The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Within weeks of President Joe Biden’s announcement he is seeking re-election in 2024, his job approval ratings have cratered to a new low.
The latest Gallup poll finds only 37 percent of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing, the lowest number yet recorded for him.
“Biden’s latest approval rating is from an April 3-25 Gallup poll, which was completed the day he announced he will seek reelection, and marks a three-point dip from March and a five-point drop from February,” Gallup notes.
“Biden’s job approval has been in the low 40 percent range for most of the past 19 months, apart from the current reading and a 38 percent score last July,” Gallup adds.
Other than Ronald Reagan, no president has ever been re-elected with approval below 40 percent at this point in his first term.
Both Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump, who lost their re-election bids, had slightly higher approval at just over 40 percent.
In addition to widespread doubt Biden can physically and mentally handle a second term, Gallup finds Americans are unhappy with inflation under Biden.
“The drop in Biden’s job approval corresponds with Americans’ worsening evaluations of the U.S. economy. Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index for April is -44, down from -38 in March. It was last at this level in October,” Gallup reports.
“19 percent say the economy is getting better and 75 percent worse, compared with ratings of 23 percent and 72 percent, respectively, in March,” Gallup’s polling finds.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Former President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social media Saturday that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday, March 21.
He also urged his supporters to protest.
So far no other news media has confirmed his claim and Trump remains untouched.
It appears that this announcement citing illegal leaks in the Manhattan DA’s office was Trump’s successful attempt to get ahead of the story.
In part, he wanted to mobilize the GOP.
Still, if or when, this does happen, an arrest of a former president, and current candidate, would be an unprecedented event in U.S. history.
It would look like third-world criminalization of politics, and can only further alienate many of the 70 million Americans who voted for Trump in 2020.
Most Republicans will see it as a politicized witch hunt. It would also only deepens the belief that there continues to be a years-long conspiracy to bring down Trump.
It will seem that the Russia collusion hoax, the ‘resistance’ inside and outside of government, lawsuits, and two highly partisan, manufactured, and failed, impeachments against Trump by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t suffice.
Provoking a reaction from potential GOP primary opponents was also a Trump goal.
And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has not announced he is running for president, had a few things to say about the issue, even while claiming he wasn’t “going to be involved.”
DeSantis called the whole prosecution a ‘manufactured circus.’
The conservative governor focused on how the George Soros-backed New York City prosecutor Alvin L. Bragg, has seen major crime skyrocket in Manhattan while focusing on a relatively petty alleged crime to go after the former president.
The petty prosecution is over alleged hush money payments to adult performer Stormy Daniels to, as DeSantis said dismissively, “secure silence over some type of alleged affair.”
But it’s not even about the alleged payments made on his behalf by his then-attorney Michael Cohen (which wouldn’t be too different from the numerous illicit ways Bill Clinton tried to hide his many affairs while in office from the public.
This case is expected to actually focus on Trump’s role in recording the reimbursements he made to Cohen in the internal records of his company, the Trump Organization, which were entered as “legal expenses.”
That’s even pettier. The DA calls it “fraud.” Others might call it “sloppy bookkeeping.”
We are not involved in this. We won’t be involved in this. I have no interest in getting involved in some kind of manufactured circus by a Soros-funded DA. He’s trying to do a political spectacle. He’s trying to virtue signal for his base.
He added: “I can’t spend my time worrying about things of that nature. So, we’re not going to be involved in it in any way.”
Well, DeSantis is correct, even if he is getting somewhat “involved.”
And DeSantis does know a thing or two about ideologically motivated, Soros-backed prosecutors.
As ET reports:
DeSantis removed Hillsborough County District Attorney Andrew Warren from office last year for stating he wouldn’t prosecute certain crimes. DeSantis’s action has so far survived a review by a federal judge.
DeSantis added: “He [Bragg] is a Soros-funded prosecutor and, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety.”
The governor continued: “He has downgraded over 50 percent of felonies to misdemeanors. He says he doesn’t want to even have jail time for the vast majority of crimes. And what we’ve seen in Manhattan is, we’ve seen the crime rate go up and we’ve seen citizens become less safe,” DeSantis said.
But it’s not just DeSantis who sees this as a politically motivated vendetta that could cause far more harm to the American system than good. The New York Times reported that some Democrats and legal experts have their own doubts as well:
Charging former President Donald J. Trump in connection with a hush-money payment to a porn star would catapult Mr. Bragg onto the national stage. Already he faces second-guessing, even from putative allies, about the strength of the case and the wisdom of bringing it.
