FBI Director Kash Patel and Drug Enforcement Administration officials are celebrating a major victory in the war against drug trafficking after a joint operation led to one of Georgia's largest drug seizures. The historic bust yielded enough fentanyl to potentially kill 48 million Americans.
According to Fox News, federal agents executed three search warrants last Thursday, resulting in the arrest of 47-year-old Bartholomew Keeton Harralson and the seizure of more than 252 kilograms of drugs valued at over $9 million, along with 33 firearms.
The operation, part of a broader initiative called Operation Take Back America, represents a significant blow to drug trafficking networks operating in the Atlanta area. U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg announced that Harralson faces multiple charges that could result in at least 40 years in prison or potentially a life sentence.
Law enforcement agents discovered an alarming arsenal of narcotics during the raid on Harralson's Atlanta-area residence. The haul included over 56 kilograms of fentanyl, 84 kilograms of methamphetamine, nearly 10 kilograms of heroin, and approximately 4 kilograms of cocaine in both powder form and hundreds of thousands of pressed pills.
The search also yielded nine firearms, including one converted to function as a machine gun, and $145,000 in cash. In a particularly ironic twist, agents found a book titled "How to Avoid Federal Drug Conspiracy & Firearms Charges" in Harralson's possession at the time of his arrest.
DEA Atlanta Acting Special Agent in Charge Jae W. Chung emphasized the historic nature of the operation, noting it resulted in "the largest fentanyl seizure to date in the state of Georgia." The quantity of fentanyl alone—97 kilograms across all locations—contains enough lethal doses to kill approximately 48 million people.
The investigation revealed a sophisticated drug manufacturing operation spread across multiple locations. At Harralson's Douglasville residence, agents discovered two large pill press machines capable of producing up to 25,000 pills per hour, along with three hydraulic presses used to form kilogram-sized bricks of narcotics.
This secondary location contained even more narcotics: over 37 kilograms of fentanyl, about 13 kilograms of methamphetamine, over 8 kilograms of heroin, and more than 6 kilograms of cocaine. The drugs were found in both powder form and as hundreds of thousands of pressed pills designed to mimic prescription medications.
A machine shop behind the Douglasville residence functioned as part of the manufacturing operation, housing approximately 1,375 pounds of binding agent used in pill production, 564 punch dies for marking pills, 19 additional firearms, four drum-style magazines, and significant ammunition. FBI Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown noted that two ballistic vests were also found during the searches.
Director Patel, who was appointed to lead the FBI under the Trump administration, expressed pride in the successful operation and emphasized the importance of interagency cooperation in combating drug trafficking organizations.
"I'm proud of the outstanding work by our agents and grateful for the strong partnership of the DEA in this joint effort," Patel said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "This was a major takedown – dozens of weapons, large quantities of fentanyl and meth, and key members of a sophisticated drug network taken off the streets."
The operation aligns with Patel's directive to the FBI workforce to "crush violent crime," as Special Agent Brown explained during a press briefing. Brown highlighted the urgency of their mission, noting that "right now, we have an American dying every seven minutes from drug overdoses, and homicides occur twice each hour."
DEA officials confirmed that the enormous quantities of drugs discovered in the bust indicated a direct connection to Mexican drug cartels. The operation is part of Operation Take Back America, which aims to streamline efforts within the Department of Homeland Security to crack down on illegal immigration and eliminate cartels and transnational criminal organizations.
Harralson now faces three serious charges: possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. If convicted on all counts, he faces a minimum of 40 years in federal prison.
The successful operation represents what Director Patel described as a "serious blow to those profiting off addiction" and demonstrates the administration's "unwavering commitment to protecting American communities."
Brad Bondi, brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, faced a staggering defeat in his bid to lead the D.C. Bar Association, securing just 9.1 percent of votes in an election that saw unprecedented participation. The race garnered national attention amid concerns about potential Trump administration influence over the legal organization.
According to The Hill, Bondi received only 3,490 votes compared to employment lawyer Diane Seltzer's overwhelming 34,982 votes, representing 90.9 percent of ballots cast. The election drew a record turnout with over 38,646 votes cast, far exceeding the historical average of 7,444 ballots over the past 50 years.
Critics of President Trump had expressed alarm about what they perceived as an attempted takeover of the influential legal organization by administration allies, highlighting escalating tensions between the White House and the legal profession.
