ANALYSIS – Apparently now to flailing Democrats, everything is a ‘threat to democracy.’ So much so that Chris Krebs, the discredited former head of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is joining the liberal chorus.
He simply replaced the term ‘threat’ with ‘risk.’
“Threat to democracy’ is the Democrats’ 2022 version of ‘Russia collusion.’
Recall that Krebs was fired by then-President Trump in 2020 after Krebs, without any way to confirm, stated that the 2020 election was the “most secure” ever.
CISA is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is tasked with“strengthening cybersecurity and infrastructure protection across all levels of government.”
However, while it plays a role in elections, and coordinates with the states, it is not the ultimate arbiter of whether election fraud occurred, or whether there were irregularities.
There is no ultimate arbiter of that, except maybe the American people.
Regardless, Krebs is now joining Team Biden in wailing about the ‘risk to democracy’ posed by Trump, his supporters, and many GOP politicians.
During a Washington Post Live event on Monday, Krebs said that election-related falsehoods and misinformation represent “a tactical and strategic risk to democracy,” citing the number of election denialists running for statewide offices that “have the ability to determine the certification of the 2024 election,” as well as the chilling effect that election-related lies can have on voter turnout.
Krebs said that lies about the 2020 midterm elections—as well as falsehoods about the accuracy of the midterm elections—exist, because “it’s a great fundraising mechanism” for the former president, his allies and political candidates, and also because “it’s a great clout-chasing mechanism.”
“It’s a benefit to them from an incentive perspective,” Krebs added. “And I think the real harm is that it is shifting the Overton window, it’s shifting what’s politically acceptable in American political discourse into something that’s much more dangerous and much more violent.”
To combat these claims, Krebs said it’s important for Republican lawmakers, in particular, to speak truthfully about the voting process and election security.
Some of what he says is valid, and I do agree with Krebs’ last point; something Democrats ignore as they push for government efforts to quash free speech.
The best way to combat false claims by politicians (a constant for millennia, but now called ‘disinformation’), is by counterarguments.
This is the essence of America’s democracy – the marketplace of ideas.
While I believe we must ensure our elections are secure, this involves far more than worrying about, or demonizing free speech as so-called ‘disinformation.’
It involves election integrity of the voting process, mail-in ballots, voter ID, and a range of other concrete issues Democrats ignore, rebuff, and refuse to address.
And yes, there are foreign threats to America’s elections, such as Russian and Chinese hacking and influence operations, which I have repeatedly noted, and these should also be a primary focus of our federal government.
As Krebs added: “We’ve seen reports lately of Russia, China, and Iran back at their old tricks, and it is going to create a very chaotic environment.”
Indeed, Mr. Krebs.
That too is a ‘risk to our democracy, and it is where the government can have the most impact in securing our elections without unconstitutionally targeting Americans or their freedom of speech.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
NEW YORK CITY (September 11, 2022) Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas lays flowers for USSS Master Special Officer Craig Miller and participates in the September 11th Anniversary Commemoration Ceremony at Ground Zero in New York City, NY. (DHS photo by Sydney Phoenix)
ANALYSIS – The pressure on incompetent ideologue, Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden’s Homeland Security chief, is increasing daily.
His inability, or unwillingness to control the violent chaos at the border, and other major missteps, such as overhyping the ‘right wing’ domestic threat, are making him the lightning rod for the newly elected GOP-led House.
As I wrote earlier, the House must aggressively investigate Mayorkas, and if needed, impeach him.
He should be one of the first Team Biden heads to roll in 2023.
Newsmax reports: “The White House will pressure Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign before House Republicans can push for his impeachment, but he likely won’t willingly step down…”
“The White House sees the writing on the wall,” said Mark Morgan, the acting Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner under former President Donald Trump, on Newsmax TV’s “Wake Up America.”
“They know what’s going on. I think they’re going to put pressure on Secretary Mayorkas to resign to prevent them the embarrassment of being dragged through hearings.”
But Mayorkas’ “ego and pride” won’t let him “do what he needs to do in the best interests of this country,” Morgan added.
Newsmax continued:
His comments come after remarks by House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who hopes to become the House speaker after the new Congress is sworn in this coming January.
Tuesday, McCarthy called on Mayorkas to step down and warned that the House might call for his impeachment after Republicans take over the majority…
“We know Mayorkas has been this administration’s chief architect of the open border,” said Morgan. “He took the most secure border in our lifetime and intentionally un-secured it. In the last 22 months, we’ve had over 4.5 million encounters and 1.1 million known gotaways.
We know drugs are pouring into this country, literally killing Americans every single day. We know among the 1.1. million known gotaways are hardcore criminals, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and gang members.
