New disclosures from the government’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the 2016 election, otherwise known as alleged “Trump-Russia collusion,” have revealed a stunning admission from top Obama-era officials.
A newly declassified memo, released Friday by Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, shows that U.S. intelligence officials concluded Russia did not play a significant role in Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
Paul Sperry, a senior reporter for Real Clear Investigations, took to X to report that sources informed him that there are damning text messages and emails showing coordination between the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign aides.
In an escalating political battle, President Donald Trump on Thursday formally joined the chorus of Republican lawmakers calling for the expulsion of U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from Congress.
His remarks followed a storm of controversy triggered by an interview Omar gave to far-left commentator Mehdi Hasan, in which she appeared to defend the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk.
In the interview, Omar described Kirk as a radical, suggesting that his inflammatory rhetoric may have contributed to the violent act. Omar’s comments were perceived by many as an endorsement of violence, or at the very least, a downplaying of the severity of the tragedy.
The interview has sparked widespread condemnation from Republicans, who now say that Omar’s actions warrant expulsion from Congress, while Democrats are rallying to her defense, citing her right to free speech and the controversial nature of the political debate at hand.
Omar’s appearance on Hasan’s show, which aired on the far-left network MSNBC, quickly became a lightning rod for criticism. During the conversation, Omar pointed to Kirk’s history of inflammatory remarks, including comments made about school shootings and racial justice.
She said, “But what I do know for sure is that Charlie Kirk was someone who once said, ‘Guns save lives’ after a school shooting.” She also referenced Kirk’s downplaying of George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police, as well as his dismissive stance on slavery and Juneteenth, a holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved people in the U.S.
Omar’s comments, however, were widely criticized for taking Kirk’s words out of context. She claimed Kirk had belittled important civil rights issues, but critics argued that her characterization was misleading and unfairly distorted Kirk’s views.
At one point during the interview, Omar disagreed with Hasan’s characterization of Kirk as merely someone seeking “a civil debate.” Omar dismissed this idea as “a complete rewriting of history,” adding, “Yeah, there’s nothing more effed up than to completely pretend that his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so.”
For many on the right, these words were seen as an endorsement of violence. They pointed out that Omar had effectively demonized Kirk in such a way that it was easy to see why a radical might target him.
Omar’s lack of clear condemnation for the assassination, combined with her incendiary comments about Kirk’s views, set off a wave of criticism from conservatives.
President Trump wasted no time in weighing in on the matter. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump condemned Omar’s comments and called for her immediate expulsion from Congress.
“I think she should be impeached. I think she’s terrible,” Trump declared. “Is she originally from Somalia? So how are they doing it? How’s their government? Do they have a president? Do they have a council? Do they have anything? Do they have police?”
Trump went on to criticize Omar’s background, citing her Somali origins as evidence of her supposed unfitness to influence U.S. policy. “I love these people that come from a place with nothing, nothing, no anything, and then they tell us how to run our country,” Trump remarked, doubling down on his belief that Omar’s immigrant background made her ill-suited to offer advice on American governance.
Trump’s remarks were swiftly amplified on social media, particularly through his Truth Social platform. There, he once again lashed out at Omar’s home country, Somalia, highlighting its ongoing struggles with terrorism, poverty, and political instability. In a post, Trump wrote:“Ilhan Omar’s Country of Somalia is plagued by a lack of central Government control, persistent Poverty, Hunger, Resurgent Terrorism, Piracy, decades of Civil War, Corruption, and pervasive Violence.
70% of the population lives in extreme Poverty, and widespread Food Insecurity. Somalia is consistently ranked among the World’s Most Corrupt Countries, including Bribery, Embezzlement, and a Dysfunctional Government.”
Trump’s use of Omar’s background in his critique drew backlash from her supporters, who accused him of xenophobia and racism.
For many Democrats, this line of attack was nothing more than a distraction from the real issues at hand—namely, Omar’s comments about Kirk and the role of inflammatory rhetoric in fueling violence.
Trump, however, was undeterred in his criticism, reinforcing his claim that Omar was unqualified to serve in Congress because of her immigrant status.
Trump’s calls for Omar’s removal from Congress reflect a broader Republican push to expel the Minnesota congresswoman over her controversial remarks.
Republican lawmakers have expressed growing frustration with Omar’s vocal progressive views, especially her criticism of U.S. foreign policy, her stance on Israel, and her outspoken remarks on racial justice.
For Republicans, the issue at hand is not just Omar’s recent interview, but a broader pattern of behavior they view as radical and un-American. Many Republican lawmakers argue that Omar’s rhetoric, especially on social media, has consistently crossed the line from political discourse into incitement, and that her actions have endangered national security and the safety of U.S. citizens.
“We cannot allow a member of Congress to openly defend or justify the murder of a fellow American citizen,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who has been a vocal critic of Omar for years. “This isn’t just about free speech, it’s about accountability. She should be expelled immediately.”
Some Republican leaders are now pushing for a formal resolution to expel Omar from the House, following similar efforts in recent years to remove other controversial members.
