Last week, some of us discussed concerns over the demand of the Trump Administration for the names of all FBI agents involved in January 6th cases. While noting that we did not have all of the details, I wrote that this would be a critical test for the Administration between reform and revenge. Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts. Now, the Trump Administration has offered additional information, alleging an alarming defiance by a high-ranking official in sharing information. If true, the controversy involving Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll is reminiscent of the entirely improper conduct of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove released a statement stating that FBI agents were never being rounded up or targeted for their work on the cases. A reported force of over 5,000 agents was assigned to these cases.
According to Bove, Driscoll refused to turn over the “core team” involved in Washington, D.C., in the cases as part of its review of the weaponization of the legal system under the Biden Administration. Bove’s memo stated that:
“That insubordination necessitated, among other things, the directive in my January 31, 2025 memo to identify all agents assigned to investigations relating to January 6, 2021. In light of acting leadership’s refusal to comply with the narrower request, the written directive was intended to obtain a complete data set that the Justice Department can reliably pare down to the core team that will be the focus of the weaponization review pursuant to the Executive Order.”
Bove dismissed allegations of a purging of the ranks:
“Let me be clear: No FBI employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner concerning January 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties. The only individuals who should be concerned about the process initiated by my January 31, 2025 memo are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI.”
Again, we have not heard Driscoll’s side. Yet, I cannot understand the basis for an FBI official to refuse to share such information with his superiors in the Administration. One can raise concerns over the motivations or even the legality of measures taken against line agents. One can also object that there is no reason to collect the broader information after being allegedly denied the narrower request. However, the Administration has every right to such information, particularly as part of its long-promised review of the agency during the campaign.
The alleged defiance brought back memories from the start of the first Trump term. As previously discussed, Yates was lionized for her stance in the media. She was then selected as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in 2020 and presented as the personification of a new Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law. Yates declared: “I was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.” The problem is, she wasn’t. She was fired for telling an entire department not to defend a travel ban that ultimately was upheld as lawful.
I was critical of the initial memorandum supporting the travel ban, particularly its failure to exempt lawful residents. However, I also said Trump’s underlying authority would likely be found constitutional. Despite revisions tweaking its scope and affected countries, opponents insisted it remained unlawful and discriminatory. They continued to litigate on those same grounds all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost two years ago.
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii that the president had the authority to suspend entry of noncitizens into the country based on nationality and had a “sufficient national security justification” for his order. It also held that, despite most of the banned countries being Muslim-majority, the ban “does not support an inference of religious hostility.”
That is why Yates deserved to be fired. Yates issued her order shortly after learning of the travel ban and despite being told by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel it was a lawful order. She never actually said it was unlawful, only that she was not sure and was not convinced it was “wise or just.” Rather than working to address clear errors in the original ban, she issued her categorical order as she prepared to leave the department in a matter of days. Yates maintained afterward that she believed the ban might still be discriminatory, even with revisions. The courts rejected those claims.
Yates was due to retire from Justice within days when she engineered her own firing. It made her an instant heroine and allowed her to denounce Trump at the convention for “trampl[ing] the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department.” But that’s precisely what she did when she ordered an entire department not to assist the recently elected president.
It is not clear what transpired between Bove and Driscoll, but I cannot imagine a basis for refusing to share personnel information and records with the Trump Administration.
The initial coverage of the request clearly omitted this context and led to the usual media stampede declaring a purging of the ranks by political commissars. The irony is that, once again, the true story may be even more interesting in an alleged defiance of the Trump Administration within the FBI. We have seen recently the actual locking out of Trump officials from agencies like US AID, leading to a security official being placed on leave.
As someone who covered the first Administration, this is a very different profile and approach. Trump learned in his first term how officials could stymie and delay reforms. That process has begun anew, including a plethora of lawsuits designed to slowdown such efforts. However, the Administration is moving far more aggressively in this second term. If Trump wanted to defibrillate the federal system and shock the status quo, he is succeeding in doing so.
I have no problem with officials raising concerns over possible personnel action against agents who were only carrying out their assigned tasks. These officials have a duty to advocate for their agents and insulate their institution from concerns over political retaliation. However, if the FBI refused to supply personnel information, it would move the matter from internal deliberation to outright defiance of a lawful order.
