U.S. officials have warned more than a half dozen former national security officials from the Trump administration that Iran’s assassination threats against them are serious and likely to continue for the foreseeable future as tensions reach fever pitch.
The threats, including the ones against former President Donald Trump, stem from the administration authorizing the drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani in January 2020.
A new report from Politico revealed that the plots against the officials are “even more extensive and aggressive than previously reported,” according to interviews with a dozen officials about the threats.
“This is extraordinarily serious,” said Matt Olsen, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for national security. “Iran has made it very clear that they are determined to seek retaliation against former officials in connection with the Soleimani strike.”
A former senior Trump administration said that the threats they are facing are “historic” as the U.S. has “never had former senior national security officials,” including cabinet members, face serious threats on their life from a foreign adversary.
The threat against Trump’s life is so serious that he has not played golf — his favorite pastime — in a month and will not do so until after the election because federal officials are not able to secure courses to the extent needed to guarantee his safety.
Trump’s motorcade is now being broken up at random times as a precaution and he has started traveling on “nondescript planes that do not have his name on the side instead of his longtime 757 jet.”
Trump is now requesting military assets to guard and transport him.
At least seven former Trump officials receive 24/7 protection from the U.S. government, which can include up to six officers at a time.
Six of the seven are top former officials who were directly involved with the operation going after Soleimani, including Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense; Mark Milley, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Paul Nakasone, head of NSA and U.S. Cyber Command; Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command; Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State; and Brian Hook, the State Department’s Special Representative for Iran.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to unseal additional filings from special counsel Jack Smith laying out his election interference case against former President Trump
Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits that accompany his 180-page brief asserting that prosecutors can still bring much of their Jan. 6 case against Trump in the wake of a Supreme Court decision granting former presidents broad criminal immunity.
Chutkan granted Smith’s motion to post redacted versions of the exhibits, which could include grand jury transcripts, texts and other evidence assembled by prosecutors.
“The court determines that the Government’s proposed redactions to the Appendix are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit. As the court has stated previously, ‘Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings’ is not a cognizable legal prejudice,’” she wrote.
Trump opposed both the unsealing of Smith’s motion as well as the accompanying evidence.
But Chutkan also agreed to stay her ruling for seven days after an earlier motion from Trump’s legal team asked for additional time “so that President Trump can evaluate litigation options relating to the decision.”
“There should be no further disclosures at this time of the so-called ‘evidence’ that the Special Counsel’s Office has unlawfully cherry-picked and mischaracterized — during early voting in the 2024 Presidential election,” Trump’s team wrote in an earlier filing Thursday.
Several top Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have indicated that they may not commit to certifying the 2024 presidential election results if former President Donald Trump secures a victory. This reluctance was revealed during discussions with Axios, raising questions about the party’s stance on the upcoming election certification process.
Raskin denied Trump won the 2016 election when he objected to Trump’s electors in 2017.
If Trump “won a free, fair and honest election, then we would obviously accept it,” Raskin said, assuming the election was free, fair and honest. “I definitely don’t assume that,” he added. “Democrats don’t engage in election fraud and election fabrication.”
A video surfaced in September of a panel discussion in February 2024 in which Raskin speculated that Congress would invalidate a Trump election victory, even though it could be at the risk of “civil war.”
FLASHBACK: Jamie Raskin claims Congress will STOP TRUMP on J6, 2025 and create “civil war conditions.”
“It is not clear whether Raskin was actually outlining a plan of action, or rather using a hypothetical to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court was placing what he considered an undue burden on Congress to keep Trump out of office,” Breitbart News’s Joel Pollak reported.
House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) echoed Raskin’s concerns, telling Axios that Democrats would certify a Trump victory “assuming everything goes the way we expect it to … We have to see how it all happens.”
McGovern also objected to Trump’s electors in 2017.
The uncertainty among Democrats comes amid heightened political tension with 24 days until the presidential election. Raskin, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump, previously called the former president’s legacy “American carnage.”
In response to Thursday’s development, former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark criticized the Democrats’ position. Taking to X, Clark expressed frustration with what he sees as a double standard in how objections to election certifications are perceived:
Do you see how this works? If you’re a Republican in Congress and you object to certifying a President, you’re called an insurrectionist. But if you’re a Democrat like Jamie Raskin, you can object all you want, and it’s “protecting our democracy.”
Do you see how this works?