The Times continued:
…Bragg has been in a difficult situation. Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School and a former prosecutor in Manhattan, said that even though investigators do not target individuals for political reasons, politics does come into play in that “there is always a question of whether it is [in] the public interest to bring a certain charge or not.”
If he does not bring a case even though there is clear evidence to prove it, Ms. Roiphe suggested, he could violate the longstanding principle that no person is above the law. But if he does indict Mr. Trump, who has begun a third presidential campaign, the choice could also be “incredibly destabilizing and harmful,” Ms. Roiphe said.
Meanwhile, many Republicans will be getting very “involved” in this potential outrage. Speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy has already accused Bragg of “abusing his office to target President Trump.”
He also is threatening to defund Bragg and is investigating whether federal funds were used by Bragg to pursue Trump.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
The top Republican investigators in the House and Senate warn America may face a constitutional crisis, with the Director of the FBI facing possible Contempt of Congress charges for refusing to turn over a government document alleging a foreign national offered a $5 million bribe to then-Vice-President Joe Biden.
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY) blasted FBI Director Christopher Wray for defying a congressional subpoena for an unclassified record “alleging a criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national.”
“The document, an FBI-generated FD-1023 form, allegedly details an arrangement involving an exchange of money for policy decisions. In a new letter to Director Wray, Comer warns that if the FBI fails to produce the record by May 30, 2023, the Oversight Committee will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings,” Grassley reports in a statement.
“The FBI has continued to tie itself in knots to ignore a legitimate subpoena from Congress, which has a constitutional duty of oversight. The Bureau’s developed a serious reputation problem through its spate of failures and overreach, and leadership is doing it no favors by attempting to stiff-arm Congress. The FBI knows exactly what document Chairman Comer and I are seeking, and if they know us at all, they know we will get it, one way or another. If FBI leadership truly cares about protecting the agency’s reputation, they’d cooperate. These needless delays only harm the Bureau,” Grassley said.
“The FBI’s refusal to provide this single document is obstructionist. Whistleblower disclosures that Joe Biden may have been involved in a criminal bribery scheme as Vice President track closely with what we are seeing in our investigation into the Biden family’s influence peddling schemes. Congress and the American people need to know what, if anything, the FBI did to verify the allegations contained within this record. If Director Wray refuses to hand over this unclassified record, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings,” Comer said.
“Comer issued a subpoena for the unclassified FBI record on May 3, 2023 with a return date of May 10, 2023. After the FBI failed to produce the record, Oversight Committee counsel have attended two in-person meetings with FBI officials where they again refused to produce the FD-1023 form or offer any reasonable accommodation that would allow the Committee to review the document,” Grassley reports.
On May 16, 2023, Grassley and Comer requested a phone call with Director Wray to discuss the subpoena, but despite repeated requests the FBI has not scheduled a phone call.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Joe Biden has made his radical ‘green’ climate agenda a centerpiece of his administration. He even had his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the rest of his security team make it a national defense priority, superseding in some ways, China, Russia, and terrorism.
A lot of Biden’s agenda is pushed by radical leftist activists, but the green energy industry is an increasingly wealthy and powerful lobby.
And they operate hand in hand.
And Biden’s ‘climate czar,’ John Kerry, is one of its biggest cheerleaders inside the administration.
Still, it seems reality is now seeping in at the Pentagon as the stuff is hitting the fan.
The fan, in this case, is the wind turbine used in vast wind farms throughout the northeast coastal regions of the United States.
Coincidentally, this is also where a lot of military bases are located, and our air and naval forces operate.
And the Department of Defense (DOD) is quietly expressing its frustration and concern with Biden’s expansive climate agenda’s impact on our military operations and American national security.
Especially the creation of massive wind farms on federally leased waters off the mid-Atlantic coast.
Some at the Pentagon are even referring to it as a national security risk.
And Congress must take note and take action.
Bloomberg reported on Monday that an Oct. 6, 2022 report produced by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, which includes maps highlighting sensitive military zones off the mid-Atlantic coast, was circulated with the energy industry and state officials earlier this month.
Non-political DOD officials are trying to raise the alarm even as their politicized leadership tows the Team Biden ‘green’ line.
Of course, political appointees at DOD will downplay any conflict between the Pentagon and Biden’s extreme climate agenda.
Pentagon spokesperson Kelly Flynn only told Fox News Digital that: “The initial assessment performed by DoD found complicated compatibility challenges with wind turbines near Navy and Air Force training.”