The D.C. Bar Association, the largest unified bar in the country with approximately 121,000 members, experienced what its CEO Robert Spagnoletti described as "extraordinary" engagement in this election. The 43.26 percent voter participation rate marked a dramatic increase from typical elections.
Spagnoletti emphasized the "apolitical" nature of the organization during a press call Monday afternoon while acknowledging the exceptional level of member involvement. The unprecedented turnout suggests widespread concern among members about the direction of the organization.
The election results come at a time when relationships between the Trump administration and the legal community have reached what some describe as "stratospheric" levels of tension, though Bondi had previously pledged to maintain the association's nonpartisan status.
Following his defeat, Bondi issued a statement expressing both gratitude and significant concerns about how the election unfolded. The white-collar defense attorney, who has represented high-profile clients including Elon Musk and Trump Media & Technology Group, blamed partisan politics for transforming the race.
Bondi claimed the campaign devolved into "baseless attacks, identity politics, and partisan recrimination" rather than focusing on substantive ideas for improving the organization. He specifically mentioned suggestions like enhancing the ethics hotline and expanding pro bono programs.
In his statement to The Hill, Bondi expressed disgust with how the election unfolded: "I am disgusted by how rabid partisans lurched this election into the political gutter, turning a professional campaign into baseless attacks, identity politics, and partisan recrimination. Smearing me over my family and peddling conspiracies about my intentions is not just an assault on my integrity but on the D.C. Bar's very mission."
The election results revealed a broader pattern of rejection for candidates perceived as aligned with the Trump administration. Alicia Long, a top deputy to interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, also lost her bid for treasurer by a significant margin.
Long received just 8,854 votes, representing 25.1 percent of ballots cast in that race. Her opponent, cybersecurity lawyer Amanda Molina, secured a decisive victory with 26,380 votes, or 74.9 percent of the total.
The parallel defeats suggest a coordinated response from D.C. Bar members against candidates perceived as having close ties to the Trump administration. Despite assertions from Bondi and other candidates that they would maintain the organization's nonpartisan tradition, voters overwhelmingly chose alternatives.
Brad Bondi's overwhelming defeat in the D.C. Bar Association presidential election represents a significant rebuke from the legal community amid heightened political tensions. The brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi secured just 9.1 percent of votes against employment lawyer Diane Seltzer's 90.9 percent in a contest that drew unprecedented participation.
The record-setting voter turnout—with over 38,000 ballots cast compared to the historical average of about 7,400—underscores the legal community's intense interest in this election. Many observers interpreted the results as a direct response to concerns about potential Trump administration influence over the bar association.
Seltzer, who was endorsed by nearly two dozen former D.C. Bar Association presidents, will begin her term as president-elect next month and assume the presidency on July 1, 2026, after members delivered what appears to be a clear mandate against candidates with ties to the current administration.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has issued a stern warning to California Governor Gavin Newsom after the Democrat threatened to withhold federal tax payments amid an escalating dispute over transgender athletes in school sports. The confrontation began when President Donald Trump vowed to impose "large scale fines" on California for allowing a biological male to compete in girls' sports competitions.
According to Fox Business, Bessent condemned Newsom's suggestion as "extremely reckless" and warned that such actions would constitute criminal tax evasion, potentially leaving California residents and businesses liable for unpaid federal taxes.
The dispute centers on transgender athlete AB Hernandez, who recently won first place in the girls' high jump and triple jump events at the California state competition while taking second in the long jump. California's Interscholastic Federation had amended its rules to accommodate transgender athletes by allowing four finalist spots instead of three in events where Hernandez earned medals.
Trump triggered the confrontation with a post on Truth Social, declaring, "A Biological Male competed in California Girls State Finals, WINNING BIG, despite the fact that they were warned by me not to do so." The president added that Governor "Gavin Newscum fully understands, large scale fines will be imposed!"
Newsom responded by threatening to withhold California's substantial contribution to federal coffers. "Californians pay the bills for the federal government," Newsom wrote on X. "We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it's time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump."
Bessent quickly moved to counter Newsom's threat, posting on X that such actions would constitute tax evasion and defraud American taxpayers. The Treasury Secretary wrote that he was "certain most California businesses know that failing to pay taxes owed to the Treasury constitutes tax evasion and have no intention of following the dangerous path Governor @GavinNewsom is threatening."
Bessent's warning to California officials was particularly pointed, suggesting they could face personal consequences for following through on Newsom's threat. His message targeted state officials specifically, including payroll managers who might be involved in implementing such a policy.