But while McCarthy emphasizes the border crisis, Mayorkas is also guilty of falsely demonizing and targeting half of all Americans.
Alejandro Mayorkas [has] parroted the oft-repeated line that the biggest terrorist threat America faces comes from “domestic ideologically motivated extremism.”
This is a central assertion by the Biden Administration…They have even gone so far as to claim U.S. law enforcement and the military are riddled with domestic extremists despite the fact there has been no real evidence released to support this supposition.
CSP continues:
In order to hype the seriousness of the domestic threat, the Biden Administration has soft-pedaled the very real danger of international terrorism. According to Forbes, Mayorkas reported “that since the September 11 attacks, the threat landscape against the U.S. has substantially ‘evolved’ to the point that foreign terrorism is no longer the chief concern of DHS.”
In other words, the threat from jihad receded and now takes a back seat to domestic “extremism.” In fact, Mayorkas said that the main threat was now what occurred on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
The actions by Mayorkas at the border, and by hyping the so-called domestic threat are nothing short of disgraceful.
We can only hope his ego doesn’t allow him to resign. It’s time for a real prime-time Congressional hearing focused on all these critical Team Biden- created issues.
And then, if Biden doesn’t fire him, he should be impeached. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Florida law enforcement officers apprehended a teenager for threatening voters with a machete.
Caleb James Williams, 18, was arrested after two women called the Neptune Beach Police Department when he allegedly brandished the weapon against them at an early voting polling station.
Authorities say he stood inside the parking lot posing in pictures with the machete with several other male juveniles who were chanting in support of former President Trump.
“The investigation revealed that the group arrived to protest and antagonize the opposing political side,” Police Chief Michael Key told reporters at a briefing, saying the incident, which comes amid rising fears of political violence surrounding the 2024 election, “escalated into a verbal disturbance.”
Williams, the only individual over 18, was also the only one arrested. He was charged with aggravated assault on a person 65 years of age or older and improper exhibition of a firearm or dangerous weapon.
Law enforcement said the other individuals’ actions did not warrant criminal charges.
“The group was there for no other reason but for ill intentions to cause a disturbance,” Key said. “This is not an incident of solely a First Amendment protected right, but rather one where they were simply there to cause a raucous. Voting in our country is one of the most sacred and protected rights we have. Ensuring everyone’s right to vote is crucial, and it will not be impeded upon in Neptune Beach or Duval County.”
Williams was given a GPS monitor and freed on $55,006.00 bail according to Mediaite.
A Pennsylvania woman was arrested earlier this week after allegedly making threats against former President Donald Trump before a planned rally at Penn State University.
Paul J. Gavenonis, 74, a registered Democrat and resident of Spring Township, reportedly made alarming comments while purchasing a parking pass at the university’s transportation office. According to witnesses, Gavenonis, who identifies as transgender, expressed hostility toward Trump, stating, “I hate Donald Trump. I’d like to shoot that guy,” while making a gesture that resembled cocking a gun.
The remarks prompted the transportation office staff to alert authorities. According to The Daily Wire, Gavenonis also allegedly referenced climbing a building in the area but expressed concern over being spotted by students if carrying a firearm.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
ANALYSIS – In typical Trump fashion, the former president just threw all pro-lifer conservatives under the bus to deflect any blame from himself for the weak ‘Red Trickle’ that was the 2022 election. But is he wrong?
On November 9, I wrote about how both issues impacted the 2022 election losses. ‘Abortion and Trump tipped the scales.’
Yes, some pro-life conservatives took the reasonable Supreme Court decision to give abortion decisions back to the states (where they belong), as a green light to push for the most aggressive anti-abortion restrictions they could.
And this was a mistake. It only reinforced Democrat women’s fears and independent women’s doubts, fueling the abortion rights extremists to rally and independents to waver or vote Democrat.
What they should have done is defend Dobbs and the Supreme Court while positioning the GOP as the reasonable party on abortion.
Abortion on demand at all times under any circumstances, until the time of birth (and sometimes even beyond), is the extreme position.
And most Americans oppose that insanity.
“Let states decide. The left is extreme on abortion.” That’s how we should have played it.
Sadly, too many on the right didn’t follow that playbook.
So, when Trump stated on Truth Social on Sunday that it wasn’t his fault that “Republicans didn’t live up to expectations” in the 2022 midterm elections, he may be partly right.
Instead, Trump blamed the “abortion issue,” writing that it was “poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother.”
And that was true. Here I agree with Trump.
When I ran for office in South Florida 10 years ago, I signed the National Right to Life Pledge, but even that staunchly pro-life organization made exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.
