A bombshell revelation about extensive surveillance operations during the Trump administration has thrust President-elect Donald Trump's FBI director nominee, Kash Patel, into an unexpected spotlight.
According to a CNN report, the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from two members of Congress, 43 congressional staffers, and multiple journalists during sweeping leak investigations in Trump's first term.
The investigation's scope included Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, along with Kash Patel, who served as a GOP House Intelligence Committee staffer at the time. This revelation comes at a particularly sensitive moment, as Patel meets with senators regarding his upcoming FBI director nomination. The watchdog report, released Tuesday, has sparked serious concerns about the department's aggressive approach to identifying reporters' sources.
The inspector general's findings highlight significant concerns about the investigation's methodology and its potential impact on congressional oversight. Career prosecutors based their broad sweep primarily on timing correlations between access to classified information and subsequent media publications. This approach has drawn criticism for potentially undermining Congress's constitutional role in executive branch oversight.
Department investigators proceeded without establishing proper safeguards for handling congressional communications records. Bill Barr, who served as attorney general during the latter part of the investigation, claims he was unaware of any congressman's records being sought. His decision to decline an interview with the inspector general adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
The inspector general emphasized how the DOJ's actions could create, at minimum, an appearance of inappropriate interference by the executive branch in legitimate legislative oversight activities:
Seeking records based only on the close proximity in time between access to classified information and subsequent publication of the information... risks chilling Congress's ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch.
The investigation's reach extended beyond Congress to include journalists from major news organizations. Prosecutors secretly obtained communications records from eight journalists working at CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. These actions occurred despite existing protections for journalists outlined in Justice Department rules.
CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr's phone and email records from 2017 were among those obtained by the Trump administration. The scope covered a two-month period when Starr reported on various national security issues, including US military options in North Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan.
The investigations appeared to target different leaks across various news organizations. The New York Times' case likely centered on coverage of former FBI Director James Comey's oversight of 2016 presidential campaign investigations. The Washington Post's situation involved stories about the Obama administration's response to Russian election interference.
The inspector general's report identified multiple procedural failures in the DOJ's pursuit of journalists' records. Required internal review committees were never convened, and necessary certifications from top officials were either missing or unclear.
In one case, prosecutors failed to obtain the required certification from the Director of National Intelligence. Another instance showed uncertainty about whether certification was provided to Attorney General Barr. These oversights occurred alongside failures to secure Barr's approval for non-disclosure orders.
These revelations prompted the Justice Department to implement new rules restricting the secret acquisition of journalists' records. The updated regulations now limit department employees' ability to seek such records without journalists' knowledge, except in specific circumstances.
Patel's response to learning about the surveillance of his communications manifested in legal action. Last fall, he filed a lawsuit against Trump's former top DOJ and FBI appointees, including Director Christopher Wray, alleging unfair data collection in 2017.
Google informed Patel in December 2022 about complying with DOJ demands for his account information, covering nearly 20 months in 2016 and 2017. The delay in notification was due to a court order preventing Google from disclosing the legal process.
The lawsuit ultimately faced dismissal by a federal judge in Washington, DC. The court ruled that the officials Patel sued were immune, and he failed to demonstrate sufficient harm from their actions.
The release of this watchdog report arrives at a crucial moment in American political history. New protections have emerged for both congressional communications and journalistic sources in response to these revelations.
The Justice Department's actions during this period have led to significant reforms in how similar investigations must be conducted. These changes include stricter oversight requirements and enhanced protections for legislative branch members and media professionals.
These developments occur as Patel, now Trump's choice for FBI director, faces heightened scrutiny during his confirmation process. His personal experience with surveillance under the previous administration adds an unexpected dimension to his potential leadership of the bureau.
A Black Lives Matter activist's fiery response and a father's emotional outburst marked the dramatic aftermath of a high-profile New York City court case.
According to the New York Post, Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, was acquitted of criminally negligent homicide charges in the chokehold death of Jordan Neely that occurred on a Manhattan F train in May 2023.