274 thoughts on ““Insubordination”: FBI Official Accused of Defying White House Reform Efforts”
Holly hell Turley. Trump wants to purge the FBI agents who were doing their jobs; going after people who broke federal law, namely attacking the capitol in an attempted coup. This is a political purge plain and simple, and political purges of law enforcement is dangerous to a free country. It is also meant to instill fear in the FBI about investigating crimes committed by Trump or his supporters.
Franke I have one question for you. What is your opinion of 5000 agents being assigned to J6?
I doubt there were 5000 agents assigned. It is fare more likely that that number counts any FBI employee who had any interaction with the J6 cases.
Glad you doubt it, but it has been reported and 100% of the times when something is reported it accrues to the benefit of Democrats, so since this number hurts them I assume it is correct.
Now please answer the question “what if there were FIVE THOUSAND FBI Agents on this one situation”?
You don’t understand how the FBI or much else works. The J6 insurrectionists came from all over the country. The field agents in states where the insurrectionists returned after they trashed the Capitol and beat up cops, arrested them in those various states. There weren’t 5,000 FBI agents working full-time just on the insurrection. King Donald and President Muskrat demanded the name of EVERY agent who did anything. How does “this number hurt” Democrats? And, please explain to me just HOW or WHY it was OK for these losers to break past police barriers, beat up cops, break into the Capitol and trash the place? How is prosecuting them “political”? Explain that to me.
Guards at the NAZI concentration camps “ were just following orders “. There is clearly a sliding scale here, some only executed arrest warrants, others dragged women and children out into freezing temperatures to perform a search on account of a misdemeanor trespassing charge. Others orchestrated this travesty. Maybe the first shouldn’t be punished but the latter two deserve prosecution. Perhaps different sentences.
I wish we could assign 5,000 FBI agents to investigate the former leadership of the FBI, but we need those agents for fighting crime. We always did, which is why those leaders are now fired.
Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll are symptoms of the chronic disease that potentially affects all government bureaucracies: partisan employees/administrators willing to engage in subterfuge and sabotage in order to advance a political agenda.
This ever constant threat can only be dealt with by recognition of the problem, constant vigilance and lawful removal/banning from office. Ignore or underestimate this threat and voila, the Deep State!
“the chronic disease that potentially affects all government bureaucracies: partisan employees/administrators willing to engage in subterfuge and sabotage in order to advance a political agenda.
This ever constant threat can only be dealt with by recognition of the problem, constant vigilance and lawful removal/banning from office. ”
There is an alternative strategy that could be effectively employed. Define a mission for each bureaucracy that is a) constitutional, and b) in the indisputable interests of The People, then eliminate every single one that is not charged with (or not capable of) such a mission, and slash the size and budget of the remaining examples to the point that they lack the ability to do anything beyond that mission. This would be very similar to what DOGE is now attempting but from a slightly different perspective. DOGE is out to save money. This effort would be targeted to hamstring the ability of Fedgov bureaucracies to abuse their authority.
Who is weaponizing the DOJ?
I think this is what’s really going on in the background –
“A long-time Democratic Party operative appeared Wednesday on Fox Business to criticize Democratic leaders and said the party fears that President Donald Trump will enjoy success implementing policies that are popular.
“What the Democrats and caterwauling really fear is that Trump is going to be successful in cutting out waste and unpopular policies like DEI from the federal government and is gonna have public support for it,” Epstein told Elizabeth MacDonald. “Why are they so scared about that? Because if big government and the sort of, you know, neo-Marxist ideas like the DEI and race preferences, if those things fall with public support then Democrats have nothing to sell to the public. That’s what they’re really scared about.”
Epstein added that the Democratic objections to Musk’s audits lack legal grounding.
“It was just so pathetic, and then you sort of get to the statements that Musk doesn’t have the authority to do it. I mean these guys, I would say need not just to go back to first-year law school class but to high school civics. The president and his representatives have all of the legal authority they need to go into the federal agencies and cut out waste and cut out policies that aren’t popular. This is perfectly legitimate. There’s nothing mildly illegal about it but Democrats are talking about lock him up for Elon Musk,” Epstein said.”
https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/02/05/so-pathetic-long-time-dem-operative-says-dems-fear-trumps-success-as-theyll-have-nothing-to-sell-to-the-public/
Julian gets it.
I think there are at least 1000 Democrats who warrant a 3am wakeup call Congress, judges, DOJ, IRS, FBI, etc
it is clear MOST of the government works for Democrats and against the American people
Cut 50% of Federal Spending
END Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
ban public unions
Stop rewarding failure!