Now, however, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the nation’s leading pro-life groups, which spent tens of millions to mobilize the pro-life vote in the 2022 midterms, stated in response to Trump:
The approach to winning on abortion in federal races, proven for a decade is this: state clearly the ambitious consensus pro-life view on abortion and contrast that with the extreme view of Democrat opponents. We look forward to hearing that position fully articulated by Mr. Trump and all presidential candidates.
Their response was far from convincing. Taking the most extreme counterpoint to the left’s extreme position doesn’t win votes. It only makes you seem more extreme than the other guys.
In an interview with Breitbart News last month, Trump said it best: “I think a lot of Republicans didn’t handle the abortion question properly. I think if you don’t have the three exceptions, it’s almost impossible in most parts of the country to win.”
And even when Republicans were not asking for the most extreme abortion restrictions, the Democrats lied that they were.
And this was also a failure of the GOP.
The Democrats and leftist groups spent $468 million on abortion-related advertisements, whereas the Republican party focused its campaign advertising on inflation.
While some grassroots conservatives were overzealous about rolling back abortion after Dobbs, the GOP establishment was afraid of the abortion issue altogether, ignored it and hoped it would just go away.
But I think Trump is also wrong to take no blame himself. He did play a big part in the 2022 electoral defeat.
A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to “get rid of” and “take out” President Donald Trump.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for “reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to ‘get rid’ of then-President Trump.”
“The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”
In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues…
At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.
“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”
Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary…”
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:
Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.
Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.
All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks in National Statuary Hall on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, January 6, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
ANALYSIS – The separate disclosures of highly classified materials found in three different locations tied to Joe Biden, and his delay in making public the first discovery in November seem to be souring even the most ardent Bidenistas.
Per the New York Post, Biden’s loyal lap dog, Attorney General Garland, “solidifying his reputation as a bitter partisan hack, kept secret the first Biden document finding of Nov. 2 until after the midterm elections and seemed to be hiding each new finding until it was forced into the open.”
Biden’s prior harsh words about Trump “how could anyone be that irresponsible?” with classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago in August are now coming back to haunt him.
And the president’s responses to questions about the documents, like dismissing the risk to national security, because, you know, they were in a locked garage next to his prized Corvette, have only made things worse.
And so has his press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, whose avoidance, refusal to answer, dissembling, and nonsensical doublespeak, has become a serious sore spot among White House correspondents, not to mention the public at large.
When reports emerged last Monday that multiple classified documents were found in an office Biden used after leaving the White House as vice president, the propaganda media circled the wagons around him by insisting he’s no Donald Trump. They had a point — up to a point.
But when reports two days later said a second batch of supposedly secret papers was found in Biden’s Delaware garage, the wall of media protection showed some cracks as the differences between the presidents’ cases narrowed. And when an additional classified page was found in Biden’s Delaware library, and a special prosecutor was appointed Thursday to investigate him, the defenders made a hasty retreat.
What makes this far more than just a mishandled classified documents scandal though, is the two locations where the materials were found.
Both connect to far bigger scandals — Chinese influence on the Biden family, corruption, pay-to-play schemes, and Hunter Biden.
One – The Penn Biden Center – (well a closet in an office at this Center’s office space). This is the essentially made-up entity created to pay Biden $900,000 for doing almost nothing after leaving the White House as VP in 2017.
But beyond the sleaziness of that deal, the University of Pennsylvania got $54.6 million in donations from Communist China from 2014 through June 2019, including $23.1 million in anonymous gifts starting in 2016.
The Post reported: “The Penn Biden Center is a dark-money, revolving-door nightmare where foreign competitors like China donated millions of dollars to the university so that they could have access to future high-ranking officials,” said Tom Anderson, director of the Government Integrity Project at the Virginia-based National Legal and Policy Center.
Was some of that money siphoned off to pay Joe? Was this a result of payoffs tied to Hunter’s Chinese business deals? And, did China gain access to the documents found there, or others ones not found?
Two – Biden’s beach house. Hunter lives in the Delaware house, raising concerns he might have seen the documents, which were not secured beyond being in a locked garage next to Joe’s Corvette, while others were apparently found in the house itself.
Did Hunter have access to these highly classified documents? Did he disclose the contents to his Chinese colleagues?
We may soon have answers to these important questions. Especially since they have resurfaced now just the aggressive new GOP-led house begins its investigations into the Bidens.
The timing could not be worse for Biden.
As the POST writes: “Long before the document bombshells, GOP leaders vowed to follow the millions upon millions of dollars that Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, Joe’s brother, got abroad from selling access to Joe. Based on the contents of Hunter’s laptop, it’s certain that Joe benefited from foreign payments.”