The verdict sparked immediate controversy, with Jordan Neely's father, Andre Zachary, being escorted from the Manhattan courthouse after confronting audience members who applauded the jury's decision.
BLM leader Walter 'Hawk' Newsome, who identified himself as Neely's uncle, issued inflammatory statements outside the courthouse, calling for direct action in response to the verdict.
Chaos erupted in the Manhattan courtroom as the jury delivered their not-guilty verdict. Andre Zachary, visibly distressed by the outcome, engaged in a heated exchange with gallery members who celebrated the decision.
Court officers swiftly intervened when Zachary confronted those applauding, reportedly shouting at individuals who were celebrating his son's killer's acquittal. The tense situation required immediate action from security personnel, who escorted Zachary from the premises to maintain order.
Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, Zachary expressed his profound disappointment with the justice system. His words reflected the deep personal impact of the case's outcome. The grieving father's statement resonated with supporters who had gathered outside the courthouse throughout the trial.
BLM activist Hawk Newsome, who attended every day of the trial, delivered an impassioned speech to protesters and media representatives.
His words highlighted the racial tensions surrounding the case:
People want to jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud, how about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us. Just like everybody else seeks justice on their own. Just like everybody else has vigilantes. We need some black vigilantes.
The trial took a significant shift when Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley agreed to drop the top manslaughter charge against Penny. This decision left the jury to consider only the lesser charge of negligent homicide. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg acknowledged the verdict in a formal statement, expressing respect for the jury's decision-making process.
Penny's defense centered on his claim that he acted to protect fellow subway passengers. The Marine veteran maintained that his response was triggered by Neely's threatening behavior, specifically when Neely shouted that someone would die that day. This defense strategy ultimately proved successful in securing his acquittal.
The case has spawned additional legal action, with Andre Zachary filing a civil lawsuit against Penny. The suit, submitted to the New York Supreme Court, alleges negligent contact, assault, and battery leading to Neely's death. Zachary seeks damages exceeding lower courts' jurisdictional limits.
The verdict's announcement triggered immediate reactions from various segments of society. Protesters who had maintained a consistent presence throughout the trial expressed their dismay at the outcome. Their demonstrations reflected broader concerns about racial justice and law enforcement in New York City.
Newsome's provocative statements outside the courthouse underscored the deep divisions the case has created. His call for "black vigilantes" and strong condemnation of the verdict's reception illustrated the intense emotions surrounding the trial's conclusion. The activist's words resonated with supporters while drawing criticism from others.
The courthouse scene, marked by celebration and protest, epitomized the polarized public response to the verdict. These contrasting reactions highlighted the case's role in broader discussions about race, justice, and public safety in urban environments.
Daniel Penny's acquittal marks the conclusion of a legal battle that captured national attention and sparked intense debate about public safety and racial justice. The Marine veteran celebrated his acquittal at the Stone Street Tavern with his legal team, while Neely's supporters expressed their disappointment and anger outside the courthouse.
The case's resolution leaves several pending matters, including the civil lawsuit filed by Andre Zachary. This legal action ensures that discussions about Jordan Neely's death and its implications will continue beyond the criminal trial. The verdict's impact on community relations and public discourse about safety in New York City's subway system remains to be seen.
These events have created ripples throughout New York's social and political landscape, prompting continued debate about justice, race relations, and public safety. The case's conclusion may have resolved the criminal charges, but its broader implications continue to resonate within the community.
Former President Barack Obama's recent appearance at a Democracy Forum in Chicago has ignited heated discussions across political circles.
According to Breitbart News, the former president faced significant criticism for his first post-election speech at the Obama Foundation's Democracy Forum, where he addressed issues of pluralism and democratic norms.
During his Thursday address, Obama emphasized the importance of standing firm against attempts to undermine democratic processes, specifically highlighting concerns about vote suppression, politicization of armed forces, and the misuse of judicial systems.
His remarks particularly focused on what he perceives as growing threats to democratic institutions and norms.
The former president delivered a forceful message about the current state of American democracy. Obama specifically addressed what he viewed as attempts to manipulate democratic systems for political gain.