"I would warn state officials, including payroll managers, that federal law attaches personal liability to an attempt to evade or defeat tax," Bessent stated in his social media post, elevating the stakes for any California official who might consider implementing Newsom's suggestion.
Instead of pursuing what he called "criminal tax evasion," Bessent suggested California adopt tax policies more aligned with Trump's approach. "Governor Newsom should consider a tax plan for California that follows the Trump Tax Cuts model and reduces the onerous state tax burden to allow families to keep more of their hard-earned money," he advised.
The California Interscholastic Federation's accommodation for transgender athletes has already drawn federal scrutiny. The Department of Justice has launched a probe into potential Title IX violations regarding California's policy on transgender athletes in girls' sports.
This federal investigation comes in addition to an ongoing Department of Education inquiry that began in February. The multiple federal investigations highlight the growing tension between state and federal authorities over the issue of transgender athletes participation in school sports.
The recent state competition showcased the Federation's compromise approach. Hernandez had to share podium spots with female athletes who finished one position behind after the finals on Saturday, a temporary change that granted female athletes qualification and podium finishes they would have earned had a biological male not competed.
The unprecedented threat to withhold federal tax payments marks a significant escalation in the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and California. Newsom's suggestion that the state might leverage its substantial federal tax contributions represents a novel approach to state resistance.
California's economic power gives particular weight to Newsom's threat. The state recently overtook Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy, underscoring its financial significance both nationally and globally. This economic clout has emboldened California's leadership in challenging federal policies.
Bessent's characterization of Newsom's proposal as "extremely reckless" highlights the Biden administration's view that such actions would cross a fundamental line in federal-state relations, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis over tax authority and collection.
Ric Flair, one of wrestling's most revered figures, has shared heart-wrenching news with fans and followers: he is facing skin cancer for the second time in three years, as the Daily Caller reports. The 76-year-old phenom is set to commence treatment next week after initially denying such a diagnosis on social media.
Renowned for his immense influence in wrestling circles, Flair has been a pivotal figure in organizations such as the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA), World Wrestling Federation (WWF), and World Championship Wrestling (WCW). His charismatic presence and storied career have earned him a place among the greatest professional wrestlers in history, retaining a robust following despite his recent health adversities.
Recollecting the first instance of his battle with skin cancer, Flair’s current health challenge brings him face-to-face once again with a disease that disrupted his life three years ago. Reporting treatment preparations, Flair's choice to now disclose his condition marks a shift from his initial dismissal of the rumors on June 5, as seen on his social media profiles.
The wrestling icon’s health has been a topic of concern over the past few years. In 2017, an alarming medical emergency resulted in his hospitalization, due to severe abdominal discomfort. This was not merely a singular issue but unveiled deeper ailments such as early-stage kidney failure and near catastrophic heart failure, both exacerbated by a history of alcohol misuse.
Back then, Flair’s situation was so dire that it necessitated a medically induced coma followed by surgery. The severity of his condition was highlighted by the slim survival prospects he faced, with just a 20% chance of recovery. Medical intervention required significant procedures, including the excision of a portion of his intestine and the implantation of a pacemaker.
Despite these serious health tribulations, Flair managed a remarkable recovery, only to now confront another health challenge. His recent announcement has naturally sparked a mix of concern and support from his fans and colleagues.
The personal challenges Flair has faced throughout his life extend beyond his medical conditions. His relationship with Wendy Barlow, who was by his side during the 2017 crisis, has since concluded, indicating another chapter of change for the Hall of Famer.
Throughout his accomplished career, Flair's resilience became emblematic of his persona. Even now, in light of his skin cancer resurgence, he shared contemplations on his storied past in the public arena. Reflecting on his unique experiences, Flair compared his current ordeal to previous life-threatening events, including surviving an aircraft crash and a lightning strike. Yet, to Flair, these past adversities pale in comparison to his ongoing struggle, reinforcing the gravity of his situation.
Despite the severity of his medical conditions and the uncertainties they present, Flair remains a figure of inspiration and endurance. He thanked his supporters by commenting, "Appreciate the concerns!" demonstrating his recognition of the strong bond with his fans.
As Flair prepares to face his latest health challenge, the details surrounding his treatment plan and his prognosis are presently undisclosed to the public. Nevertheless, his decision to commit to upcoming medical intervention underlines his determination to combat the recurring ailment.
