Government

Home Government

Hunter Biden Admits His ‘Bias’ Towards Pardons, Says Founders ‘Didn’t Imagine Trump’

President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

Hunter Biden is openly acknowledging what critics have argued for months: when it comes to his father’s sweeping pardon, he is anything but objective.

“I’m completely biased as it relates to what my dad did for me. I fully understand how uniquely situated I am in being privileged enough to have received a pardon from my father,” Hunter said in an interview published by liberal outlet MediasTouch.

The admission revives scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s dramatic reversal on the issue. After repeatedly insisting he would not grant clemency to his son, Biden ultimately issued a sweeping pardon—undercutting Democrats’ long-standing “no one is above the law” message as Hunter faced serious federal charges.

Despite conceding his own bias, Hunter declined to weigh in on potential reforms to the presidential pardon system. Instead, he pivoted to attacking former President Donald Trump’s use of the same authority, pointing to the more than 1,000 individuals pardoned in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protest.

Hunter Biden was granted an unusually broad pardon covering any offense he “has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024—a scope that drew bipartisan criticism.

“I was filled with gratitude,” he said of his father’s decision.

The legal backdrop is significant. In September 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges tied to a scheme that evaded more than $1.4 million in taxes. Months earlier, he was convicted in Delaware for lying about his drug use on a federal firearm purchase form.

Still, Hunter sought to shift the focus toward Trump and his family, saying, “I don’t think that the founders ever imagined Donald Trump. I don’t think they ever imagined the Trump family.”

He also attempted to contrast pardon totals: “I don’t think people understand is that, in the first year, I think—I don’t know the exact number—I think my dad gave 80 or so pardons over a four-year period of time. I think that that’s about the number.”

He added, “Donald Trump has given over 1,500 pardons in the first year alone. But I’m obviously—I’m not the one to be, I don’t think, fairly or unbiasedly talking about the presidential pardon vote.”

Trump, notably, did not pardon any of his children during his presidency, though he did grant clemency in 2020 to Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.

The White House defended Trump’s record, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying he has used his authority to pardon individuals who were victims of what she described as a “weaponized justice system.”

Jackson also criticized Biden’s final actions in office, arguing that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen,” citing clemency for violent offenders and “proactive pardons he ‘signed’ for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door.”

In addition to Hunter, Biden issued pardons to several relatives, including his brother James, sister-in-law Sara, sister Valerie, and brother Francis—moves he framed as necessary protection against political retaliation.

READ NEXT: Congresswoman Resigns In Stunning Last-Minute Exit

FBI Director Kash Patel Sues The Atlantic For $250M

Image via gage Skidmore Flickr

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and one of its reporters, accusing the publication of running what he describes as a “malicious” and false report about his conduct in office.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C., centers on a weekend article that alleged Patel engaged in excessive drinking, erratic behavior, and unexplained absences while leading the FBI.

Patel has denied the allegations, calling them “categorically false” and claiming the article relied heavily on anonymous sources with political bias.

In the complaint, Patel’s legal team argues that The Atlantic knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth — a standard known as “actual malice,” which public figures must prove in defamation cases.

His attorneys also say the outlet was warned prior to publication that the claims were untrue but proceeded anyway.

The Atlantic report cited multiple unnamed sources who claimed Patel’s alleged behavior raised concerns inside the FBI and Justice Department.

Among the allegations:

  • Frequent intoxication
  • Missed or rescheduled meetings
  • Periods of being unreachable during critical moments

The magazine’s article, titled “The FBI Director Is MIA,” cited more than two dozen anonymous sources who described a series of troubling incidents.

According to the report, Patel is alleged to have engaged in “conspicuous inebriation” at high-profile clubs in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas. Officials cited in the article also claimed Patel, 46, has had “unexplained absences” and has frequently delayed or rescheduled meetings and briefings following what were described as “alcohol-fueled nights.”

In one instance, the report states Patel was so unresponsive behind locked doors that his security detail requested “breaching equipment” — typically used by SWAT teams — to gain entry and check on his condition.

The article also described an episode in which Patel reportedly believed he had been fired after being unable to log into his FBI computer system, later discovering the issue was due to a technical error.

Fox News continues:

The lawsuit states The Atlantic, and its staff writer, Sarah Fitzpatrick, must be held “accountable for a sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece published on April 17, 2026.”

It continued, “Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office.”