His speech centered on the concept of pluralism but with a notable emphasis on the need for active resistance against anti-democratic actions.
Obama spoke directly about the necessity of taking a stand when democratic principles are threatened. He emphasized that passive acceptance of democratic violations is insufficient. The former president's message stressed the importance of mobilization and organized resistance when faced with threats to democratic institutions.
In his address at the Chicago forum, Obama expressed particular concern about specific threats to democracy.
Speaking to the audience, Obama stated:
Let me make this key point: Pluralism is not about holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya.' It is not about abandoning your convictions and folding when things get tough.
Conservative commentators and public figures quickly responded to Obama's speech with sharp criticism.
Fox News contributor Guy Benson led the charge, characterizing Obama's stance as hypocritical. Critics particularly focused on what they perceived as a contradiction between Obama's message of unity and his confrontational tone.
Journalist Miranda Devine offered a particularly pointed critique of the former president's influence. Her commentary suggested that Obama's political influence had significantly diminished, particularly in relation to Donald Trump's impact on American politics. The response highlighted a growing conservative pushback against Obama's post-presidential messaging.
Radio personality Buck Sexton connected Obama's current message to previous political controversies. His commentary specifically referenced past political tensions and suggested a decline in Obama's influence within the Democratic Party. The criticism reflected broader conservative sentiment about Obama's role in current political discourse.
Republican communicator Matt Whitlock provided context for the conservative response to Obama's speech. His critique centered on Obama's influence on modern political dialogue. The commentary suggested that Obama's presidency had fundamentally altered the nature of political discourse in America.
The speech's timing, following the November election, added particular significance to its reception. Political analysts noted the strategic importance of Obama's message in the current political climate. The forum's focus on democracy and pluralism reflected ongoing debates about the state of American political institutions.
Author Jon Gabriel's response exemplified the skeptical reception among conservative commentators. His remarks highlighted what critics viewed as contradictions in Obama's message about democratic participation. The commentary underscored the deep divisions in how different political groups interpret democratic processes.
The Democracy Forum speech represented Obama's first major public address following the November election. Its themes and reception indicate continuing tensions in American political discourse. The event highlighted ongoing debates about the nature of democratic participation and institutional integrity.
The conservative response to Obama's address reveals deep-seated disagreements about democratic processes and political leadership.
Critics' reactions focused particularly on questions of hypocrisy and political influence. These responses suggest that debates about democratic norms and political leadership will continue to shape American political discourse.
In a significant political shake-up, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been nominated by Donald Trump for the role of secretary of State, and the nomination has sparked widespread speculation about the next potential appointee for the vacancy his confirmation would create in the upper chamber.
According to recent polls, Lara Trump has emerged as a leading candidate supported by a majority of Republican voters, as the Daily Mail reports.
This high-profile reshuffle has left a critical seat open in the politically pivotal state of Florida, attracting considerable attention both locally and nationally.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a key figure in this process, holds the responsibility for appointing Rubio's successor.
With several potential candidates on the horizon, the decision seems both politically charged and crucial for the upcoming election cycles.
Lara Trump, who is married to Eric Trump, Donald Trump's son, has been highlighted as a frontrunner for the position.
Her recent role as co-chair of the Republican National Committee during the election campaign has further bolstered her qualifications and visibility within the party.
Recent polling by J.L. Partners commissioned by DailyMail.com showcases robust approval from the GOP base for Lara Trump to take up the Senate mantle.
Approximately 59% of Republican voters support her nomination, with a substantial 36% expressing strong support.
James Johnson, co-founder of J.L. Partners, provided insight into the sentiment among party members, stating, “Republican voters are with the Trumps and they believe Lara Trump should be the Senate replacement in Florida," adding, "Looking at these data, there is little to no chance of a backlash amongst the voters."
However, the broader public opinion is more mixed, reflecting a divide within the general populace. Around 33% support the idea of Lara Trump stepping into the Senate role, with 30% opposed.
DeSantis has been contemplative about the decision, hinting at a resolution by early January. As speculations mount, various scenarios have been proposed regarding his selection strategy.