Pope Francis has named Cardinal Robert McElroy, a known advocate for migrants and outspoken critic of President-elect Donald Trump, as the new Archbishop of Washington, D.C. The decision underscores the pontiff’s preference for church leaders who align with his progressive vision, even as it risks further deepening ideological divisions within the millennia-old Catholic Church.
Cardinal McElroy, recognized as a strong supporter of LGBTQ inclusion and other liberal causes, has consistently aligned with Pope Francis on key social and theological issues. His appointment was announced two weeks before Inauguration Day, conspicuous timing that drew widespread attention given the cardinal’s history of publicly criticizing Trump’s policies on immigration and social justice. This is particularly notable in light of McElroy’s emphasis on synodality (dialogue with one another in the presence of the Spirit of God) and church reform, which have drawn both praise and criticism from Catholic observers.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
As Forbes’ Conor Murray reports, the move to elevate McElroy comes as a stark contrast to Trump’s nomination of Brian Burch as ambassador to Vatican City. Burch, a conservative Catholic activist and president of the right-leaning advocacy group CatholicVote, was instrumental in rallying Catholic support for Trump during the 2024 campaign. His organization has frequently clashed with the more progressive stances of Pope Francis and his allies:
McElroy has largely slammed Trump because of his views on immigration, including his promise to conduct mass deportations. McElroy was one of 12 Catholic bishops from California who co-authored a statement last month voicing support for “our migrant brothers and sisters,” acknowledging the “calls for mass deportations and raids on undocumented individuals” have created fear in migrant communities. After Trump’s first election victory in 2016, McElroy called it “unthinkable” that Catholics would “stand by while more than ten percent of our flock is ripped from our midst and deported.” He called Trump’s mass deportation plan an “act of injustice which would stain our national honor” and compared it to Japanese interment and Native American dispossession. McElroy criticized Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy in 2017 for lacking any “shred of humanity,” stating Jesus Christ was “both a refugee and an immigrant during his journey.”
In a 2023 column for America magazine, McElroy urged greater welcoming of divorced and LGBTQ Catholics into the church, stating the church’s “disproportionate” focus on sexual activity as sin “does not lie at the heart” of a Christian’s relationship with God and “should change.” McElroy called it a “demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral animus toward members of the L.G.B.T. communities.” In a February 2024 speech, McElroy considered the lack of support among Catholics for blessing same-sex marriages to be the result of “enduring animus among far too many toward LGBT persons.” McElroy has also criticized abortion being considered a “de facto litmus test for determining whether a Catholic public official is a faithful Catholic.” McElroy, however, called Biden’s lack of support for anti-abortion legislation an “immense sadness” in a 2021 America magazine column, and called the overturning of Roe v. Wade a “day to give thanks and celebrate.”
Burch, founder and co-president of CatholicVote, was once a Trump skeptic but praised him in 2020 for making a “concerted effort to reach out to Catholics in a way that we haven’t seen in the past.” That year, he authored the pro-Trump book, “A New Catholic Moment: Donald Trump and the Politics of the Common Good.” Burch has slammed Francis for “progressive Catholic cheerleading” and accused him of creating “massive confusion” over his approval of blessing same-sex marriages in 2023.
Also on Monday, Francis appointed Sister Simona Brambilla, an Italian nun, to lead a Vatican office, making her the first woman to lead a major Vatican department. The department, the Dicastery for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, is responsible for religious orders. Francis has long voiced support for greater roles for women in the church, though he has ruled out ordaining women as deacons or priests.
McElroy’s appointment also highlights Pope Francis’ broader engagement with U.S. politics. In 2024, the pontiff made headlines when he urged voters to carefully consider their choices, describing the act of voting as a moral responsibility. During a press conference aboard the papal plane, Francis remarked on the complexities of American politics, advising voters to choose “the lesser evil” when faced with challenging decisions.
While the pope has criticized Trump’s hardline immigration policies, he has also expressed concern over Vice President Kamala Harris‘ unwavering support for abortion rights. Both stances, Francis noted, conflict with the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life. “One must choose the lesser of two evils,” the pope reiterated. “Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Everyone with a conscience should think on this and do it.”
Despite the pontiff’s cultural influence, his impact on American politics was negligible. In the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump secured a notable share of the Catholic vote, surpassing his performance in previous campaigns. According to exit polls conducted by The Washington Post, Trump won the national Catholic vote by a 15-point margin, with 56% supporting him compared to 41% for Vice President Kamala Harris.
This represents a notable shift compared to the 2020 election, where the Catholic electorate was nearly evenly split, with 50% supporting Trump and 49% favoring Joe Biden, a lifelong Catholic.