The FBI’s mission has never been to investigate misdemeanors. Why did they need 5,000 agents to investigate mostly all misdemeanor charges? This is multiple times more than what was assigned to the aftermath of 911.
DB absolultely correct. Further most of these offences are LOCAL offenses – and While DC is technically federal it has its own local police prosecutors and courts. That is where Misdemeanor cases are handled.
There was limited if any FBI involvment in the June 2020 effort to break down the WH fence and storm the WH.
More law enforcement were injured in that.
That said – it is not the 5000 line agents that are the issue – it is those who assigned them and managed them.
There is plenty regarding J6 to investigate. DOJ/FBI violated the constitutional rights of those involved in J6 – that is true regardless of whether they are guilty of anything.
Prosecutors failed to provide J6 defendants with exculpatory evidence.
Unfortunately many of the violations of constitutional rights were done by the courts, and the Executive branch does not have authority over the courts. Those violations include unconstitutonal gag orders, violations of the presumption of innocence at trial, violataions to the right to bail.
Violations of their right to present a first amendment defense.
“ DB absolultely correct. Further most of these offences are LOCAL offenses – and While DC is technically federal it has its own local police prosecutors and courts.”
A distinction without a difference. D.C. is indeed a federal jurisdiction. The offenses were committed on federal property and the police were federal police, captiol police, metropolitan police, and federal park police.
There are no state courts in D.C.
“ There was limited if any FBI involvment in the June 2020 effort to break down the WH fence and storm the WH.
More law enforcement were injured in that.“
Of course the FBI wouldn’t be involved with with protecting the white house fence. That’s not their job. That’s the white house secret service, capitol police, and D.C. metro police. Protesters were not attempting to break down the WH fence and law enforcement were injured when they attacked protesters who were ordered to forcibly disperse the protests.
“ That said – it is not the 5000 line agents that are the issue – it is those who assigned them and managed them.“
Trump doesn’t care. If they were involved they are gone. That’s the intent. It’s being used to sow fear and demand fealty to Trump.
“ DOJ/FBI violated the constitutional rights of those involved in J6 – that is true regardless of whether they are guilty of anything.“
No, their constitutional rights were not violated. They were filming themselves committing crimes. Many made it so easy to prosecute because of their own statements and actions recorded on social media. That evidence presented in court was enough justify charges.
“ Prosecutors failed to provide J6 defendants with exculpatory evidence.”
You have no proof of that claim. The vast majority of J6 defendants had overwhelming evidence against them created by their own social media posts implicating them in the crimes they filmed themselves committing. Not only was there video evidence, they had social media posts and fellow rioters/protesters admitting to their crimes. Any “exculpatory” evidence would not have saved them.
“ Those violations include unconstitutonal gag orders, violations of the presumption of innocence at trial, violataions to the right to bail.
Violations of their right to present a first amendment defense.”
Wrong, it’s clear you don’t understand how the federal courts work. Gag orders are legal and the supreme court has allowed them. They have not been determinetd to be unconstitutional either. The presumption of innocence was never violated at trial. The majority of defendants implicated themselves committing the crimes when they posted them online.
The right to bail is dependent on the severity of the crime AND at the judges discretion. Many were denied bail AFTER stupidly insulting a judge or expressing defiance and a lack of remorse. Judges have a lot of power to decide what bail conditions to impose.
Some also did not qualify for bail because they were already out on bail for other offenses or were on probation after having committed other offenses–if you commit another offense while already out on bail or on probation, you have to stay in the slammer. MAGA media misleads the disciples by implying that bail was withheld for political reasons. There is NO Constitutional right to bail.
“There is plenty regarding J6 to investigate. ”
There certainly is. For another example:
Congressional Committee Wants Data FBI Claimed Was ‘Corrupted’ In Unsolved J6 Pipe Bomb Case
https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/06/congressional-committee-wants-data-fbi-claimed-was-corrupted-in-unsolved-j6-pipe-bomb-case/
“The FBI had thousands of employees aggressively investigating the happenings in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but it seems to have given up on finding out who planted two pipe bombs, one outside of the Democratic National Committee and the other outside the Republican National Committee. It has multiple videos of the would-be bomber, has identified the style of shoe worn (Nike Air Max Speed Turf sneakers), and the path the suspect walked through the city. But the FBI has made no arrest and appears to have given up on promising leads.”
I wonder what that person might have to tell us, should he or she be apprehended and interrogated? I also wonder if Eon Musk couldn’t find someone who was capable of salvaging a great deal of the data that was allegedly corrupted?