If you’re a Republican in Congress and you object to certifying a President, you’re called an insurrectionist.
But if you’re a Democrat like Jamie Raskin, you can object all you want and it’s “protecting our democracy.” https://t.co/uTKwL3JU4i
Election certification has been a contentious issue since the unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential race, with Democrats consistently emphasizing the need to safeguard democracy. However, their reluctance to fully commit to certifying a potential Trump win could deepen mistrust on both sides of the political aisle.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
On Monday, the Florida man accused of attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty in court.
Ryan Routh, 58, appeared in federal court Monday to enter five not guilty pleas to counts including attempted assassination of a major political candidate and assault of a federal officer, after he allegedly poked a rifle through the perimeter of Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course, prompting a Secret Service agent to fire.
Routh also pleaded not guilty to charges he possessed a firearm with an obliterated serial number despite being a convicted felon, in furtherance of a crime of violence.
BREAKING: Ryan Routh pleads not guilty to charges including attempted assassination of Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/80lC6HeYUB
BREAKING: The man charged with attempting to assassinate Donald Trump after allegedly positioning himself with a rifle outside one of the former president's Florida golf courses on Sept. 15 pleaded not guilty to five federal charges https://t.co/eWSSWuwfaWpic.twitter.com/uawEUqta1P
JUST IN: Ryan Routh has pleaded not guilty to federal charges in connection with an alleged attempt to assassinate Donald Trump at the former president's golf club in Florida. https://t.co/OIryzNTKAGpic.twitter.com/BKDukEz4G7
Prosecutors say Routh planned to kill Trump as he golfed on Sept. 15, staking out the perimeter of the course near its sixth hole for roughly 12 hours until he was noticed and fled. They revealed last week that Routh allegedly wrote a letter months before the assassination attempt detailing his plans.
“Dear world, this was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you,” Routh wrote, according to the letter filed by prosecutors. “I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster.”
Routh has been in custody since the incident and faces up to life in prison.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Republican Senate candidate and former Governor Larry Hogan will not vote for Donald Trump in the 2024 election despite accepting his endorsement earlier this summer.
“Look, I’ve said neither one of the two candidates has earned my vote, and the voters in the country are going to be able to make that decision,” the former Maryland governor said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Maryland GovPics, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Host Robert Costa pressed Hogan, asking if there is “no chance” he would cast his ballot for Trump.
“I’m not going to. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020 and I’ve made that pretty clear,” Hogan responded in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “But look, I’m not running just for a Republican Party … it’s not just about red versus blue, which is what my opponent wants it to be about. I’m concerned about the red, white and blue, and I’m willing to put country over party and I’m hoping that the voters will be willing to do the same thing.”
Watch:
GOP Senate candidate Larry Hogan confirms he won’t vote for Trump:
As Vice President Kamala Harris continues her campaign, avoiding direct interviews and carefully selecting debate settings, questions about the authenticity of her support base are growing. The latest example is the endorsement from a group called “Police Leaders for Community Safety,” which Harris’s campaign and media outlets touted as a “stunning endorsement” from a group that typically backs Trump.
However, scrutiny reveals that the group is far from a major law enforcement organization. USA Today notes that “Police Leaders for Community Safety” was only formed in 2024, describes itself as representing “dozens of police officials,” and is led by Sue Riseling, a former chief of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department. The group is primarily composed of former law enforcement members, many of whom lean left politically.
The newspaper explained that “as the group has only been around since June, this marks the first endorsement for Police Leaders for Community Safety, with the group throwing their support for Harris.”
The organization – which says it is led by a diverse group of prominent police professionals who have been at the helm of numerous major national law enforcement leadership groups – highlights that its mission is to champion “policies to make communities and the people in them safer, improve and evolve policing, and safeguard the rule of law.”
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr
“This endorsement reflects Vice President Harris’ track record and unwavering commitment to public safety and the rule of law,” Sue Riseling, chair of Police Leaders for Community Safety, said.
Police Leaders for Community Safety board member David Mahoney, a former Dane County, Wisconsin, sheriff and past president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, said that Harris “spent her prosecutorial career protecting people, supporting victims and holding accountable those who have harmed others and betrayed the public trust. As a lawmaker, she has fought hard for the critical law enforcement-backed policies needed to fight crime and protect the public.”