“Compatibility challenges” is doublespeak for we can’t put wind farms offshore without damaging our military training and readiness across the entire eastern seaboard.
While this has been an issue since before Biden, the danger has just been supercharged by the current administration, which refuses to listen or doesn’t care.
Fox News Digital reminds us of the prior warnings: “The Pentagon’s warning late last year… came years after it similarly warned in 2019 that much of the North Atlantic wind lease planning area was an ‘exclusion zone.’ And a DoD map obtained by that was published in 2018 identified nearly the entire East Coast as “highly problematic” for leasing.”
Still, Biden and his radical climate cronies in the wind farm industry, such as the American Clean Power Association, a leading industry group representing wind developers, are plowing ahead.
Bloomberg explained that the new DOD maps show massive acreage cordoned off in federal waters near North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.
At least four offshore wind lease areas proposed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) are described as “highly problematic” by DOD, while another two are identified as “requiring further study.”
Fox News Digital continued:
“The Navy has said there is not an area in that whole east block that does not interfere with DoD missions. But BOEM is continuing ahead,” said Meghan Lapp, the fisheries liaison for Rhode Island-based fishing company Seafreeze. “And when I’ve asked them on webinars, ‘The Navy said that this is a problem. How can you still be leasing it?’ They’re like, ‘Oh, well, we’re just going to continue the discussions.'”
Well, this is serious stuff, and if the administration won’t listen to its own Defense Department, Congress must get involved.
Gabriella Hoffman, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum’s Center for Energy and Conservation, told Fox News Digital: “The Pentagon’s warning about national security implications stemming from offshore wind development on the Atlantic Coast, including proximity to critical Virginia military installations, shouldn’t be dismissed.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Affirmative Action at top universities as unconstitutional, the same race-based policies used to achieve ‘diversity’ elsewhere are being scrutinized nationwide, including at the Pentagon.
And now we learn that Joe Biden’s pick to replace Army General Mark Milley as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, himself had racist hiring practices.
That could make him ineligible to be the nation’s top military officer.
Air Force General Charles Q. (CQ) Brown, a man of color, is accused of making “discriminatory comments and potential unlawful impact on military personnel,” according to the American Accountability Foundation (AFF).
The AFF was set up in early 2021 to expose the leftist backgrounds of Biden’s top nominees.
Multiple sources have reported that Brown made statements while chief of staff for the Air Force and during his previous tour as Pacific Air Forces commander suggesting that he hired personnel and promoted them based on race, rather than merit, to force diversity in the Air Force.
“Race-based hiring has no place in the military. Our men and women in uniform deserve to be led on missions by the most qualified and skilled officers and leaders our nation has, who will give them the best chance of success and getting home safely,” said the AFF in a statement.
Considering the accusations against Brown, the AAF filed a complaint with the Air Force Inspector General and requested an official investigation into Brown’s allegedly discriminatory comments and practices.
While serving as the Air Force’s chief of staff and before that as Pacific Air Forces commander, Brown made statements suggesting he selects individuals for certain roles and promotions based on their race to build purposefully diverse organizations, multiple sources show. Brown could be violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) argues, making him ineligible to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The DC added:
If Brown has acted upon his “publicly stated beliefs on what should be official hiring policy of the U.S. Air Force [race-based hiring], it would present a significant likelihood of violating the civil and constitutional rights of military personnel” as well as Department of Defense (DOD) codes of conduct, AAF said.
And records appear to show that Brown did exactly that. Brown’s diversity policies appear to have prioritized bringing on non-white officers and recruits. The Air Force Times reported that 2022, Brown changed the Air Force’s demographic goals for officers to 67% of them being white, down from 80% in 2014.
But things have only gotten worse under Brown. According to a February 2023 Air Force newsletter, the Air Force also recently pledged to track officer promotions based on “race, ethnicity and gender.”
So now the discrimination Brown has implemented isn’t only against white men, its against straight white men as well.
I agree with AFF’s concerns, if these allegations are confirmed they should make ‘CQ Brown ineligible to serve as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And the United States Senate should not confirm him to that lofty role.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – FBI Director Christopher Wray has steadfastly refused to provide the House Oversight and Accountability Committee an internal Bureau document that alleges Joe Biden took a $5 million bribe from Chinese sources.
The committee issued a subpoena for it a while ago. Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has said he learned about the allegations from a whistleblower whom he declined to identify but has described as “very credible.”
With the committee’s deadline passing yesterday, Comer has said he will seek to hold Wray in contempt of Congress, rejecting Wray’s offer to allow lawmakers to view the FD-1023 form in a secure location instead of handing over the document.