Flair’s fortitude is reflective of a career defined by overcoming odds both inside and outside of the wrestling ring. It also highlights his willingness to engage openly with personal struggles, a testament to his enduring connection with wrestling enthusiasts and admirers alike.
The coming weeks will be pivotal as Flair undertakes his treatment process, a journey filled with challenges but also buoyed by widespread support.
For a man who has faced significant adversities, Flair’s current situation offers a chance to once again showcase the resilience that has defined much of his storied life.
Michelle Obama is opening up about the challenges she faced as a mother, as her daughters found ways to define themselves apart from their famous parents.
Mrs. Obama known for her candid reflections, shared her experiences navigating the complexities of parenting in the public eye as her daughters, Malia and Sasha, grew into independent young women, as the Daily Mail reports.
Speaking on the Sibling Revelry podcast with Kate and Olivia Hudson, Michelle, 61, reflected on how her daughters, Malia, 26, and Sasha, 23, began to distance themselves during their teenage years. This shift, she explained, was part of their natural development and a desire to form identities unique from their parents. "But they definitely went through a period in their teen years… it was the 'push away,'" Obama shared candidly, drawing from her observations as a mother witnessing her children’s phases of growth.
This distancing wasn’t entirely unexpected for Obama. She and former President Barack Obama anticipated it as part of a developmental stage where children naturally seek independence, especially those with parents known worldwide. For the Obama daughters, establishing their own identity sometimes involved symbolic gestures. A notable example occurred when the world recognized Malia during the Sundance premiere of her short film in 2024.
To mark her autonomy, she chose to drop the last name, though Michelle humorously noted, "We were like, 'They're still going to know it’s you, Malia,'" while also respecting her daughter's choice. However, Michelle's revelations extend beyond symbolic acts of independence. On Let's Talk Off Camera with Kelly Ripa, Obama delved into the nuanced difficulties of safeguarding her daughters' privacy throughout Barack’s presidency.
Protecting the young women from relentless public scrutiny often required meticulous planning. "Every weekend was a nightmare because we had to work to make sure that they, being regular teenagers, didn’t wind up on Page Six," Michelle recounted, acknowledging the unenviable task of ensuring normalcy amid relentless media attention.
The security considerations that accompanied their family’s life in the White House presented unique challenges in parenting. Obama shared the arduous nature of visits by recounting that if Malia or Sasha wanted to visit a friend’s house, an advance team had to assess the situation comprehensively, a process that included questioning the homeowner about any potential hazards.
These procedures often reinforced the family’s extraordinary reality. However, to the Obama daughters, this was just part of their everyday life, or as Michelle put it, "the Obama tax." She explained that while this reality came with undeniable challenges, it also offered unprecedented opportunities and experiences for her daughters.
Privacy was a constant concern for the Obamas as they worked diligently to maintain a sense of normalcy under constant observation. "When your kids are under the security of the Secret Service, you almost have to work twice as hard to make their life normal," Michelle described, emphasizing the additional effort required to balance global recognition with private family life.
Amid these practical concerns, Michelle's parenting philosophy evolved as her daughters matured into adulthood. She adapted her approach from one of protective vigilance to encouraging them to embrace the world independently. This shift wasn't always straightforward but was grounded in the belief that her daughters’ achievements should be attributed to their own merits.
Reflecting on her parenting journey, Michelle also divulged a personal moment of growth when discussing her approach to discipline. On her podcast, IMO with Michelle Obama, she recalled a turning point regarding her stance on corporal punishment. Although she tapped into familiar methods from her background, her reflections led to a conscious decision to abandon spanking. "I felt like, you know, this is a little kid," she explained, acknowledging her discomfort with resorting to physical discipline.
This personal revelation unfolded as Michelle recognized that achieving effective communication and understanding required emotional engagement rather than acts of discipline. Her reflections underscored a desire for a nuanced approach to parenting, prioritizing empathy and connection over immediate solutions to behavior.
The transparency with which Michelle Obama discussed these aspects of her life serves as a relatable narrative for many who grapple with similar challenges, albeit without the intense public interest. Her journey highlights the inherent balancing act between parental protection and fostering independence, especially under unique circumstances.
In these conversations, Michelle Obama offers a potent reminder of the complex, evolving nature of parenting -- lessons affirmed through introspection and time. Her story is one of transition, growth, and the recognition that parenting is as much about the parents’ journey of understanding as it is about guiding their children.