Fitzpatrick reported, among other claims, that Patel has been difficult to wake up by his security team on multiple occasions because he was seemingly intoxicated.

Patel vowed over the weekend to sue The Atlantic for the story. He told Fox News Digital, “The Atlantic’s story is a lie. They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway. I took this job to protect the American people and this FBI has delivered the most prolific reduction in crime in US history. Fake news won’t report it, and their toxicity will never erode nor stop our mission.”

The Atlantic and Fitzpatrick have defended the article, saying it was based on extensive reporting and multiple sources.

READ NEXT: Fox News Stars Pound Vulnerable Republican Over Bombshell ‘Undocumented’ Vote

Greene Questions Details Of Trump Assassination Attempt

Marjorie Taylor Greene -Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, via Wikimedia Commons

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the 2024 assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, adding to growing debate within fringe circles over the incident.

Greene suggested in comments and social media posts that aspects of the shooting remain unclear, pointing to what she described as unanswered questions about how the attack unfolded and how security failures occurred.

Her remarks come despite official investigations concluding that the incident involved a lone gunman who opened fire at a campaign rally, grazing Trump’s ear before being killed by law enforcement.

As Mediaite reports:

Authorities identified 20-year-old Thomas Crooks as the sole shooter in the incident that injured Trump and two others. 50-year-old rally-goer Corey Comperatore, who was seated behind Trump, was killed, and Crooks was killed by authorities.

Since then, some MAGA stalwarts have joined other critics in calling for detailed information on the investigation into the shooting.

Greene retweeted a lengthy post by Trisha Hope, a self-described “J6 Activist,” in which she questioned the shooting and the legitimacy of the famous photo of a bloodied Trump with his fist in the air yelling, “Fight, fight, fight!”

Greene called Hope’s post an “Extremely important post worth the read and consideration.”

While Greene has amplified claims circulating online that question whether the full details of the incident have been disclosed, no evidence has been presented to support those theories.

Her remarks reflect a broader pattern among some political figures and commentators, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who have expressed skepticism about the investigation’s findings.

Authorities have described the Butler shooting as a targeted assassination attempt carried out by a single attacker. The incident resulted in Trump being injured and at least one rally attendee killed, prompting a large-scale federal investigation involving the FBI and other agencies.

Subsequent congressional hearings also examined security lapses that allowed the shooter to access the rally site, with bipartisan calls for greater transparency and accountability from the Secret Service.

There is no indication from federal authorities that the official conclusions of the investigation are being reconsidered.

However, the renewed attention on the Butler incident suggests it will remain a subject of political debate as the 2026 election cycle continues.

READ NEXT: House Dems Make Shameless Move Against Key Trump Official

Acting ICE Director Resigns

Indian Affairs Committee Hearings to examine Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act successes and opportunities at the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service, in Washington, DC on September 17, 2025. (Official U.S. Senate photo by Ryan Donnell)

Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is stepping down after a turbulent tenure defined by record deportations, internal tensions, and mounting political pressure.

Lyons submitted his resignation Thursday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, saying he plans to remain in the role through May to help with the transition. His departure comes as Mullin takes over the department following Kristi Noem’s exit.

“Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer,” Mullin said in a statement. “We wish him luck on his next opportunity in the private sector.”

No official reason was given for Lyons’ resignation, capping a 20-year career at the agency he joined in 2007. He was appointed to lead ICE in March of last year, replacing Caleb Vitello, and quickly became a central figure in President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation push.

During his tenure, ICE carried out roughly 584,000 removals, a record pace that drew praise from allies and scrutiny from critics. Lyons also faced backlash over high-profile controversies, including the fatal shooting of Renee Good during Operation Metro Surge. At a January congressional hearing, Lyons declined to apologize to Good’s family.

A month later, he said two ICE officers involved in a separate January shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant had made “untruthful statements” under oath. Both officers were placed under investigation by the Justice Department.

Behind the scenes, Lyons navigated reported divisions within the Department of Homeland Security. He was closely aligned with Border Czar Tom Homan on deportation strategy, while other officials, including Noem and former Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino, took different approaches. The split fueled ongoing reports of internal friction.

Homan defended Lyons’ record on Thursday, telling NBC that under his leadership, “ICE achieved a record number of removals in the first year of this Administration, despite unprecedented challenges.”

“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan added.

Lyons also faced intense pressure from the White House, where Trump and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pushed for daily deportation targets in the thousands.