Insider talks suggest DeSantis could opt for appointing himself, selecting a placeholder, or perhaps another prominent local political figure. Potential names include Florida Lt. Gov Jeanette Nuñez, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and former Florida House Speaker Paul Renner.
An unnamed source familiar with deliberations at Mar-a-Lago hinted at the expectations placed on DeSantis, remarking, "DeSantis knows what's expected of him."
Public endorsements have also shaped the narrative. Sen. Rick Scott, himself a former governor of Florida, took to the social media platform X to endorse Lara Trump, highlighting her alignment with party values and her potential to push the Republican agenda in Washington.
Lara Trump herself has expressed both humility and readiness regarding the potential appointment, stating, "If this is something I am asked to do, I would seriously consider it, but I have yet to hear from Gov. DeSantis. So we’ll see what happens."
The political landscape in Florida remains at a curious standstill as stakeholders and citizens alike await Governor DeSantis's decision on this crucial appointment.
The outcome could significantly impact both the state and national political dynamics in the coming years.
Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson was apprehended by the FBI on Friday, accused of orchestrating a scheme involving kickbacks and wire fraud to embezzle taxpayer funds.
This arrest follows Anderson's alleged involvement in employing and financially manipulating relatives to funnel city money into her own pockets, as the Post Millennial reports.
Anderson, a 45-year-old member of the Boston City Council, faces serious allegations regarding the misuse of her office for personal financial gain.
The Department of Justice announced the charges against her, including five counts of wire fraud and one count of theft relating to programs receiving federal funding. This arrest is significant in Boston's ongoing fight against corruption within city operations.
Anderson's legal troubles began escalating when it was discovered that she had violated Massachusetts state law by hiring immediate family members.
This law prohibits councilors from appointing direct relatives as salaried staff. In 2022, Anderson made the controversial decision to employ two family members, which she later had to reverse by terminating their roles following an investigation.
The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission imposed a $5,000 fine on Anderson in the spring of 2023 for these breaches.
Despite this, she continued her questionable practices by falsely claiming to the city administration that another newly hired relative was not related to her. These actions raised suspicions and led to further scrutiny of her conduct.
In a more damning allegation, Anderson orchestrated a kickback operation in May 2023, where she arranged for a hefty bonus to be given to a relative with the understanding that a portion of it would be returned to her.
Documents show that Anderson pushed a City of Boston employee to process a $13,000 bonus, significantly more than what other staff received, to facilitate this scheme.
The implicated relative deposited their bonus check on May 26 and subsequently withdrew $7,000 in cash, which was returned to Anderson in various transactions. The culmination of these illicit financial exchanges reportedly took place on June 9, 2023, in a City Hall bathroom, marking a bold and clandestine transfer of misappropriated funds.
Anderson, who was re-elected in November 2023, has often described herself as a trailblazer and advocate for significant social change. She holds the distinction of being the first undocumented African-born immigrant and the first Muslim elected in Boston.
However, her tenure has been overshadowed by her reportedly confrontational style, which according to colleagues, fosters an atmosphere of intimidation at City Hall.
A City Hall employee anonymously voiced to Fox News that Anderson’s strong personality has made colleagues wary of opposing her, as she is known to be unpredictable and forceful in her political and personal dealings.
Special Agent in Charge Jodi Cohen of the FBI's Boston office publicly condemned Anderson's actions, stating, “The FBI arrested Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson for allegedly orchestrating a kickback scheme in which she stole thousands of dollars in taxpayer money. Using public office for personal gain is a crime.” Cohen emphasized that such behavior undermines public trust and vowed continued vigilance against corruption.
This case highlights the ongoing efforts by the FBI and its partners to tackle corruption and restore public confidence in governance. As the legal process unfolds, the city of Boston watches closely, awaiting full accountability in a situation that has struck a nerve with the community's sense of justice and ethical governance.
Anderson’s arrest has rippled through Boston, sparking debates on integrity and trust in public officials. In response, Anderson has maintained a defensive stance on social media, highlighting her pioneering role in the city's political landscape, yet avoiding direct comments on the accusations she faces.