House GOP to start contempt proceedings against Wray as FBI refuses to produce Biden document https://t.co/QNsVYrZwoG
A contempt vote would be the most significant confrontation between House Republicans and federal law enforcement since the GOP took control of Congress in January.
Wray insists that the FD-1023 form contains unverified claims from a single confidential human source (CHS), and that turning it over is irresponsible. Sources need to know their identities will be protected.
And allegations shouldn’t be publicized without being corroborated.
Wray is right.
In the past, neither party would push much on an issue like this because they understood that need. But they also trusted the Bureau to be nonpartisan.
…the mere fact that a CHS may have alleged that Biden took part in a bribery scheme doesn’t mean it happened. It can’t be dismissed out of hand — there’s too much indication of Biden’s sleazy self-dealing and outright lying for that. But people in positions of authority get falsely accused of wrongdoing all the time. The FBI rightly keeps such allegations under wraps because those people are presumed innocent and the bureau can’t investigate without being discrete. Congress has traditionally given the FBI a wide berth because lawmakers know secrecy is a necessity for competent investigations — and it has assumed that the FBI is competent and non-partisan.
Unfortunately, those days are gone, and the FBI director can’t decide what part of a Congressional subpoena to honor or reject. Wray has no legal basis to keep it hidden.
And due to the recent history of partisanship and politicization at the Bureau, most egregiously the Trump-Russiagate hoax, this is only part of a much bigger problem.
The Bureau can no longer be trusted to be fair and apolitical. As the National Review explains:
So, while normally, I would be understanding of the director’s arguments and attempts to limit dissemination of a form that could expose investigative sources and methods, in this case, the FBI simply can’t be trusted.
It needs to turn over the document to the committee, with minimal redactions, or Wray should be held in contempt. This is about a much bigger problem.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Critics are calling for a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from two cases involving former President Donald Trump, asserting that failing to do so will cause “irreparable damage” to the Court.
On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that another Jan. 6-aligned flag was seen flying at one of Justice Samuel Alito‘s residences, this time at his New Jersey vacation home. Last week, the paper published a report detailing how an upside-down American flag flew at the Alitos’ Northern Virginia home days after the U.S. Capitol riot.
In light of recent developments, some of the most vocal critics of Trump, such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), are calling for Justice Alito to recuse himself from the landmark Trump presidential immunity case. They are also requesting his recusal from a case involving a former Pennsylvania police officer and Jan. 6 participant, specifically regarding whether obstruction charges against him should stand.
"If Justice Alito does not recuse himself from the Trump immunity case and the Fischer January 6 case, he will do irreparable damage to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Roberts must step in." @RepDanGoldman on Alito's widening insurrectionist flag scandal pic.twitter.com/YQ1rt5VQR2
— Alex Wagner Tonight (@WagnerTonight) May 23, 2024
“If Justice Alito does not recuse himself from the Trump immunity case and the Fischer January 6 case, he will do irreparable damage to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Roberts must step in.” @RepDanGoldman on Alito’s widening insurrectionist flag scandal pic.twitter.com/YQ1rt5VQR2— Alex Wagner Tonight (@WagnerTonight) May 23, 2024
The calls don’t appear to be subsiding. So far, Alito has not responded. Surprisingly, former National Security Adviser John Bolton strongly defended the conservative justice on CNN, despite being a prominent critic of the 45th president himself.
“Absolutely not,” Bolton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when asked whether the recent reporting about the flag raised concerns about whether he can serve impartially on the Supreme Court.
“I think it is outrageous, outrageous and unacceptable, for people to take a flag from the American Revolution and say that because some January 6 protesters flew it, that it’s now unacceptable to fly that flag, and I’d like to hear a Democratic Party politician say that expressly,” added Bolton, who has frequently been critical of former President Trump and the risk he says Trump poses to the country’s national security.
An “Appeal to Heaven” flag – which has origins dating back to the Revolutionary War but is associated with Christian nationalism and “Stop the Steal” efforts today – was seen flying outside Alito’s New Jersey beach home in July and September 2023, the Times reported, around the same time a high-profile Jan. 6 case arrived at the Supreme Court.
The flag was also toted by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
“The January 6 people flew a lot of flags,” Bolton maintained. “They don’t have the right or the ability to expropriate a patriotic symbol of the United States, and then have everybody else say it belongs to them and condemn Sam Alito or anybody else for flying that flag.”
Bolton’s remarks are particularly notable as he took the opportunity with Blitzer to insult Nikki Haley for pledging her support to Trump.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