Even after leaving the White House, Michelle continues to shed light on the enduring impact of her presidential family experience, providing a perspective that resonates with many navigating the intricate dynamics of modern family life.
President Joe Biden’s final actions in office have set off a fierce debate in Washington. New revelations about the way he signed his last batch of pardons have put his leadership and transparency under the spotlight.
According to Fox News, Biden personally signed only one pardon—his son Hunter’s—while more than 1,500 others, including some of the most controversial, were authorized by autopen. This mechanical signature device has prompted allegations of misconduct, deception, and a possible cover-up regarding Biden’s mental fitness.
The Justice Department and President Donald Trump’s administration have both launched investigations into whether Biden’s aides misled the public about who was truly wielding executive power in his last weeks. The scale of the autopen’s use and its implications for government accountability have become a flashpoint.
Political opponents argue that the widespread use of the autopen signals more than just bureaucratic efficiency. President Trump has openly accused Biden’s aides of orchestrating a cover-up to hide the president’s mental decline, stating that the deployment of the autopen allowed staff to wield executive power in Biden’s name without his direct involvement.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been directed by Trump to investigate whether Biden’s team intentionally misled the public and undermined the integrity of the office. The investigation seeks to determine if any laws were broken or if the president’s constitutional duties were delegated unlawfully during his last weeks in office.
Biden’s defenders counter that the autopen is a practical tool for handling large volumes of paperwork. However, critics maintain that the timing and secrecy surrounding its use—especially for such significant decisions—warrant closer scrutiny. They argue that pardons affecting national policy and high-profile individuals should require the president’s direct engagement.
The only individual to receive a hand-signed pardon from Joe Biden was his son Hunter, who had recently pleaded guilty to felony gun offenses and faced federal tax charges. Biden’s handwritten signature on Hunter’s blanket pardon stood in sharp contrast to the autopen signatures on all other clemency documents, sparking a wave of accusations about preferential treatment and political interference.
In his statement, Biden defended his decision as both a father and a president, expressing frustration at what he described as relentless and unfair prosecution: "From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted," the former president said.
Biden further accused his opponents of attempting to “break” both him and his son through a series of attacks, vowing that the effort to damage his family would not succeed. The pardon, covering offenses from January 2014 to December 2024, immediately shielded Hunter Biden from further federal prosecution.
Special Counsel David Weiss, who led the investigation into Hunter Biden, sharply criticized both the pardon and President Biden’s public remarks. Weiss asserted that Biden’s statements mischaracterized the yearslong probe and unfairly maligned career prosecutors at the Department of Justice.
Weiss’s report stated: "Other presidents have pardoned family members, but in doing so, none have taken the occasion as an opportunity to malign the public servants at the Department of Justice based solely on false accusations."
Weiss concluded that, given the pardon, no further charges could be pursued against Hunter Biden, and it would be inappropriate to comment on any potential additional indictments. His response has fueled further debate about the limits of presidential clemency and the consequences of criticizing federal law enforcement.
The fallout from Biden’s final acts in office is now set to play out in the courts and in public discourse. Attorney General Bondi’s investigation will examine whether Biden’s use of the autopen was lawful or a violation of presidential responsibility. The Department of Justice’s review is expected to focus on whether aides acted within the scope of their authority or engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the American people.
Biden’s defenders argue that the use of the autopen was a matter of necessity given the volume of clemency actions. Critics insist that the legitimacy of every pardon signed by the device is now in question and that the president’s mental and physical capacity must be fully disclosed.
Both sides are bracing for a lengthy battle over the legality and ethics of Biden’s actions, with potential implications for future presidencies. The controversy underscores the ongoing tension between tradition, transparency, and the evolving nature of presidential authority in the modern era.
Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore has unveiled a controversial rewrite of the Pledge of Allegiance designed to unite progressives against what he calls "MAGA heads." The left-wing activist shared his alternative version that shifts focus from allegiance to the country to allegiance to "the people" instead.
According to Breitbart, Moore debuted his reimagined pledge on his Substack account, claiming his intention was to "fight for the survival" of the country. He positioned his new version as a response to what he viewed as America's problems.
In his introduction to the pledge, Moore wrote that he was creating it "For you. For me. For the people and for the country that deep down — in spite of its MAGA-heads, in spite of its insanity — we've decided to fight for its survival, holding onto a belief that we can make it better, that we can fix it, that we can end the madness and create a true Democracy for which it stands."
