![\"Johnson](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/583218871_1364303029044324_1669281849023934056_n-1763392790-q80.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday emphasized Congress\u2019s recent legislative victories, indicating it is returning to regular order. He also disputed suggestions that President Donald Trump is in the Epstein files and revealed that the GOP-controlled House will more than likely pass a measure this week to release many of the files tied to Epstein.<\/p>\n
Johnson recognized that it could \u201cseem like a low bar,\u201d but he said Congress is returning \u201cto the way it\u2019s supposed to work\u201d so that it can better \u201csteward\u201d taxpayers\u2019 dollars.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are returning to regular order\u2014the way this [Congress] is supposed to work,\u201d said Johnson, R-La., on \u201cFox New Sunday\u201d during an interview. \u201cI\u2019m very proud of this achievement, having three bills signed into law Wednesday night.\u201d<\/p>\n
He added that some House Republicans did \u201csome of the best work of their careers\u201d during the shutdown because they were home with their constituents.\u201cRemember, the Democrats in Congress voted 16 times to keep the government closed\u2014to bring on the longest shutdown in government history\u2014and to exact all this pain on the people,\u201d Johnson stated. \u201cAnd it was all for naught. They got nothing out of it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not,\u201d Johnson declared.<\/p>\n
Johnson went on to argue that Trump isn\u2019t worried about accusations of his name being in the Epstein files.<\/p>\n
\u201cI talk with him all the time. He has nothing to do with this. He\u2019s frustrated that they [Democrats] are turning it into a political issue, and it\u2019s not surprising because the Democrats have nothing else to talk about,\u201d Johnson said.<\/p>\n
The Epstein files are Democrats\u2019 \u201centire game plan,\u201d and that\u2019s why Johnson said he \u201coffered them on the floor to pass by unanimous consent the discharge petition.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cGuess who objected? The Democrats. If they were really for transparency, if this is really about helping victims and all that, they would not have stopped the passage of the discharge petition,\u201d Johnson said.<\/p>\n
So the discharge petition will be on the floor again next week, Johnson explained, adding that he suspects \u201cthere will be lots of votes that will just get this done and move it on.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s nothing to hide, and the Oversight Committee is releasing far more information than the discharge petition little gambit ever even anticipated,\u201d Johnson said. \u201cThe discharge is totally moot. It is a political exercise, and we\u2019re going to dispense with that this week.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kentucky Republican\u00a0Rep. Thomas Massie predicted \u201c100 or more\u201d House Republicans could vote in favor of releasing files and documents this week.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we could have a deluge of Republicans,\u201d Massie said Sunday on ABC\u2019s \u201cThis Week\u201d when asked by Jonathan Karl about GOP support for the vote. \u201cThere could be 100 or more.\u201d<\/p>\n
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) spearheaded a successful discharge petition, which set up a vote in the House to force the Trump administration to divulge additional information concerning Epstein. Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, stated that the lower chamber is likely to vote on the bill this week.<\/p>\n
On Sunday, Massie said he hopes to get a veto-proof majority of two-thirds of both Democrats and Republicans to back the initiative. All Democrats and only four Republicans, including Massie, signed the petition.<\/p>\n
\u201cI would remind my Republican colleagues who are deciding how to vote \u2014 Donald Trump can protect you in red districts right now by giving you an endorsement,\u201d Massie said. \u201cBut in 2030, he\u2019s not going to be the president, and you will have voted to protect pedophiles if you don\u2019t vote to release these files, and the president can\u2019t protect you then.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump\u2019s presidency,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
A stunning political realignment has emerged from an unexpected source as a prominent Democratic senator delivered full-throated support for one of the Trump administration\u2019s most controversial military actions. The endorsement represents a dramatic departure from typical partisan battle lines and signals potential bipartisan support for aggressive counter-narcotics operations that challenge traditional legal and diplomatic boundaries.<\/p>\n
The cross-party backing comes at a critical moment when the administration faces intense scrutiny over the legal foundations of its military intervention against suspected drug traffickers. What began as a routine counter-narcotics operation has evolved into a broader test of presidential war powers, international law, and America\u2019s willingness to use lethal force against criminal organizations that threaten national security through drug trafficking.<\/p>\n
The unexpected Democratic support threatens to undermine opposition party criticism while potentially establishing precedent for expanded military operations against drug cartels that could reshape America\u2019s approach to the ongoing fentanyl crisis and transnational organized crime.<\/p>\n
U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) delivered an unequivocal defense of President Trump\u2019s use of military force against suspected drug smugglers, directly challenging his own party\u2019s criticism and providing crucial political cover for the administration\u2019s controversial operation. His statement represents one of the most significant instances of cross-party support for Trump military policy since the administration began implementing its aggressive counter-narcotics strategy.\u201cOverdosing takes 100,000+ American lives every year. Cartels wage this war against our nation everyday. Maybe it\u2019s time for our nation to push back and hold the cartels fully accountable,\u201d Fetterman wrote on X, framing the military action as necessary self-defense rather than questionable aggression. His language deliberately characterized drug trafficking as warfare against America, providing moral justification for military response.Fetterman\u2019s intervention carries particular political weight because of his progressive credentials and his previous criticism of certain Trump policies, making his support for military action against drug traffickers more credible to moderate Democrats and independents who might otherwise oppose expanded presidential war powers. His backing suggests that the drug crisis has created bipartisan urgency that transcends traditional political divisions.<\/p>\n
The Pennsylvania senator\u2019s emphasis on the scale of American overdose deaths\u2014over 100,000 annually\u2014provides stark statistical justification for extraordinary measures that might otherwise face constitutional or legal challenges. By framing the issue as existential threat to American lives, Fetterman creates political space for military responses that would be controversial in other contexts.<\/p>\n
His statement also implicitly criticizes traditional law enforcement approaches to drug trafficking as inadequate to address the magnitude of the crisis, suggesting that military intervention represents necessary escalation rather than executive overreach or international law violation.<\/p>\n
The New York Times investigation that prompted Fetterman\u2019s defense raised fundamental questions about the legal foundations of Trump\u2019s military operation against suspected drug smugglers. Reporter Charlie Savage characterized the action as having \u201cno clear legal precedent or basis,\u201d highlighting the constitutional and international law implications of using military force against criminal organizations rather than traditional state actors.<\/p>\n
The legal controversy centers on whether drug trafficking organizations, even those designated as terrorist groups, can be legitimate targets for military action under existing presidential war powers and international law. Traditional counter-narcotics operations typically involve law enforcement agencies working with military support, rather than direct military strikes against suspected traffickers.<\/p>\n
The administration\u2019s legal justification appears to rely on the designation of targeted organizations as terrorist groups, which theoretically brings them under existing authorizations for military force against international terrorism. However, legal experts note that this interpretation significantly expands the scope of military action beyond traditional terrorism contexts to encompass organized crime.<\/p>\n
The precedent established by this operation could have far-reaching implications for future military interventions against criminal organizations, potentially blurring the lines between law enforcement and military operations in ways that challenge traditional constitutional boundaries and international legal frameworks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday emphasized Congress\u2019s recent legislative victories, indicating it is returning to regular order. He also disputed suggestions that President Donald Trump is in the Epstein files and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14358,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t