“Todd is a phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader who has been at the center of President Trump’s historic efforts to secure our homeland and reverse the Democrats’ sinister border invasion,” Miller said.

The strain appeared to take a toll. Lyons was hospitalized at least twice in recent months, and current and former officials described him as “visibly upset and struggling” under the weight of the administration’s demands.

His tenure also drew legal challenges. In January, a federal judge ordered Lyons to appear in court to explain why ICE repeatedly failed to carry out court-ordered bond hearings for detained immigrants.

Now, as Lyons prepares to step down, ICE faces another leadership transition at a time when immigration enforcement remains one of the administration’s most politically charged priorities.

Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals To DOJ For 2 Officials Linked To Trump Impeachment

1
Tulsi Gabbard via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has referred two former U.S. officials to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation, escalating efforts to revisit the events that led to President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.

A spokesperson for Gabbard confirmed that the referrals target a whistleblower and former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, both of whom played central roles in the 2019 inquiry. The spokesperson did not specify what crimes were alleged, and any decision to pursue charges rests with federal prosecutors.

The move follows Gabbard’s release of newly declassified testimony and documents that she argues show a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community to “manufacture a conspiracy” used to justify Trump’s impeachment.

Atkinson’s actions were instrumental in advancing a whistleblower complaint that raised concerns about Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In that call, Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate then–former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The whistleblower wrote at the time: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

Gabbard has sharply disputed the legitimacy of that complaint and Atkinson’s handling of it. Her office said Atkinson relied on “secondhand information” and “politicized, manufactured narratives,” and “did not follow standard IG procedures.”

“In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a ‘preliminary investigation,’” her office said, quoting testimony in which he acknowledged he had not determined whether the alleged actions “actually took place.”

Under federal law, however, an inspector general’s role at that stage is limited to assessing whether a whistleblower complaint appears credible, not to fully investigate or verify the claims.

In a post on X, Gabbard accused “deep state actors” of constructing “a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019.”

Atkinson, who was fired by Trump in 2020, previously defended his conduct, saying he had “faithfully discharged” his duties and served “without regard to partisan favor or political fear.”

Democrats quickly condemned the referrals and the broader effort to revisit the impeachment.

Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the whistleblower “demonstrated courage and principle” in exposing Trump’s “efforts to extort Ukraine and falsely smear his opponent.”

“This apparent criminal referral will amount to nothing because no misconduct occurred,” Himes said. “But what it will do is chill future whistleblowers from coming forward… I suspect that is precisely the point.”

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed the declassified materials as “a nothingburger” and “another sad attempt… to get in Donald Trump’s good graces.”

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress tied to the Ukraine matter. He was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020 in a largely party-line vote and has consistently denied wrongdoing, calling his conversation with Zelenskyy “perfect.”

The latest referrals come as part of a broader push by Gabbard and other officials to reexamine controversies from Trump’s first term, including intelligence assessments of Russian election interference. While some figures connected to those investigations have been subpoenaed in ongoing probes, no charges have been filed.

At the same time, the effort unfolds against a backdrop of renewed political and legal scrutiny surrounding Trump. While prior impeachment proceedings ended in acquittal and are widely viewed as politically unlikely to result in removal from office, they continue to shape partisan divisions in Washington. Any new impeachment-related efforts would face long odds in Congress, particularly given the high threshold required for conviction in the Senate.

Still, the renewed focus on the 2019 impeachment underscores how the political battles of Trump’s presidency continue to reverberate, with competing narratives over the Ukraine episode remaining central to broader debates about executive power, accountability, and the role of intelligence agencies in U.S. politics.

House Dems Introduce Multiple Impeachment Articles Against Hegseth

2
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

House Democrats are taking another shot at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth—this time with five new articles of impeachment tied to the Iran war, even as past efforts have gone nowhere.

Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) is leading the charge, accusing Hegseth of war crimes, abuse of power, and mishandling the Pentagon. The resolution, backed by eight other Democrats, is the latest in a growing pile of impeachment attempts targeting the Trump administration.

Ansari, who announced her plan last week, blasted Hegseth as “complicit” in what she called President Donald Trump’s “devastating, illegal war” in Iran.

The articles accuse Hegseth of overseeing an “unauthorized war against Iran,” endangering U.S. troops, targeting civilians, and violating the laws of armed conflict. Other charges claim he mishandled sensitive information and blocked Congress from getting answers about military operations.