While the push to expel Omar is unlikely to gain traction in a Democratic-controlled chamber, it is emblematic of the growing sense of frustration on the right over what they see as a lack of accountability for members of the progressive left.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have rallied behind Omar, with many pointing to her comments as part of a broader political debate about the role of free speech and the dangers of political polarization.
For Omar’s supporters, the attacks against her are rooted in racism and an attempt to silence marginalized voices in Congress.
Omar herself has remained defiant, refusing to back down from her earlier comments. In a series of interviews, she argued that her remarks about Kirk were valid criticisms of his extremist views and that she was merely speaking out against the normalization of hate and bigotry in American politics.
“This is about holding people accountable for their words and actions,” Omar said in an interview following the controversy. “Charlie Kirk is not a victim here. He is someone who has spread dangerous rhetoric that has incited violence and division in our country.”
Democrats also pointed out the hypocrisy in the GOP’s push to expel Omar, highlighting the fact that several Republican lawmakers have engaged in controversial behavior without facing similar calls for removal.
They argued that the focus on Omar was a distraction from the real issues facing the country, such as healthcare, climate change, and income inequality.
The ongoing clash over Omar’s remarks is not just a battle over her fate in Congress, but a larger struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party. The controversy has exposed rifts between moderates and progressives, with some Democrats arguing that Omar’s confrontational style and rhetoric undermine the party’s ability to build a broad coalition.
At the same time, Omar has become a symbol for progressive activists who see her as a champion for marginalized communities and a voice for the voiceless. Her critics, however, view her as a radical who has no place in mainstream politics.
For Republicans, the effort to expel Omar is part of a broader strategy to align the party with populist and nationalist sentiments. By pushing for Omar’s removal, they seek to galvanize their base and stoke outrage among voters who feel that the progressive left has taken over American institutions.
The battle over Omar’s place in Congress is likely to intensify as the 2024 election season approaches. With both sides using her as a political pawn, the stakes could not be higher.
President Donald Trump’s calls for Ilhan Omar’s expulsion from Congress have sparked a fierce political battle that cuts to the heart of America’s current ideological divide.
For Trump and many Republicans, Omar’s comments about Charlie Kirk and her broader progressive agenda make her unfit to serve in Congress. For Democrats, Omar is a victim of a coordinated effort to silence her voice and discredit her politics.
The push to remove Omar is unlikely to succeed in the Democratic-controlled House, but it underscores the growing polarization in American politics and the intensifying battles over free speech, representation, and accountability.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the fight over Ilhan Omar’s place in Congress is about far more than one individual—it is about the future direction of American politics and the values that will define the country in the years to come.
New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on federal bank fraud charges after prosecutors alleged she lied on a mortgage application to obtain favorable loan terms on a Virginia property she later rented out.
The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury, centers on a single-family home in Norfolk, Virginia, that James co-purchased in August 2020 for roughly $137,000. Most of the purchase was financed with a $109,600 loan that prohibited the home from being used as a rental or investment property, according to prosecutors.
By misrepresenting the property as a second home, James received a lower interest rate and saved “approximately $18,933 over the life of the loan,” prosecutors said in a five-page filing.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte referred the case to the Department of Justice earlier this year, prompting a criminal probe that led to Thursday’s indictment.
According to financial disclosure forms reviewed by the
New York Post, James repeatedly listed the Norfolk property as an “investment” from 2020 through 2023 in filings with the New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government. In 2024, she changed the classification to “real property,” just weeks after the FHFA referral was made.
“The indicted attorney general also estimated the value of the property anywhere between $150,000 and $200,000,” the Post reported.
Despite the loan’s clear prohibition against rental use, prosecutors allege James used the property as a rental investment and earned thousands of dollars in income that she failed to report on multiple disclosure forms.
In her 2020 disclosure, James did list an “investment real property” in Norfolk that generated between $1,000 and $5,000 in revenue, but it is unclear if that referred to the same home named in the indictment.
According to prosecutors, James agreed to a “Second Home Rider” when taking out the loan, which required her to occupy the home as her secondary residence and forbade any rental or shared ownership arrangement.
“Despite these representations,” the indictment reads, “the Norfolk property was not occupied or used by James as a secondary residence and was instead used as a rental investment property.”
Prosecutors also said James made false statements on her homeowners’ insurance application, claiming the home would be “owner occupied,” and on her federal tax filings, where she classified the house as “rental real estate” and reported “thousand(s) of dollars in rents received.”
The federal indictment charges James with two counts: bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. If convicted on both counts, she faces up to 60 years in prison and fines totaling as much as $2 million.
The judge presiding over James’ mortgage fraud case on Friday rejected a motion seeking to compel federal prosecutors to maintain a log of all their communications with the media.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell had filed the request last week, following James’ arraignment on charges of bank fraud and making false statements. The motion cited a report alleging that U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan exchanged a series of encrypted Signal messages with a reporter regarding the case,
the New York Post reported.
“[T]he defendant does not demonstrate that it is necessary for the Court to order the government to track communications with the media in any particular form,” wrote US District Judge Jamar Walker in his six-page order.
“The defendant’s request that the government be required to keep a communication log is DENIED,” the Biden-appointed judge ruled.