As the community seeks clarity and justice, this case serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in public service. The legal proceedings that will follow are expected to further elucidate the extent of Anderson's schemes and their impact on Boston's fiscal management.
Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth encounters mounting challenges in his bid to become the next Secretary of Defense under President-elect Donald Trump's administration.
A recent Daily Mail/J.L. Partners poll reveals that American voters largely disapprove of Hegseth's nomination, with only 28 percent viewing his appointment as appropriate.
Recent allegations of binge drinking and inappropriate behavior around women have complicated Hegseth's confirmation prospects.
The former television personality must secure support from nearly all Republican senators, as he can only afford to lose three GOP votes in the upcoming confirmation process early next year.
Key Republican senators have begun voicing their reservations about Hegseth's appointment. Senator Joni Ernst, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently indicated her hesitation during a Fox News interview with Bill Hemmer.
Ernst, who served 23 years in the Iowa Army National Guard, emphasized the importance of thorough vetting. Her stance carries particular weight as she has been mentioned as a potential alternative nominee should Hegseth's bid fail.
Female GOP senators, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, have scheduled meetings with Hegseth next week to discuss the various allegations against him.
The comprehensive survey of 1,000 registered voters demonstrated a clear pattern of concern regarding Hegseth's qualifications. A slim majority viewed him unfavorably, with 29 percent explicitly stating his selection was inappropriate.
Among Trump's cabinet nominations, only Hegseth and Kristi Noem, the nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, were viewed as inappropriate choices by voters. This places Hegseth in a particularly vulnerable position.
Notably, 16 percent of respondents had never heard of Hegseth, while 27 percent expressed no opinion, indicating a significant gap in public awareness about the nominee.
Support among Republican voters remains surprisingly tepid for a Trump nominee. Only 57 percent of GOP voters expressed support for Hegseth's confirmation, marking him as one of the least popular cabinet picks.
During his recent Capitol Hill appearances, Hegseth attempted to shore up support by emphasizing Trump's backing. He shared with reporters his recent conversation with the president-elect.
As Hegseth said while heading to meet Senator Mike Rounds:
I spoke to Trump this morning, just a few minutes ago. He supports us fully. If he wants a meeting we will have a meeting.
Senator Ernst expressed her concerns during a televised interview, stating:
I think for a number of our senators they want to make sure that any allegations have been cleared and that's why we have to have a very thorough vetting.
The confirmation process has entered a critical phase as Hegseth continues his meetings with lawmakers. His efforts to convince senators of his vision for the Pentagon have intensified over three consecutive days of Capitol Hill visits.
Pete Hegseth's nomination as Defense Secretary faces significant hurdles amid voter skepticism and senatorial concerns.
His confirmation depends on maintaining nearly unanimous Republican support in the Senate, where he can only lose three GOP votes.
The situation has prompted discussions about potential alternative candidates, with Senator Joni Ernst emerging as a possible backup choice. The outcome of next week's meetings with key female Republican senators could prove decisive in determining whether Hegseth's nomination moves forward or falters.
Senate Democrats initiate discussions about potential protective measures for individuals targeted by former President Donald Trump's promises of retribution.
According to the Washington Examiner, Democratic senators are exploring whether President Joe Biden should issue preemptive pardons before leaving office to protect those Trump has threatened with prosecution.
The contemplation of such unprecedented action stems from Trump's campaign rhetoric, where he labeled opponents as "enemies from within" and vowed revenge.
His recent appointments of Pam Bondi as attorney general and Kash Patel as FBI director have intensified these concerns, as both appointees have expressed support for prosecuting political adversaries.
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts has emerged as a vocal proponent of preemptive pardons. His public statements reflect growing anxiety within Democratic circles about Trump's potential actions upon returning to office.
Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon has taken a more measured approach, expressing understanding for Biden's recent pardon of his son Hunter while remaining noncommittal about broader preemptive pardons.
According to Markey:
I think that without question, Trump is going to try to act in a dictatorial way, in a fascistic way, in a revengeful first year at least of his administration toward individuals who he believes harmed him.