Thousands of individuals have been charged with crimes. Building cases and gathering evidence requires significant resources. A federal crime, even if it’s a misdemeanor, is still a federal crime and clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the FBI.
Why did they need 5,000 agents to investigate mostly all misdemeanor charges?
Dollar Bill, it took that many, not because they were investigating that many crimes, but because it was a political shock and awe persecution of a lot of people.
5000 Agents for overwhelmingly non-violent Misdemeanor cases Olly ??? And they have the gall to say that the FBI wasn’t weaponized……. Unbelievable. Greg
There were thousands of people protesting, and many of them were clearly violating the law. The FBI, as an investigative agency, can use as many resources as necessary to investigate the alleged crimes. It is literally their job. If it requires 5 or 5,000 agents to swiftly process the large amount of evidence and compile cases, that makes sense. Given the extensive workload, it is understandable that 5,000 agents were needed to quickly gather evidence, build cases against the accused, and file charges. This is a significant amount of work, and it is their responsibility to handle it.
Dear Mr. Turley, the next 4 years are going to be full of stories like the one mentioned in your article. Every time a democrat goes against Mr. Trump, they are looking for fame and glory. Whig98 has it right. As it was during the 2024 election, democrats have little to run on. So, they go to their most favorite person to attack… Mr. Trump. I would suggest all democrats read Joe Klien’s excellent book, “Politics Lost”. Perhaps this would give them a small clue as to why they lost. The book has become my “bible” on all candidates and the people operating their campaigns. Stephanie Cutter is mentioned several times as a huge problem when the author is writing the miserable John Kerry run at the Presidency. Harris’ people should have known this.
God speed and a smoldering sword, President Trump. We’re long past having to explain why. The enemy has made it evident enough.
FIVE THOUAND AGENTS is what jumped out at me! Then add all the agents going after those attending Latin Mass, those attending school committee meetings, those protesting at abortion clinics and you will see why after a school shooting or a terror attack the FBI will say “the accused was on our radar” with no action taken.
How many FBI agents were assigned to the antifa attacks in Portland or Seattle? How many FBI agents were assigned to the attack on the WH in May 2020 when Trump was sent to the bunker and many, many cops and SS agents were injured. (Funny how Dems/media never say one peep about cops hurt that day?)
IKR! 5000! Meanwhile, crime was skyrocketing. Priorities much??
Hullbobby, you don’t realize how much workforce it takes to compile evidence and build cases against those accused of violating the law, especially when the majority filmed themselves and others caught on camera committing crimes. How do you think people were found long after leaving the capitol? It takes a lot of resources (agents) to pore over video social media, interview witnesses, and gather evidence. It’s their job. That’s what the “I” in FBI means, duh.
Didn’t you think the FBI was not involved in the WH protests? There was barely any violence, and what ended up being violence was caused by police attacking protesters in the direction of William Barr. They forcibly tried to disperse the crowds, and you don’t expect injuries from it? People were charged and prosecuted. You don’t like that they didn’t receive the same punishment as J6 protesters. The problem with that is that most protesters were charged with resisting arrest and refusing to obey lawful orders. Some were accused of assault, but that had to be proved in court, and very little video, if any, was available to support the charges. Judges have to find probable cause to proceed with most cases, and if they can’t find probable cause, they can’t accept an assault charge. There were huge differences between the WH incident and the rioting IN and around the capitol building. They had far more evidence of crimes, including selfies and public admissions on social media. When you have proof against you showing you deliberately engaged in a crime and were accused of one, the punishment will not always be the same. One has definitive evidence; the other does not. A judge can met out punishment accoding to the proof they see.
Hey Partisan Hack, does it take more agents to handle J6 than 9/11?
Why not have 5,000 agents investigating the June WH riot of 2020? Why not a few agents looking into the antifa/blm riots? HUH!!!
One can reasonably assume that the potential consequences of whatever they are trying to shield are worse than the consequences for insubordination or failure to comply.
Turley– “Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts.”
Is this the standard we applied to Nazis after WW II?
Wasn’t Eichman only following orders?
There used to be a moral and legal duty to refuse an unlawful order.
Under the Nuremberg Charter which set down the rules for the trials of German (Nazi) war criminals, the so-called Nuremberg defense, that is, the argument that they were just following orders from above could not relieve a defendant of criminal liability but only act as a mitigating factor to potentially lessen the punishment. The United States wrote that rule.
Driscoll’s assurances lack value. Without confirmation directly from the top, his assurances hold no credibility.