One flashpoint: Hegseth’s use of the Signal app on a personal phone to discuss a pending strike in Yemen—an episode that raised eyebrows after a journalist was accidentally added to the chat. A Pentagon watchdog said the incident put troops at risk and broke department policy, though the Department insists it amounted to a “total exoneration.”

The resolution also accuses Hegseth of hiding details about operations in Iran and Venezuela and abusing his power to go after political opponents.

But like earlier efforts, this one is almost certain to stall. Republicans control the House, and previous impeachment attempts against Hegseth have fizzled out.

In December, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) filed similar articles accusing Hegseth of war crimes tied to U.S. strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats—an effort that never gained traction.

Even so, Democrats are escalating.

The Trump administration isn’t backing down. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson blasted the move as political theater.

“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson said. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

Bottom line: another impeachment push, another uphill battle—but the drumbeat against Hegseth is getting louder as the Iran conflict fuels fresh political fights in Washington.

House Democrats File Bill to Form 25th Amendment Commission to Assess Trump’s Mental Fitness

8
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is leading the latest Democratic push to remove President Donald Trump from office—but like past efforts, this one faces steep odds, even as it draws a larger bloc of support.

Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has rolled out a new bill backed by roughly 50 House Democrats that would create a commission to evaluate Trump’s mental fitness under the 25th Amendment.

The proposal would assemble a bipartisan panel of physicians and former top officials to determine whether Trump is “mentally or physically unable” to carry out his duties.

“The Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to create a body that will guarantee the successful continuity of government by responding to presidential incapacity to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Raskin said. “We have a solemn duty to play our defined role under the 25th Amendment by setting up this body to act alongside the Vice President and the Cabinet.”

He added, “Public trust in Donald Trump’s ability to meet the duties of his office has dropped to unprecedented lows as he threatens to destroy entire civilizations.”

Raskin has also formally pushed for a medical evaluation of the president, citing what he called “incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening” public comments tied to the Iran conflict.

But here’s the reality: the effort is a long shot.

Republicans still control both chambers of Congress, meaning the bill is unlikely to pass—and even if it did, Trump could veto it. More importantly, the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the Cabinet to sign off on removing Trump, a scenario widely seen as improbable.

Even in the unlikely event that hurdle were cleared, Congress would still need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to make any removal permanent.

In other words, this is far from a realistic path to ousting the president.

Still, the size of the backing is notable. About 50 Democrats have signed on, making this one of the more organized removal efforts of Trump’s second term so far.

It also comes amid a broader wave of attempts by Democrats to challenge Trump’s presidency—from new impeachment articles filed by multiple lawmakers to calls for the 25th Amendment following his escalating rhetoric on Iran.

That pattern isn’t new. Trump was impeached twice during his first term, with both efforts ultimately failing to remove him from office in the Senate. Now, similar political battles are resurfacing, though with slightly broader coordination this time.

The White House quickly dismissed Raskin’s latest push.

“Lightweight Jamie Raskin is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person,” said spokesperson Davis Ingle. “President Trump’s sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the past four years when Democrats like Raskin intentionally covered up Joe Biden’s serious mental and physical decline from the American people.”

Trump himself has defended his rhetoric, arguing his hardline stance forced Iran to the negotiating table and helped secure a temporary ceasefire.

For now, Raskin’s plan is unlikely to go anywhere. But the growing number of Democrats backing it—and the renewed push for impeachment and removal—signals that the political fight over Trump’s presidency is only heating up.

Former White House Chief of Staff Seeks Reimbursement From DOJ For Legal Fees From Trump-related Probes

3
Office of Congressman Mark Meadows, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Mark Meadows is asking the Justice Department to cover his mounting legal bills tied to the wave of Trump-era investigations — and it could ultimately leave taxpayers on the hook.

The former White House chief of staff, a central figure in President Trump’s post-2020 election fight, quietly submitted the request earlier this year. It comes as the DOJ is already juggling a flood of claims tied to Trump, including lawsuits from the former president himself and even Jan. 6 defendants seeking payouts.

Meadows was never charged in Jack Smith’s federal case, but he was swept up in aggressive state prosecutions in Georgia and Arizona over the so-called “fake electors” effort. Trump later pardoned him, and Georgia prosecutors dropped their case — but Arizona remains unresolved.

Now comes the price tag…

Court filings show Meadows has already spent well over $2 million on lawyers, including big-name firms and a former top DOJ appellate attorney. Some of those costs were reportedly covered by a conservative nonprofit, raising fresh scrutiny from watchdog groups.