Critics have accused the Harris campaign of astroturfing, creating a façade of grassroots support by highlighting endorsements from groups with little influence in the law enforcement community. This comes in stark contrast to Donald Trump’s endorsement from the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s oldest and most influential law enforcement organization, which has supported Trump in the last three elections.
FOP President Patrick Yoes emphasized the importance of public safety and border security, stating that Trump’s policies align with the values of law enforcement officers across the country.
In a significant shift, Vice President Kamala Harris has pulled ahead of former President Donald Trump in the latest 2024 election forecast from data expert Nate Silver. According to Silver’s “Silver Bulletin” election model, Harris currently holds a 58% likelihood of winning the presidency, compared to Trump’s 42%.
This marks a reversal from early September, when Trump had over a 60% chance of victory. Silver attributes the shift to changes in polling data. He noted that Harris has gained a 3-point lead nationally and has been performing well in key battleground states like Georgia and North Carolina.
The exception is Arizona, where Harris has struggled in recent polling, but Silver noted it has only a 5% chance of being the tipping-point state.
While Silver still categorizes the race as a toss-up, he suggested that Harris’s hand appears stronger. He also pointed to positive economic revisions, which he said have bolstered Harris’s chances.
Silver explained that Harris has two viable paths to securing the Electoral College, whereas Trump’s options appear more limited. Harris could win the presidency even if she loses all the toss-up states, provided she secures Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Mediaite has further details on Harris’ “Plan A” and “Plan B” pathways to victory:
Silver’s latest write-up of his forecast notes that Harris, unlike Trump, has two solid routes to winning the Electoral College. Harris can lose all the toss-up states while winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and still become president.
Silver calls this “Plan A” – the long talked about “blue wall” that crumbled in 2016 for Hillary Clinton. Silver explains that Harris also has a “Plan B” if one of those states falls – despite her polling up in all three. Harris can win “North Carolin, Georgia, or both” in order to still get to 270 – especially as she’s in striking position in Nevada and ahead in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District.
Trump, on the other hand, must win all of the toss-up states and at least one of the three “blue wall’ states.
As recently as a few weeks ago, Silver’s model had Trump leading Harris in betting odds. However, recent developments have reshaped the landscape as the 2024 election approaches.
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Residence Questioned by Courts
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will not be listed as a presidential candidate on the New York state ballot after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate his name. Lower courts determined that Kennedy’s address in Katonah, New York, did not qualify as his fixed and permanent residence, leading to his exclusion from the ballot.
Kennedy’s legal team argued that removing him from the ballot would deprive his New York supporters of their right to vote for him. They emphasized that no evidence suggested voters had been misled about his candidacy. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court declined to issue an emergency injunction.
Opposition from New York Attorney General
The emergency request to reinstate Kennedy’s name faced strong opposition from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office. Her team argued that the state had already mailed absentee ballots and the certification deadline had passed, making it too late to add his name back to the ballot. The court’s refusal marks a significant setback for Kennedy’s campaign efforts in New York.
Kennedy suspended his presidential campaign last month and endorsed former President Donald Trump’s bid for the White House. Since then, he has worked to remove his name from ballots in critical swing states while keeping it on in others, triggering a series of legal battles.
This Supreme Court appeal marked Kennedy’s first attempt to remain on the New York ballot, but he isn’t the first candidate to face such a challenge. Earlier this month, the Green Party’s candidate, Jill Stein, also failed to secure a spot on Nevada’s ballot after the Supreme Court denied a similar emergency request.
New York Polls: Kamala Harris Leads Trump
Despite Kennedy’s exclusion from the ballot, the latest Siena College poll shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 13 points in a direct matchup in New York. Pollster Steven Greenberg noted that although New York remains solidly blue, the margin isn’t as wide as in recent presidential cycles.
“Despite the Democratic convention, the debate and numerous other events during the six weeks between Siena College polls, there has been little movement in the horse race or in either candidate’s favorability rating. While the race appears largely static, Harris did pick up support among Latino voters, leading Trump 56-39%, up from 48-47% in August,” Greenberg noted. “Independents moved further in Trump’s direction, supporting him over Harris 58-34%, up from 47-40% last month. Interestingly, New York’s independent voters moved significantly in the Republican direction across several questions that will be on the ballot.”