Turley is either being deliberately naive or incredibly shortsighted. Trump has made it very clear that he is focused on revenge and retribution. It’s not just Trump calling the shots; Stephen Miller appears to be the one providing Trump with executive orders to simply rubber stamp without much thought. Miller is clearly a proponent of retribution, and Trump seems to agree with this mindset.
Kash Patel has not said anything about protecting FBI agents who are simply doing their jobs. Instead, he will likely do what Trump wants, which includes purging anyone they arbitrarily deem guilty of involvement in Trump’s legal cases. This situation will result in a guilt-by-association purge. That is the intention despite the naivette that Turley wants to portray as an overreaction from the left. They are justified in their concerns given the current ram-rodding of Trump’s agenda in other parts of the government.
Trump has made it very clear that he is focused on revenge and retribution. TRUMP SAID THE OPPOSITE- GEORGE!
Prove it.
Hey George, talk about Sally Yates please. Talk about insubordination. Talk about FIVE THOUSAND AGENTS working on J6 with others going after school committee parents and abortion protesters while we have terror attacks and illegals killing Americans on their watch. SVELAZ!
Turley’s comparison of Sally Yates is disingenuous. Turley didn’t point out that Sally Yates’s opposition to Trump’s Muslim ban began with his first memo, which Turley also opposed. She correctly refused Trump’s directive because the first one was indeed illegal. That’s why Trump’s administration was forced to change the memo, and the courts blocked the first actions. Turley altogether avoided that point by painting Yate’s refusal as wrong. It was only AFTER the Supreme Court decided and AFTER Trump amended his first issuance of a Muslim ban.
The haphazard and chaotic implementation of Trump’s Muslim ban resulted from the first attempt, which was unlawful.
Working on J6 cases was their job. J6 protesters committed federal crimes and were found guilty of trespassing, assault on police officers, and conspiring to obstruct a congressional proceeding. Nearly all protesters pled guilty or were found guilty because the evidence against them was overwhelming. Many, by their own social media postings, are incriminating themselves in a crime. FBI agents did their job, which is prosecuting and enforcing the law, which Republicans are big fans of.
This is about revenge for a perceived injustice that J6 rioters/protesters did nothing wrong. Assaulting police officers, stealing and destroying government property, issuing theats against lawmakers, and tresspassing are all crimes that even Republican lawmakers at the time agreed should be prosecuted. If you believe BLM protesters should have been prosecuted, which they were, then J6 protesters who commited similar crimes deserved the same treatment, being charged with a crime. Trump wants anyone who was invovled in any way with J6 prosecutions and his own criminal cases fired or removed as an act of revenge. He or his supporters don’t care that it was just part of their job. They want revenge and retribution. Anything any agent did in association with those prosecutions is a reason to fire them. That is why they are demanding the information, so they can justify, no matter how ridiculous, the firing. I know you want it and you revel in the idea of firing any agent, even if it’s a few thousand because you consider them leftist sympathizers or Trump haters. That’s all that is required to justify firing FBI agents.
You cannot be serious.
“Yates’s opposition to Trump’s Muslim ban began with his first memo”…and lasted all the way to the 2020 DNC convention. Interrupted only by Russiagate, pissgate, everythingunderthesungate…
The left is a rotting husk, let’s bury it before any more innocent people are entangled, the scum have fed off of it enough.
Oh, look, it’s the DNC response already.
We are going to lose so much institutional knowledge by Trump purging FBI agents solely because of his ego. That will hurt America in the long run. But no matter what, Trump still LOST in 2020, he still lied to his fans, they still committed crimes because of the lie, and it was right to prosecute them. There’s truth and reality and then there’s MAGA and Trump reality. They aren’t the same thing.
“We are going to lose so much institutional knowledge by Trump purging FBI agents ”
Are you perhaps referring to the “institutional knowledge” of how to contentedly watch 73 men, women, and children be barbecued in their own home for the crime of believing that they enjoyed freedom from persecution for their religious beliefs and the freedom to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution?
Were the FBI agents that raided Roger Stones house acting in “good faith” and “just following orders”? Way to to much just following orders at the FBI. It’s a cultural rot there!
How about the agents going through Melania’s wardrobe and tossing documents on the floor to be photographed.
In my experience with administration of an organization where there are high ambitions, petty jealousies, and rampant gossiping, e.g. FBI, no executive order is needed. Those involved in the J6 business and who enjoyed the work are already known. Not every snitch is a whistleblower; most do it quite privately if there is a sympathetic ear available.
“Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts.”
That quote approximates Eichmann’s defense, he was just following orders.
Is there an ethics or morals clause in their employment contracts? How does an FBI agent plausibly question an order?
“ Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove released a statement stating that FBI agents were never being rounded up or targeted for their work on the cases. A reported force of over 5,000 agents was assigned to these cases.”
Given all the actions and intentions coming from DOGE that statement can be easily declared to be BS. As John Say always says, “ you can’t trust government”. You certainly can’t Trust Trump acting appointees or cabintet members to be telling the truth. Trump is out for revenge and he’s cleary on a firing binge and those who were involved with the cases against Trump ARE targets for retribution. Turley is fooling himself thinking that is not the intention for seeking that information.
Trump can fire FBI agents for whatever reason and the Republican majority in Congress is gladly turning a blind eye to his intentions because they are openly condoning it. Trump and is acolytes have been very clear on their intention to purge anyone associated with the cases against him. Even if they are just “rumors” as Turley alleges, they are being taken seriously because Trump’s administration cannot be trusted to not do what Turley believes they will not do. They are bulldozing their way thru these purges as quickly as possible. The agenda is to make as many close to illegal or shocking moves as possible as to make any protestations or legal challenges almost impossible to enact in time. It’s straight out of project 2025. Turley is meekly giving Trump cover by giving Trump the kid glove treatment and tepid criticism.
Trump is going to do what he wants to do legal or not. That’s the agenda.
Oh oh george is at it again.
Ignore the buffoon behind the moniker.
George is probably paid by USAID!
Hullbobby- You stole my line. I was just about to type when yours came up. George must be paid by US Aid to be up so early this morning. It is obvious it’s the Democratic Slush Fund. Otherwise why would they be freaking out so much.
I was worried about Chuckie Schumer and Slapsy Maxie Waters out there in the weather and so riled up. I was worried about a medical event.
Mitch McConnell is not handling all this news so well either since he dove off some stairs yesterday. All these decrepit people bouncing around is bound to cause untoward events.
Following orders is not always a defense. In deference to some Germans in world war 2, refusal to follow an order led to their death (immediately). FBI agents following illegal orders did not face death if they refused. Maybe their career did but not their actual death.
It is easy to say defy an order but when you’re alone facing the music it can be difficult to be brave. Some people do it better than others. Also depends on who else in your family is at risk.
Just a perspective.
There have been a lot of stones turned over, showing a lot of nest of vipers. But we need to pace ourselves lest the effort burn out. It’s always a race to maximize your efforts when the opponent is reeling and off balance but you also have to save energy for the long race too.
“Mitch McConnell is not handling all this news so well either since he dove off some stairs yesterday.”
Yep. I read that yesterday and my immediate reaction was to wonder if his name, his wife’s name, or some entity that one of them has close personal ties to appears somewhere further down the USAID payoff, I mean payout, list.
George, you need to take a nap. Then get a good cup of coffee and stop with the whining and lying.
Trump won! Get over it.
you are right, unlike the trump supporters of 4 years ago, Demos accepted that the election was fair and trump won.
Do you support 25% tariffs on Canada?
Do you support trump moving 1 to 2 million people off their land so he can build ocean front Condos and Hotels in Gaza?
Do you support defying U.S. Supreme Court settled law and let the President picked choose how he spends (or not spends) money without Congressional authority?
Your premise that Dems accepted the 2024 election is FALSE.
They are in many instances trying to undermine President’s plans.
All of President Trump’s efforts (some of which are just bargaining positions)
are subject to review by the other 2 branches of government.
So, yes, I support President Trump!
Anonymous9:05 AM
AGREE. Also these Dems and their trolls here still have not figured out how you negotiate. Trump has been doing it all his life and they still cannot figure it out.
No need to tell them any more.
Enjoy the ride for now, the hard part comes later.
Driscoll wants his 15 minutes of fame and the chance to be interviewed on MSNBC, which will be seen by dozens of people
“Driscoll wants his 15 minutes of fame and the chance to be interviewed on MSNBC, which will be seen by dozens of people”
That assumes that those “dozens of people” aren’t fully occupied trolling this site at the time…
Good morning everyone!
Bring on the fools and buffoons.
Buckle in for another day of stupidity.
Anonymous says : February 6, 2025 at 8:02 AM He is the First Fool of the Day?
And you responded stoopid.
Comments are closed.