘I’ve got thousands of videos of Epstein having sex with kids.’ Well, actually, no, you don’t. Most of the material was commercial porn taken off his computer. Like, that’s just not true. Why did she say that? Probably because she’s insecure and she’s trying to please the audience, I would expect.”
“Do you think Dan is upset because his integrity is being questioned now over her mistake?” followed up Clark.
“Of course! Oh my gosh! So you’re Dan, and you’re a media figure, and you’ve got one of the biggest podcasts in the country, and you’re making tons of money, and you’re having a great time — which he was. You just built this brand new studio in Florida, you work with your wife who you really like, which he does, and you get the call saying, ‘You be deputy FBI director,’ and you’re like, ‘I love Donald Trump, I love this country. I will cut my pay into a 10th of what it was, and I will leave my house and move to D.C.,’ which is a kind of prison sentence itself,” answered Carlson. “‘And I will do this because I love the president, I love the country,’ and you’re there a few months, and all of a sudden everybody thinks you’re covering up Epstein’s crimes, and it kind of wrecks Dan’s career. Like he can’t go back-, it’s gonna be very hard at this point, I mean, things may change, but as of today, pretty hard for Dan to go back to his podcast audience and be like, ‘I’m telling you the truth,’ when they all think that he’s covering up for Epstein.”
“Who did that? Pam Bondi did that,” he added, before going on to say he “feel[s]” for Bongino.
The Justice Department last week released a memo concluding there was no evidence suggesting the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender kept a “client list” to blackmail high-profile individuals. The memo also found no evidence to suggest foul play in Epstein’s death, which had previously been ruled a suicide.
The memo spurred fierce backlash from many Trump supporters, who had long called on the government to release material on Epstein that they argue would expose wrongdoing at the highest level of elite circles.
Dan Bongino, the Deputy Director of the FBI, reportedly threatened to leave the bureau if Attorney General Pam Bondi remains on the job due to her handling of the Epstein files, a source close to Bongino told The Daily Wire.
One source close to Bongino predicted to Axios, “He ain’t coming back.”
CNN reports that Trump — who has been desperate to move past the Epstein story — was furious at Bongino, as well as FBI Director Kash Patel. Vice President JD Vance reportedly tried to hammer out a peace between the administration’s top Justice Department officials. But CNN reports that Bongino is still very much hanging by a thread.
“It remains to be seen if Bongino ultimately resigns, which he told others he was considering,” the CNN report stated. “But sources say his relationship with the White House has become basically untenable. Even if he does not quit now, some inside the administration believe he will not stay in the job long-term.”
However, President Donald Trump said on Sunday he believes FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is “in good shape” following a reported clash with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“I spoke to him today,” Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews. “Dan Bongino, very good guy. I’ve known him a long time. I’ve done his show many, many times. And he sounded terrific actually. No, I think he’s in good shape.”
Watch: Discussion of the Epstein files begins around 14:14 in the video.
The Justice Department is forcefully pushing back against a striking legal claim from the man accused of planting pipe bombs in Washington, D.C., on the eve of Jan. 6 — that he was effectively pardoned by President Trump.
In a court filing Friday, prosecutors urged a federal judge to reject Brian Cole Jr.’s attempt to have his charges thrown out, calling his argument flatly incompatible with the “clear and unambiguous terms” of Trump’s sweeping Jan. 6 clemency order.
Cole, who was arrested in December 2025 after years of investigation, is accused of placing two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021 — just hours before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The devices never detonated, but the FBI has said they were functional and viable, raising the stakes of a case that remained unsolved for nearly five years.
Earlier this year, Cole’s lawyers made a bold move: They argued that his actions were “inextricably and demonstrably tethered” to the events of Jan. 6 — and therefore covered by Trump’s mass pardon of people tied to the attack.
They pointed to the broad language in Trump’s order, which applies to offenses “related to” events at or near the Capitol, and noted that Cole allegedly traveled to Washington for an election protest tied to the same political moment that fueled the riot.
But the Justice Department isn’t buying it.
“The defendant ignores that the proclamation expressly limited relief to individuals who had been ‘convicted of,’ or had a ‘pending indictment’ for, offenses related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro wrote.
That distinction, prosecutors argue, is decisive.
When Trump’s pardon took effect on Jan. 20, 2025, Cole had not yet been charged — putting him outside the scope of the order entirely.
“The defendant belonged to neither category, and so the proclamation has no bearing on this case,” Pirro wrote.
Cole was indicted weeks later, in January 2026, on charges including interstate transportation of explosives and malicious attempt to use them.
Prosecutors also made clear that even a broader reading of the pardon wouldn’t help him.
“Even if the Court somehow found, notwithstanding its text, that the proclamation could apply to this case,” Pirro wrote, the Justice Department’s interpretation should still prevail as a “consistent, reasonable” reading by the agency tasked with enforcing it.
The clash sets up a high-stakes test of how far Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons can stretch — and whether conduct that happened before the riot, but is arguably connected to it, can fall under their umbrella.
For now, the Justice Department’s position is blunt: Not this case. Not this defendant.