Walker further wrote that while Halligan’s Signal chat with Lawfare senior editor Anna Bower earlier this month was “unusual,” he nevertheless declined to offer an opinion “on whether they were improper in any sense, either legal or ethical.”
Halligan’s Signal messages to the reporter were configured to automatically disappear after eight hours, The Post reported.
The judge did not address whether Halligan’s communications — which reportedly disputed a New York Times story revealing that James’ grandniece told a grand jury she had never paid rent on the Norfolk, Va., property at the center of the case — constituted material subject to discovery requirements.
James pleaded not guilty last week to one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a financial institution.
House Republicans are exploring legal and constitutional strategies to block New York City mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani from being sworn into office if he wins Tuesday’s election, citing the Constitution’s post–Civil War “insurrection clause,” according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
The effort, first reported by the New York Post, is being led in part by the New York Young Republican Club, which argues that Mamdani’s past statements calling to “resist ICE” and his ties to left-wing organizations could qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States — language drawn directly from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
That provision, enacted in 1868, bars from public office any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, or who has provided “aid or comfort” to its enemies.
The clause was originally intended to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office but has recently re-emerged in political debates over ballot eligibility.
“There is a real and legitimate push to see the insurrectionist Zohran Mamdani either a) removed from the ballot or b) removed from office if he is to win on Tuesday,” said Stefano Forte, president of the New York Young Republican Club.
Several House Republicans are said to be reviewing whether the clause could be enforced through new legislation or congressional action following next week’s election. The idea mirrors the legal arguments used in Colorado last year to try to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot — a move the Supreme Court ultimately overturned, ruling that Congress, not individual states, has the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3.
The Court’s decision has emboldened some GOP lawmakers who believe the ruling effectively places responsibility for such enforcement in the hands of Congress, where Republicans currently hold a narrow 219–213 majority in the House.
According to two congressional aides, Republican leaders may consider holding a post-election vote to declare Mamdani ineligible for office under the clause. Such a measure would face significant procedural and legal hurdles, including a likely filibuster in the Democrat-controlled Senate and near-certain court challenges.
In addition to the potential 14th Amendment challenge, House Republicans are pressuring the Justice Department to review Mamdani’s path to U.S. citizenship, claiming he may have violated the terms of his naturalization oath.Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging her to investigate what he described as “statements inconsistent with the oath of allegiance required of new citizens.” Ogles cited Mamdani’s 2018 naturalization and accused him of “refusal to disavow violent anti-American rhetoric.”
He reiterated those allegations in a post on X, claiming Mamdani “came to the U.S. from Uganda to turn America into an Islamic theocracy.”
In his letter, Ogles argued that Mamdani’s past remarks and political affiliations amount to a “broader pattern of conduct inconsistent with the oath of allegiance.”
He urged the Justice Department to examine whether denaturalization proceedings are warranted, referencing existing immigration law that prohibits membership in communist or totalitarian organizations for new citizens.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) also joined the campaign, accusing Mamdani of omitting material information from his citizenship application, including membership in the Democratic Socialists of America and comments defending the “Holy Land Five,” a group of Palestinian-American leaders convicted in 2008 for funneling money to Hamas.
“New York City falls to communism next week, and they will have nobody but themselves to blame,” Fine wrote on X, referencing the upcoming mayoral election.
Mamdani, currently a member of the New York State Assembly representing Astoria, Queens, denied the accusations and said Republican lawmakers are trying to weaponize the law against a political opponent.
“No matter how many times these Republican Congress members or the president of this country calls me a Communist, it doesn’t make it true,” Mamdani said in comments to The Post last weekend.
A Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed receipt of Ogles’ letter but said responses to congressional correspondence have been delayed due to the ongoing government shutdown.
“The Department does not comment on the status of ongoing or potential investigations,” the spokeswoman said.
To anyone who’s never had a dog: believe me, they have the same soul as we do—just in a different body. When my dogs passed away, I felt their souls leaving. It was devastating. That kind of love never leaves you. Recently, tragedy struck when James William “Will” Warner, a 22-year-old from Shelbyville, Tennessee, was found shot and killed. His girlfriend was also shot but survived with serious injuries.
Will’s mother, Christy Warner, described the moment she found out as a total collapse: “My whole world was broken into a million pieces.” Will was remembered as full of life and deeply loved. His family didn’t even get a chance to say a proper goodbye due to how sudden everything happened. “We were robbed of every bit of closure,” Christy said.
He was buried at Mt. Lebanon Cemetery, surrounded by grieving loved ones—but one moment touched everyone the most. His loyal dog, Ace, laid on the fresh grave, refusing to leave his best friend’s side. That image said everything: dogs love us with a loyalty that goes beyond life itself. Will and Ace shared a deep bond—one that even death couldn’t break.
His uncle, Tennessee state Rep. Todd Warner, called it a senseless tragedy: “It’s a tragic end to something that never should’ve happened.” Rest in peace, Will. You were loved deeply—especially by Ace, who never left your side.
This story reminds us just how powerful the love of a dog can be. All they want is a home—and they will stay loyal until the very end.