Moore's revised pledge notably changes several key elements of the traditional American Pledge of Allegiance. Rather than pledging to the flag and republic, Moore's version begins with "I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America."
The filmmaker's pledge emphasizes concepts like "one person, one vote" and describes America as "part of one world" rather than focusing on the nation itself. His version includes calls for "everyone" to have "a seat at the table" and "a slice of the pie."
Moore concludes his pledge with a modified version of the traditional ending, stating: "With liberty and justice, equality, and kindness and the pursuit of happiness for all." These changes reflect his progressive vision for how Americans should view their relationship with their country.
After presenting his new pledge, Moore urged his followers to engage in daily political action with the same consistency as breathing or heartbeats. He compared political engagement to vital bodily functions that cannot be neglected.
However, Breitbart points out apparent contradictions in Moore's messaging. While his pledge centers on "the people," Moore reportedly made comments after the 2024 election stating that Americans are "not a good people" and describing America as having "a non-stop cavalcade, a sordid laundry list of evil deeds."
The report also notes that Moore seems to misunderstand fundamental aspects of American governance, particularly his references to "democracy" when the United States is technically a constitutional republic. This distinction has long been a point of contention between progressive and conservative political viewpoints.
The filmmaker's proposed pledge has drawn significant criticism from conservative voices who view it as an attack on traditional American values. Many see it as part of a broader progressive effort to redefine patriotism and national identity.
Critics point out that Moore's focus on "one world" rather than "one nation" appears to diminish American sovereignty in favor of globalist perspectives. This approach aligns with progressive viewpoints but contradicts a more traditional and conservative understanding of American exceptionalism.
Conservative commentators have also noted the irony of Moore claiming to fight for America's survival while simultaneously criticizing its fundamental character and a large portion of its citizens who support former President Trump, whom he derogatorily labels as "MAGA heads."
Moore's pledge rewrite comes amid ongoing political polarization in the United States during President Trump's second term. The filmmaker has long been one of Trump's most vocal critics in the entertainment industry.
The pledge controversy highlights the deep cultural divisions that persist in America, with fundamental disagreements about national identity and values. Moore's characterization of Trump supporters as "MAGA heads" and his characterization of America as suffering from "insanity" reflect the intensely partisan rhetoric that continues to define much of the political discourse.
Moore, who rose to fame with documentaries like "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," remains a prominent progressive voice despite criticism. His pledge rewrite represents his latest attempt to reshape American political culture according to his left-wing vision.
The House Oversight Committee's investigation into former President Joe Biden's alleged mental decline has gained powerful new backing from the Department of Justice, with Chairman James Comer praising the expansion of scrutiny into controversial end-of-term pardons.
According to Fox News, the Trump administration's DOJ has launched an investigation into whether Biden was mentally competent when certain pardons were issued and if others potentially took advantage of him through unauthorized use of an autopen signature device.
The probe centers on a series of sweeping pardons granted in Biden's final days in office, including a controversial pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, which contradicted Biden's previous public statements that he would not pardon family members.
The DOJ's involvement marks a significant escalation in examining the circumstances surrounding Biden's last months in office. Their investigation specifically focuses on whether Biden was mentally fit to issue pardons and if staff members potentially overstepped their authority.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer welcomed the DOJ's parallel investigation, viewing it as validation of his committee's ongoing probe into alleged efforts to conceal Biden's declining cognitive state.
"The Trump DOJ is right to open a probe into the potential unauthorized use of autopen at the Biden White House for sweeping pardons and other executive actions," Comer stated. "Americans demand transparency and accountability about who was calling the shots at the White House."
Comer's committee has requested testimony from five former senior Biden aides, including the president's physician Kevin O'Connor, as part of their investigation into what they term a "cover-up" of Biden's mental state.
Sources familiar with the matter indicate that lawyers for all five former staffers are in communication with the committee regarding potential appearances. However, Comer has made it clear that subpoenas remain on the table if voluntary cooperation fails.
The committee chairman emphasized his determination to get answers, stating the investigation "will be talking soon with a large group of former administration and campaign officials, under subpoena if necessary."
Questions about Biden's cognitive abilities, once considered taboo in Washington circles, gained prominence following his widely criticized debate performance against Donald Trump in 2024. Since then, numerous reports have emerged about Biden misremembering longtime allies and losing focus during important meetings.
Biden's recent announcement of stage 4 prostate cancer has added another layer of complexity to the ongoing investigations into his final months in office. Despite his condition, the former president has maintained an optimistic outlook.
