New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) called Vice President Kamala Harris the clear winner of Tuesday night’s presidential debate.
“Oh, Kamala definitely won the debate,” Sununu said during a Wednesday morning appearance on CNN. “There’s no question about that. So the question is, what does it mean, right? And it’s not just, what does it mean to everybody? What’s going to do that 10 percent of swing voters?”
“I think if you poll those swing voters, they want results,” he said. “They’re results-driven. It’s the cost of living, it’s the border, it’s public safety, those types of issues, you can be the change agent to make that better in their lives.”
The outgoing New Hampshire governor, who considered a presidential run of his own, praised Harris’s debate strategy Tuesday night.
“She kind of talked confidence in her answers, and then she took the last 30 seconds of almost every question and hit him with a personal attack, knowing that that would get under his skin,” Sununu said. “It was a very effective measure, and I give her a lot of credit on that. It kept him on the defensive, to be sure, and it’s ultimately, definitely, stylistically, why she openly won the debate.”
Sununu said the debate would move the needle “a little bit,” but argued neither candidate explained to voters how they would help lower costs for average Americans. The GOP governor added Trump failed to take advantage of openings to go on the offense over the economy.
“He should have talked about price controls,” Sununu said. “He should have talked about the cost of living more. I think he went like an hour, not even talking about inflation and those are real issues.”
Sununu said the ex-president should also draw a bigger contrast on foreign policy with Harris, saying on CNN there “was clearly more peace when” he was in office.
“That is a strength that he has, that he has not exploited in this campaign,” he said. “There is chaos in Ukraine, chaos in Israel. You know, there’s a lot of pressure going on in Taiwan. Let’s not forget about that. Let’s not forget about Afghanistan.”
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.
Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.
ANALYSIS – Most conservatives understand that one of the left’s major weapons in the war of ideas is manipulating language and using well-researched buzzwords and phrases to change reality and mask their more extreme ideas.
We see it every day with the constant use of ‘gun violence’ rather than shooting or murder committed by a criminal. We see it with ‘global warming’ becoming ‘climate change’ when the facts don’t support the narrative.
We also see it with the insanely deceptive and grotesque ‘gender-affirming care’ rather for genital-mutilating sex-change surgery.
And of course, we see it in spades with abortion, where supporting the unrestricted killing of unborn babies in the womb becomes ‘reproductive health care rights,’ previously known as being ‘pro-choice.’
The new term is far better politically since it appears to somehow be about rights and health, not deception and killing. Plus, ‘pro-choice’ has been thoroughly sullied by its accurate association with being ‘pro-abortion.’
And we can’t have that.
And now, since the Dobbs decision correctly returned the abortion issue to the states where it always belonged, the battle to control the language, and hence the narrative on abortion, is intensifying.
And it just got a lot worse.
The latest words and phrases chosen by the left to describe or refer to abortion fly in the face of fact and science.
But the leftist language warriors are now being reinforced by the power behind the news media – the Associated Press—and its widely used ‘Stylebook.’
The Associated Press recently released a guide for news outlets for reporting on abortion that’s so biased in favor of the procedure, its guidance often runs contrary to medical science. The new guide has the ability to significantly distort how Americans perceive the abortion issue.
The AP’s “Abortion Topical Guide” is part of the widely used “AP Stylebook” that many outlets across the country, including The Daily Signal, use as a guide for everything from grammar to punctuation to best practices for terms and phrasing.
One glaring problem among many? The guide frequently cites the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to back up its guidance. ACOG claims to be the premier professional membership organization of OB-GYNs. But on the issue of abortion—a procedure that most OB-GYNs don’t perform—ACOG is wholly committed to lobbying for extreme abortion policies that don’t reflect its membership’s views.
In typical Orwellian fashion, the leftists at AP cudgel writers into referring to an unborn child’s “heartbeat,” which is detectable via ultrasound from the very early stages of life to the deliberately bland and mostly meaningless term “cardiac activity.”
The Stylebook also inappropriately enters the scientific realm as self-made medical experts when it advises writers not to refer to unborn children as “pain-capable” until after at least 24 weeks.