Several Democratic senators have expressed reservations about the strategy. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has advised against such pardons, while Senator Peter Welch of Vermont suggests focusing efforts on securing commitments from Trump regarding political persecution.
Trump's social media posts have targeted numerous political figures for potential prosecution. These include House members who investigated the January 6 Capitol attack, special counsel Jack Smith, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
His threats extend to current administration officials, including President Biden and Vice President Harris.
Former military leaders have not been spared from Trump's rhetoric. He suggested that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley committed an offense historically punishable by death.
Additionally, Trump has called for military tribunals to address perceived betrayals by former allies like Representative Liz Cheney.
The intensity and scope of these threats have created unprecedented discussions about protective measures within Democratic circles. A Senate Democratic aide, speaking anonymously, confirmed ongoing conversations about potential pardons as a safeguard against political persecution.
Discussions about preemptive pardons have drawn comparisons to historical cases, particularly Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal. Senator Markey referenced this precedent as a potential model for moving the country forward and focusing on substantive policy issues.
Outgoing Senator Joe Manchin has offered a different perspective, questioning the feasibility of pardoning individuals not yet charged with crimes. He suggested an alternative approach, proposing that Trump himself should receive a pardon to "balance things out and calm things down."
Democratic strategists have raised concerns about the political implications of preemptive pardons. They warn that such actions could further politicize the Justice Department and potentially backfire in terms of public perception.
The debate over preemptive pardons represents a critical juncture in American political history. Senate Democrats must weigh the potential benefits of protective measures against the risks of setting new precedents in presidential power.
As January 2025 approaches, President Biden faces complex decisions about using his pardon power to shield political figures from potential prosecution. These choices could significantly impact the future of American democracy and the balance between presidential authority and political accountability.
A new legislative push seeks to make public a controversial House Ethics Committee report concerning former Representative Matt Gaetz's conduct during his time in Congress.
According to Fox News, Representative Sean Casten, D-Ill., has introduced a privileged resolution that would compel House leaders to hold a vote on whether to release the findings of the ethics investigation into Matt Gaetz by Thursday.
The resolution comes in the wake of Gaetz's sudden resignation from Congress last month, which occurred shortly after President-elect Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Gaetz as attorney general. The timing of his departure notably coincided with the committee's anticipated meeting to discuss the potential release of their findings.
The House Ethics Committee had been conducting a multi-year investigation into serious allegations against Gaetz, including claims of sexual misconduct with a minor and illicit drug use. These accusations prompted both congressional and federal investigations, with the latter concluding without filing any charges against the former Florida representative.
Despite maintaining his innocence throughout the proceedings, Gaetz's abrupt departure from Congress effectively halted the committee's jurisdiction over the investigation. This development occurred at a crucial moment when the committee was preparing to convene and potentially make their findings public.
The circumstances surrounding the investigation's conclusion have raised questions about accountability and transparency in congressional oversight processes. Critics argue that Gaetz's resignation should not prevent the public from accessing the committee's findings, especially given the severity of the allegations.
Rep. Casten's current resolution marks his second attempt to force the release of the ethics report. His previous effort during the Thanksgiving break was allowed to expire by House Republican leadership without action.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has expressed opposition to releasing the report, citing the unusual nature of publishing findings about former members. However, Democratic representatives argue that precedent exists for such releases.
Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., who serves as the ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee, provided insight into the committee's internal divisions. She revealed that recent votes on the matter appeared to follow party lines, departing from the committee's typical pattern of bipartisan consensus.
According to Wild:
I'd say that a vote was taken. As many of you know, this committee is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, five Dems, five Republicans, which means that in order to affirmatively move something forward, somebody has to cross party lines and vote with the other side – which happens a lot, by the way, and we often vote unanimously. That did not happen in today's vote.
The privileged resolution's introduction creates a strict timeline for House leadership to address the matter. Parliamentary rules require action within two legislative days, setting Thursday as the deadline for consideration.
This deadline coincides with the Ethics Committee's scheduled meeting, where members will once again attempt to reach a consensus on the report's release. The timing creates a parallel track for potentially making the findings public.