These health revelations have sparked renewed interest in examining the decision-making processes during Biden's last days in office, particularly regarding his use of presidential pardoning power.
The dual investigations by the House Oversight Committee and Trump's DOJ signal an unprecedented level of scrutiny into a former president's mental competency and executive actions. Both probes specifically target the use of autopen for pardons and other official documents.
Chairman Comer's investigation continues to expand, with the committee seeking to interview additional former White House officials and campaign staff members. The involvement of Trump's DOJ adds significant weight to these inquiries.
These investigations aim to determine whether Biden's staff potentially overstepped their authority and if proper protocols were followed during the execution of presidential pardons and other executive actions during his final months in office.
Florida Congressman Randy Fine has ignited a political firestorm with controversial remarks about Gaza that have left conservative commentator Tucker Carlson questioning his allegiance to the Republican Party. Carlson, a long-time supporter of President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, voiced his outrage over Fine’s statements during a fiery podcast discussion.
According to the Daily Mail, Fine, a Trump-endorsed congressman, suggested in a Fox News interview that Gaza should be subjected to nuclear strikes to ensure "unconditional surrender," drawing comparisons to the U.S. actions against Japan in World War II. His remarks have stunned political observers and caused a rift among conservatives, with Carlson labeling the comments as "evil."
Fine's comments have not only drawn condemnation from critics but have also set a precedent for Carlson to publicly question the direction of the Republican Party under Trump’s leadership. This development has sparked a heated debate about the ethical and cultural implications of Fine’s rhetoric.
In his interview, Fine justified his extreme stance by referencing historical warfare tactics. "In World War 2, we did not negotiate a surrender with the Nazis; we did not negotiate a surrender with the Japanese. We nuked the Japanese twice in order to get an unconditional surrender. That needs to be the same here in Gaza," he said. Fine claimed Gaza’s "culture" needed to be defeated, adding, "There is something deeply wrong with its culture."
The congressman, who recently replaced Mike Waltz as a Trump-backed candidate in Florida, doubled down on his remarks on social media. He accused critics of being unwilling to "call evil by its name" and linked his comments to his personal experiences, stating that his Jewish sons had faced bullying since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
These statements have drawn sharp criticism not only from Democrats but also from conservative voices like Carlson. The Florida lawmaker’s remarks prompted a response from Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza, which described them as inflammatory and reflective of an extremist mindset.
Tucker Carlson, known for his staunch support of Trump and the MAGA movement, expressed disbelief and outrage over Fine’s comments during a podcast discussion with journalist Glenn Greenwald. Carlson revealed that he initially doubted the authenticity of Fine’s remarks, saying, "I text a friend of mine in Congress… I didn’t believe he was really a member of Congress."
Carlson did not hold back in his criticism, calling Fine’s rhetoric "disgusting" and "evil." He questioned how such remarks could come from an elected official and why the Republican Party had not taken action against Fine.
"How can you say something like that and not get expelled from Congress? How can that person still be in the Republican Party?" Carlson asked. He went further, admitting that Fine’s comments had made him reconsider his loyalty to the GOP, stating, "I don’t know if I can support a party with someone like Randy Fine."
Carlson’s denunciation marks a rare moment of public disapproval from one of Trump’s most vocal allies, highlighting deeper divisions within the Republican Party over its stance on foreign policy and cultural issues.
Fine’s comments have also stirred tensions within Florida’s Republican leadership, particularly with Governor Ron DeSantis, who has had a long-standing rivalry with the congressman. DeSantis, who has fallen out with Trump after challenging him in the Republican presidential primary, described Fine as a "squish" and suggested his victory was more about loyalty to Trump than policy.
Despite the backlash, Fine remains defiant. On Monday, he took to Instagram to reiterate his stance, linking it to recent anti-Israel violence in Boulder, Colorado. His posts suggest he views his approach as a necessary response to what he perceives as growing anti-Semitism and threats to Israel’s security.
Meanwhile, Carlson’s criticism has amplified calls for accountability within the GOP. Some party insiders have expressed concern that Fine’s remarks and Carlson’s response could alienate voters and deepen internal divisions ahead of the 2024 elections.
The controversy surrounding Fine’s comments and Carlson’s rebuke underscores the growing tensions within the Republican Party over issues of foreign policy, ethics, and cultural identity. Fine’s remarks, rooted in historical comparisons, have drawn sharp criticism for their perceived insensitivity and extremism.