This, even though the beloved doctors who actually perform surgeries on ‘preemies,’ or premature babies in utero, regularly use anesthesia for those babies under 24 weeks because they feel pain.
The AP’s demonic advice also contradicts the massive, and growing, body of research showing unborn babies can feel pain at just 15 weeks or even earlier.
And most importantly, the Stylebook admonishes writers to never, ever use the accurate but uncomfortable phrase – ‘late-term abortion.’
Polls show a solid majority of Americans are opposed to late-term abortions, so best to religiously (pun intended) avoid the term.
The AP guide misses the mark throughout. Of course, that’s inevitable when the goal is not objective reporting of fact but rather promoting pro-abortion propaganda. Try as the AP might, it’s a fool’s errand to put lipstick on a pig.
I go further by saying AP is part of the left’s far-flung language-distorting media empire intended to manipulate words, in order to manipulate news, in order to manipulate you.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A left-wing city council faces a class action lawsuit from concerned citizens over a scheme to give an average $25,000 in financial assistance to citizens based on their skin color.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement a hearing in its “class action civil rights lawsuit filed against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s reparations program.”
“To date, Evanston has awarded over $6,350,000 to 254 individuals based on their race. The city must be stopped before it spends even more money on this clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional reparations program,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“The court ordered the in-person hearing for oral argument on Evanston’s pending motion to dismiss the lawsuit,” Judicial Watch reports.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program, which makes $25,000 direct cash payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.”
According to The New Republic, program will also reportedly give financial assistance to their descendants, who never experienced racism in Evanston.
Judicial Watch alleges “that the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
In its response to the city’s motion to dismiss, Judicial Watch states:
[T]he program’s use of a race-based eligibility requirement is presumptively unconstitutional, and remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling government interest. Nor has remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a compelling government interest. Among the program’s other fatal flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without requiring proof of discrimination.
Members of Congress want to know if one of America’s most powerful liberal political groups is evading federal laws requiring them to report lobbying on behalf of foreign billionaires.
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) want League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski to answer questions about LCV’s fundraising, lobbying, and political activities, and whether it is complying with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The League of Conservation Voters, a radical environmentalist group, is one of the nation’s most powerful political organizations.
OpenSecrets reports the LCV donated $15,129,989 to federal political candidates in 2020. They also spent $42,272,125 on ads supporting or opposing federal candidates in 2020, making them the nation’s 15th-biggest political spending.
But members of Congress want to know if the LCV is lobbying lawmakers at the behest of Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, a radical leftist who opposes American energy independence.
The members write:
“Following ‘intense lobbying’ from LCV and related groups that led to passage of the [Inflation Reduction Act,] you met then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi who told you Democrats ‘passed what you wanted’ and asked whether LCV would ‘have our backs’ in the 2022 election. Following the election, in an end-of-year memo on December 19, 2022, LCV detailed how the ‘LCV Victory Fund and affiliated entities invested more than $100 million’ to elect Democrat candidates that align with LCV’s eco-agenda agenda in the 2022 elections. Previously, in the 2018 cycle, LCV spent $80 million on candidates that support its eco-agenda.
“LCV has registered to lobby on several activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, including issues like opposing offshore drilling plans, supporting a ‘pause and review of the federal oil and gas program,’ and supporting the restoration and expansion of a number of national monuments. The Committee is concerned that LCV’s relationship with foreign donors, such as Swiss national Mr. Wyss, who are prohibited from contributing, either directly or indirectly, to domestic political campaigns may impact LCV’s political and lobbying activities relating to America’s ability to achieve energy independence. As you are aware, such political and lobbying activities may require compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
“The central purpose of FARA is to ‘promote transparency with respect to foreign influence within the United States by ensuring that the United States government and the public know the source of certain information from foreign agents intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws.’ Hence, FARA requires any person or entity, including non-profits, to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) if they act as an agent or at the request ‘of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly, supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal.’ Registration under FARA is also required for any entity that attempts, on behalf of a foreign principal, to influence any section of the U.S. public or a U.S. government official in ‘formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.'”
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.