The 2024 election also saw variations within the Catholic demographic. Trump’s support among white Catholics increased, with 59% backing him compared to Harris’s 39%, a 20-point margin. This was an improvement over his 15-point lead in 2020.
Marburg79, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Among Latino Catholics, there was a significant shift toward Trump. In 2020, Biden led this group by a substantial margin, but in 2024, Trump’s support increased notably, contributing to his overall gains among Catholic voters.
The appointment of McElroy is likely to spark further debate within the Church, where a widening schism between liberal and conservative leaders continue to grow. However, it also reflects Francis’ commitment to shaping the Church’s leadership in a way that emphasizes his vision for pastoral care and inclusivity, even at the expense of unity.
Yet, in the United States, voting trends strongly suggest that Trump’s campaign strategies—including selecting Senator JD Vance, a Catholic, as his running mate, and making explicit appeals to Catholic voters—resonated with this demographic, contributing to increased GOP support in the 2024 election and possibly beyond.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
CBP Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – Shocking Video –In the latest example of Joe Biden’s outrageous dereliction of duty in protecting U.S. sovereignty, Fox News’ Bill Melugin reported that a caravan of over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed into El Paso, Texas last night.
This was just one group, but it is the largest single mob ever to swarm across the border according to the Border Patrol, which now has 5,000 illegal migrants in custody and has released hundreds of others onto the city’s streets.
Meanwhile, Biden says there are more important things than our border, and both he and his vice president refuse to go to the border to see the chaos for themselves.
And some argue that Boden’s policies are intentional, as he and his leftist cohorts see borders as immoral.
And because of that he will continue to violate his constitutional duties and ignore the law.
See the shocking video in the tweet below:
BREAKING: An enormous mass of hundreds of migrants have just crossed illegally into El Paso, TX. There is now a massive line of migrants waiting to be taken into custody by Border Patrol, and more are coming. El Paso sector had over 2,600 crossings in 24 hrs Fri-Sat. @FoxNewspic.twitter.com/0AaQRQXVNN
What’s worse, the mob was apparently aided along the way by Mexico’s Chihuahua State Police who escorted the caravan of nearly 20 migrant buses into Ciudad Juarez before they launched themselves into the United States at El Paso.
See more video below:
Before this mass of migrants crossed, Mexican police escorted nearly 20 buses full of migrants into Ciudad Juarez, the MX city across from El Paso, and released them at multiple NGOs. The migrants then walked from the NGOs to the river, & crossed illegally into El Paso. @FoxNewspic.twitter.com/KgE2HUVbej
The Blaze reported that: “The illegal aliens, who allegedly came from Nicaragua, Peru, and Ecuador, were escorted by Chihuahua State Police from the city of Jiménez to facilities run by nongovernmental organizations in the Mexican border city of Juárez.”
The Blaze added:
Illegal aliens lined up to be taken into custody by Border Patrol with the understanding that — rather than facing a penalty for violating American territorial sovereignty — they would likely be cut loose inside the U.S.
1,744 illegal aliens were released into El Paso between Saturday and Sunday, reported El Paso Matters.
The El Paso sector of the southern border reportedly had over 2,600 illegal crossings over a period of 24 hours from Friday to Saturday.
In his statements to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington,Mayorkas was focusing more on how borders are increasingly meaningless for foreign adversaries of the United States, but the chaos at the southern border was part of his worrisome assessment.
And for those who admit there may be a problem at the border, but it’s not Biden’s fault, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has news for you – It’s all Biden’s fault.
Rapid Disintegration in Border Security Under Biden. Joe Biden was the fortuitous beneficiary of what his first Border Patrol chief, Rodney Scott, described in September 2021 as “arguably the most effective border security in” U.S. history. The chief asserted, however, that this security rapidly disintegrated as “border security recommendations from experienced career professionals” were “ignored and stymied by inexperienced political employees.”
CIS adds:
Why would Biden adopt such a policy? As my colleague Mark Krikorian recently explained:
[T]he deeper reason this administration, from the president on down, doesn’t think what’s happening at the border is important is that they believe immigration controls are morally wrong — period. They believe that the American people simply have no right to keep anyone out. And if the immigration law requires them to do that — as it obviously does — they’ll do their best to circumvent and ignore the law.
In other words, the Biden administration sees the Immigration and Nationality Act [INA] as the equivalent of Jim Crow, and undermining it is the heroic equivalent of escorting black students into desegregated schools.
As long as Biden, and his leftist band of brothers and sisters, remain in office, expect millions more illegal immigrants, including common criminals, terrorists, and drug traffickers, to continue swarming into 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.