“New Yorkers trust Harris more than Trump on abortion, democracy and the economy, and trust them equally on immigration. But there are huge partisan divides. Democrats trust Harris on all four issues by between 76 and 89 percent, and Republicans trust Trump by between 76 and 89 percent,” the Siena College pollster continued. “While independents trust Harris more on abortion by 50-42%, they trust Trump more on the other three by between 15 and 34 points.”
In previous elections, Democrats have won New York by at least 18 points. President Biden carried the state by 23 points in 2020. In a multi-candidate race, Harris’ lead drops slightly to 12 points.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The Committee on House Administration has released transcripts confirming that former President Donald Trump explicitly ordered the Pentagon to secure the U.S. Capitol ahead of Jan. 6, 2021. These transcripts, conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general’s office, reveal that Trump gave clear directives to keep the protests around the Jan. 6 certification of the electoral vote peaceful, which were allegedly ignored by senior military leaders.
Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) published the full transcripts, which include testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley confirmed that Trump pre-approved the use of National Guard troops or active-duty military to maintain peace in Washington, D.C., during a Jan. 3 meeting.
A press release from the Committee on House Administration shows that Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives, contradicting the conclusion in the IG’s report regarding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to ensure that any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance and misled Congressional leaders to believe they were doing their job when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth.”
The committee’s finding includes a full breakdown of the senior Pentagon leadership’s conscious decision to disregard Trump’s commands:
Days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, recalls a conversation between the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and President Trump:
Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.’ [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.’”
On January 5, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, placed unprecedented restrictions on DCNG Commander Major General William Walker to prevent any movement to the Capitol without Secretary McCarthy’s explicit permission on January 6 and 7.
On January 6, 2021, the outer perimeter on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol was breached by rioters at 12:53pm. The DCNG arrived five hours later. Click here to view the timeline.
Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
These transcripts prove President Trump’s senior Pentagon leaders were focused on OPTICS, instead of doing their job, as the Capitol was breached:
Miller: “There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”
As “optics” concerns were being discussed and Secretary McCarthy claims he was ‘developing a plan’, the DCNG was ready to move, less than 2 miles from the Capitol – awaiting Secretary McCarthy’s authorization.
Walker’s General Counsel, Colonel Earl Matthews: “We were seeing the Congress of the United States being overrun, and the Guard – and the Capitol Police, the MPD, they need help. We had people at the D.C. Armory who are able to help, and they’re not moving. They’re not allowed to move.”
DCNG Command Sergeant Major Michael Brooks: “They were ready to go, and they just couldn’t understand why they were still sitting there. Literally sitting on a bus, just waiting to drive to the Capitol and do the best they could do to support Capitol Police.”
Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
At 3:04pm, Miller provided verbal approval to Secretary McCarthy for immediate deployment of the DCNG. What was Secretary McCarthy doing between receiving this approval, and 5:08pm, when the order eventually reaches the D.C. National Guard? Why didn’t he communicate this approval for a full two hours?
At 3:18pm, Secretary McCarthy told Congressional Democrat Leadership that the DC National Guard had the “green light” and “is moving”. Two hours would pass before Secretary McCarthy’s deployment order would ACTUALLY be communicated to the DCNG.
In these vital hours, the DCNG had been trying but was unable to reach Secretary McCarthy.
DCNG Adjutant General Aaron Dean: “[Walker] tried to call Secretary McCarthy three times between 2:30 and 5pm. He said, ‘I haven’t heard from him all day.‘ When he tried to call his cell phone, it went straight to voicemail.”
These revelations challenge the conclusions of the original DOD IG’s report on Jan. 6, disclosing that Trump’s orders to ensure security were deliberately disregarded by Pentagon leadership and prove he took steps to prevent violence on that day.
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. It is republished with permission.
According to Fox News reporter Trey Yingst, the airstrike targeted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and resulted in the collapse of several residential buildings.
SCOOP: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah targeted in Beriut, Fox News has learned. Unclear if the strike was successful. More to follow. pic.twitter.com/PgUedlkLSX
Preliminary reports indicate that the Israeli Air Force utilized bunker busters and 2,000-pound bombs.
Footage posted on X purports to show Nasrallah’s shattered and smoldering bunker, reportedly the site from which he ordered attacks on Israel.
If #Nasrallah survived this, it'll be a miracle. Video shows the site where #Israel targeted Nasrallah, razing down a whole bloc and the underground. People in houses miles away, even outside Beirut, #Lebanon, reported their houses shaking underneath them, similar to an… pic.twitter.com/4jeW4IxBsI