Carlson’s public condemnation marks a significant shift, as he has been one of the GOP’s most influential media figures. His decision to question the party’s direction under Trump’s leadership could signal broader dissatisfaction among conservative voters and commentators.
Democratic operative David Hogg and ex-White House staffer Deterrian Jones just made jaw-dropping claims about the Biden administration’s inner workings. Their candid remarks, captured in a Project Veritas undercover video, are sparking heated debate over who actually held power during Joe Biden’s presidency.
According to Breitbart, Hogg alleged that Anthony Bernal, Jill Biden’s chief of staff and a longtime Democratic insider, exercised unchecked power behind the scenes. The video further suggests that Bernal’s influence often eclipsed that of President Biden himself, raising new questions about transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.
Hogg’s claims are not isolated. The story quickly gained traction after ex-Biden staffer Deterrian Jones described Bernal as a “shadowy Wizard of Oz-type figure” who, despite being unknown to the general public, wielded “incredible power.” This narrative fits with broader suspicions that President Biden’s inner circle—rather than the president—was calling the shots as questions about his fitness for office mounted.
Hogg, currently vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, outlined how the president’s close advisors, rather than Biden himself, were managing the country’s affairs. He pointed to Bernal’s “enormous amount of power” and alluded to a White House where loyalty and proximity to Biden’s family outranked official titles or responsibilities.
Deterrian Jones, who worked with the Biden administration, reinforced Hogg’s assertions. He claimed that Bernal’s influence was an “open secret” in Washington. According to Jones, Bernal’s ability to shape policy and daily decisions placed him at the center of power, far from public scrutiny.
The Breitbart report also highlighted previous allegations of outside influence over Biden’s administration. In 2023, Tablet magazine reported that former President Barack Obama was quietly directing policy through a network of former staffers embedded in the White House. This pattern of alleged shadow governance has fueled speculation among conservatives and critics of the Democratic Party.
Anthony Bernal is no stranger to the political world, having served as a senior adviser to Jill Biden for years. Still, his name rarely surfaces in mainstream coverage, and most Americans would not recognize him if he walked down the street. The video’s depiction of Bernal as a “shadowy” figure has added to suspicions about the true power dynamics inside the Biden administration.
Breitbart included images of Bernal alongside both President Biden and the First Lady at public events, underscoring his proximity to the nation’s top leaders. But, according to Hogg and Jones, Bernal’s real work happened out of the spotlight through “hidden channels” of decision-making and influence. This revelation is sparking new calls for transparency from critics who say the American people deserve to know who is really making decisions in the White House.
Public reaction has been divided. Supporters of the Biden administration argue that close advisers are a normal part of any presidency. Critics, however, see the situation as evidence that Biden was not fit to govern and that unelected aides and family members stepped in to fill the leadership vacuum.
The claims about Bernal come on the heels of earlier reports that Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, was the key decision-maker during much of the Biden presidency. Tablet magazine’s 2023 exposé alleged that Obama maintained significant control through his former staffers, who now occupied influential posts in the administration. According to the narrative, the Biden White House became an extension of Obama’s political network.
Axios reporter Alex Thompson added fuel to the fire, telling MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Biden’s closest advisors—including Bernal, the First Lady, and others—were essentially “running the country.” Thompson pointed out that this inner circle had the most access to Biden, shaping his schedule and influencing key decisions.
While Democrats have dismissed these allegations as partisan attacks, conservatives argue that the evidence is mounting. The repeated appearance of names like Bernal, Donilon, Riccheti, and Reed in discussions of White House power only deepens skepticism about who was truly in charge.
The Project Veritas video has already triggered calls for further investigation into the Biden administration’s internal operations. Republicans and conservative watchdogs are demanding answers about how much authority unelected aides like Bernal exercised and whether this violated norms of democratic accountability.
Hogg’s remarks—particularly his admission that “the inner circle around Biden” was the real power—are being cited by critics as proof that Biden was a figurehead. Jones’s comparison of Bernal to the “Wizard of Oz” resonates on social media, fueling a narrative that the public was kept in the dark about who was really running the country. Deterrian Jones said, “He was scary. The general public wouldn’t know what he looked like, but he wielded incredible power.”
As the story continues to unfold, Democrats are scrambling to defend the administration’s decision-making process. However, with the 2024 election in the rearview and President Donald Trump back in office, these revelations are sure to fuel ongoing debate about transparency and the dangers of unelected power in Washington.