His pitch to DOJ hinges on a key argument: he was acting in his official role at the time — meaning the government should help foot the bill.

That’s far from guaranteed.

Justice Department rules allow reimbursement in limited cases, but officials weigh factors like whether the actions served the “interest of the United States.” Translation: not every political fight qualifies.

Meanwhile, Meadows is also trying to claw back legal costs in Georgia under a new state law — part of a broader push by multiple defendants seeking more than $17 million combined. That effort is now tied up in court.

The bottom line:
A top Trump ally is asking Washington to pay for the legal fallout of one of the most controversial chapters in modern politics — and whether taxpayers will actually be forced to cover it remains an open question.

Report: United CEO Pitches Merger to Trump That Would Create World’s Largest Airline

Image via Pixabay

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby is reportedly floating a blockbuster idea inside the Trump orbit: a potential merger with American Airlines that would create the largest airline in the world — and instantly reshape the U.S. aviation industry.

According to reports, Kirby raised the possibility toward the end of a White House meeting focused on the future of Washington Dulles International Airport. The timing is notable. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has already launched an initiative to “revitalize” Dulles, signaling a broader push to strengthen major U.S. travel hubs and compete globally.

And the stakes are massive. Data from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority shows that a dominant 68.5 percent of commercial passengers at Dulles in December flew United — underscoring just how much influence one airline already holds at a key East Coast gateway.

Now imagine that power combined.

In 2023, United and American ranked first and third, respectively, in revenue by passenger miles among U.S.-based airlines, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. A merger between the two wouldn’t just be big — it would create an aviation giant unlike anything seen before, potentially giving the U.S. a dominant global carrier at a time of rising international competition.

Kirby, who knows both companies well, previously served as president of American Airlines after its 2013 merger with U.S. Airways before joining United in 2016 — adding another layer of intrigue to the reported pitch.

Not surprisingly, the reaction from Washington’s political class — especially on the left — was immediate and hostile.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) fired off a blunt response on X, writing, “That’s gonna be a no.”

Matt Stoller, a researcher at the anti-monopolist American Economic Liberties Project, went even further, calling the idea “corporate crime” that is “now legal.”

But behind the outrage is a deeper policy divide. Under Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson, the Federal Trade Commission has taken a more business-friendly approach than it did under former Chair Lina Khan, whose aggressive antitrust stance often targeted large corporate mergers. For many conservatives, that shift reflects a broader belief that American companies need scale to compete with state-backed foreign rivals — particularly in industries like aviation.

Still, even some legal experts say the proposal would face an uphill battle.

Antitrust lawyer Seth Bloom told Reuters the deal would be unlikely to survive regulatory scrutiny, warning that it could hit consumers where it hurts most: prices.

“The administration has said it really cares about the issues that affect the consumer’s pocketbook, and this would give the airlines more pricing power,” Bloom said.

That tension — between building a stronger, more competitive American airline industry and protecting consumers from higher costs — is likely to define the debate if this idea gains traction.

For now, Kirby’s reported pitch remains just that — a pitch.

Supreme Court Shuts Down ‘Progressive’ Candidate’s GOP Primary Play

2
Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court just put a hard stop to a political stunt in Ohio.

A self-described progressive candidate tried to game the system — running as a Republican in a deep-red congressional district — and it didn’t work.

Samuel Ronan, a former Democratic candidate, filed to run in the GOP primary against Rep. Mike Carey. To get on the ballot, he signed a legal declaration swearing he was a Republican.

Problem: he’d already said publicly that the whole thing was a strategy — running Democrats as Republicans in “deep red districts” to “get a foot in the door.”

That didn’t sit well with actual Republican voters.

One of them filed a formal protest, pointing to Ronan’s own words as proof he was trying to mislead voters. The local elections board split along party lines, and Ohio’s Secretary of State stepped in to break the tie — kicking Ronan off the ballot.

Ronan sued, claiming the state violated his First Amendment rights by using his political speech against him.

A federal judge wasn’t buying it.

You can change parties, the court said. You can say whatever you want politically. But you can’t sign a legal document under penalty of fraud and expect the state to ignore clear evidence you didn’t mean it.

Or, as the judge put it: the First Amendment doesn’t give you a free pass to lie on official paperwork.

Ronan made a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court.

The justices declined — no explanation, no lifeline.

Bottom line: if you’re going to run in a party’s primary, you actually have to belong to it — at least on paper and in practice.