The resolution's consideration comes during the House's final scheduled session days before the holiday recess. This timing adds urgency to the matter and could influence how leadership chooses to proceed.
Representative Casten emphasized the importance of maintaining congressional accountability even after members leave office. His position reflects broader concerns about the effectiveness of ethics oversight in Congress.
As stated by Casten:
The Committee on Ethics has, on many occasions, released its reports on former members. Resigning from Congress should not allow Members to avoid accountability for allegations as serious as those faced by Matt Gaetz. Withholding this report from the American people would impede the dignity and integrity of the legislative proceedings of the House.
This statement underscores the tension between institutional precedent and the practical challenges of oversight when members depart mid-investigation.
A resolution requiring immediate attention by House leadership will determine whether the public gains access to the Ethics Committee's findings on former Representative Matt Gaetz. Democratic legislators, led by Representative Sean Casten, are pressing for transparency through a privileged resolution that must be addressed by Thursday.
The controversy centers on an ethics investigation into serious allegations against Gaetz, whose resignation from Congress came just before the committee was set to discuss releasing their report. The outcome of this push for disclosure could establish important precedents for how Congress handles ethics investigations of former members in the future.
A House Democrat staff member's arrival at the Cannon House Office Building led to an unexpected security incident Thursday morning.
According to Fox News, Michael Hopkins, a 38-year-old staff member working for Representative Joe Morelle of New York's 25th Congressional District, was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police after security screening revealed ammunition in his bag.
The incident unfolded around 8:45 a.m. when routine x-ray screening detected suspicious items in Hopkins' bag. Capitol Police officers conducted a thorough search, discovering four ammunition magazines and eleven rounds of ammunition. Hopkins claimed he had forgotten the ammunition was in his possession.
U.S. Capitol Police took immediate action following the discovery, demonstrating their commitment to maintaining strict security measures within congressional buildings. The incident highlighted the effectiveness of standard screening procedures at building entry points. Security personnel's swift response showcased the robust protective measures in place at Capitol Hill facilities.
Representative Morelle's office promptly acknowledged the situation and expressed their dedication to supporting law enforcement efforts. The office released an official statement emphasizing their commitment to workplace safety. Their cooperative stance underscores the seriousness with which congressional offices approach security matters.
The Capitol Police provided a detailed account of the morning's events, explaining their systematic approach to handling potential security threats. Officers followed established protocols when conducting the bag search. Their thorough inspection process proved crucial in identifying prohibited items before they entered the building.
Representative Morelle's position as Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration adds particular significance to this incident. His office's response reflects their understanding of the gravity of the situation. The team immediately began gathering additional information about the circumstances surrounding Hopkins' arrest.
The Capitol Police have filed specific charges against Hopkins for unlawful possession of ammunition. The charges include a separate count for possession of a high-capacity magazine. These legal proceedings will determine the consequences of bringing prohibited items into federal buildings.
Hopkins' statement to officers about forgetting the ammunition was in his bag raises questions about security awareness among congressional staff. This incident may prompt discussions about the need for enhanced security training and protocols for individuals working in congressional offices.
Capitol Police stated that Hopkins now faces charges that could have serious implications for his career in public service.
The presence of both ammunition magazines and loose rounds has triggered a thorough investigation into the circumstances. Law enforcement officials are working to understand how these items came into Hopkins' possession.
The U.S. Capitol Police maintained their standard of transparency by promptly releasing information about the incident to the public. Their statement detailed the exact items found during the security screening. This level of openness helps maintain public trust in security operations at federal buildings.
Security procedures at the Cannon House Office Building demonstrated their effectiveness in preventing prohibited items from entering the premises. The x-ray screening system successfully detected the ammunition, allowing officers to respond before any potential security breach could occur.
Representative Morelle's dual role as both an employer and Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration places him in a unique position regarding this incident. The office released this statement regarding their commitment to workplace safety:
As Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, Congressman Morelle is devoted to ensuring a safe and secure workplace for all
The incident serves as a reminder of the continuing importance of vigilant security measures at federal buildings.
Capitol Police's quick response and thorough handling of the situation exemplifies their dedication to maintaining safety protocols. The investigation will likely lead to a review of current security procedures and staff training requirements.
Michael Hopkins, a congressional staff member working for Representative Joe Morelle, faces serious charges following his arrest at the Cannon House Office Building after security screening discovered ammunition in his bag. The incident occurred during a routine morning security check when x-ray screening revealed four ammunition magazines and eleven rounds.
The case remains under investigation as Capitol Police proceed with charges of unlawful ammunition possession, including a specific charge for a high-capacity magazine. Representative Morelle's office has pledged full cooperation with law enforcement authorities while emphasizing their commitment to maintaining a secure workplace environment for all Capitol Hill employees.
A surprising alliance emerges between progressive Senator Bernie Sanders and tech billionaire Elon Musk over government spending reforms.
According to the New York Post, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has publicly endorsed President-elect Donald Trump's planned Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), specifically supporting its potential role in addressing the Pentagon's financial accountability issues.
Sanders took to X to voice his agreement with Musk regarding the Pentagon's failed audits and excessive budget allocation. The 83-year-old Vermont senator highlighted the Defense Department's concerning track record, pointing to its seventh consecutive failed audit and an $886 billion budget that lacks proper oversight.
This unexpected convergence of views between the progressive senator and the tech mogul has sparked significant attention across political circles.
President-elect Donald Trump has appointed Elon Musk, 53, and Vivek Ramaswamy, 39, as co-heads of DOGE, setting a clear deadline of July 4, 2026, for the completion of their mission.
Despite its cryptocurrency-inspired name, DOGE will function as an external organization working in tandem with the White House and Office of Management and Budget. The initiative aims to identify and eliminate wasteful government spending, with a particular focus on the Defense Department's financial practices.
Sanders, known for his consistent criticism of defense spending, shared his perspective on X, stating:
Elon Musk is right. The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It's lost track of billions. Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud. That must change.
The Department of Defense's recent announcement of failing its seventh consecutive independent audit has raised concerns across party lines. Currently authorized to receive $824.3 billion for the 2024 fiscal year, the Pentagon's financial management has become a focal point for both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.
Democratic representatives have shown a willingness to collaborate on addressing potential wasteful spending within the Department of Defense. Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) expressed support for working with Musk and DOGE to combat waste and fraud while promoting competition among defense contractors.
Similarly, Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) suggested expanding DOGE's scope to include evaluating the Department of Homeland Security's structure.
Mike McCord, serving as the Pentagon's chief financial officer, maintains that no significant fraud has been detected. He remains optimistic about achieving a "clean" audit in the coming years, though the timeline for this achievement remains uncertain. The department's financial challenges persist despite ongoing efforts to improve accountability and transparency.
The collaboration between Musk and Trump has intensified since the election, with the tech mogul frequently visiting Mar-a-Lago. Their shared vision for government reform has garnered attention from both supporters and critics across the political spectrum.
Musk and Ramaswamy have outlined their strategy for DOGE in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, detailing plans to implement executive actions for government reduction and defend these changes through legal channels.
Their ambitious agenda includes streamlining bureaucratic processes and fostering economic growth through reduced government intervention.
The initiative has generated mixed reactions from various political figures and commentators. Former Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) sarcastically welcomed Sanders to the cause, while social media influencers expressed surprise at the unlikely alliance between Sanders and Musk. The America super PAC, associated with Musk, emphasized that responsible government spending transcends partisan divisions.
Senator Bernie Sanders has publicly aligned with Elon Musk's vision for government spending reform, specifically targeting the Pentagon's financial management practices.
The unexpected endorsement comes as President-elect Trump prepares to launch the Department of Government Efficiency under the leadership of Musk and Ramaswamy.
The initiative aims to address systemic issues within government spending, particularly focusing on the Defense Department's consecutive failed audits and substantial budget allocations. As DOGE prepares to begin its operations, the collaboration between progressive and conservative figures suggests a potential shift in approaches to government oversight and fiscal responsibility.
