DISGRACEFUL: Democrat Caught Sharing Guillotine With Trump’s Head — Now Her Career May Be Over pss
Patel: Probe Into Trump, GOP Lawmakers Over Jan. 6 Weak On Evidence
The FBI memo that initiated the Biden-era Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump and hundreds of his allies over their activities related to January 6 lacked substantial evidence and clear legal justification, according to several former prosecutors and FBI agents who reviewed the newly released document and identified multiple deficiencies.
The investigation, code-named Arctic Frost, was initially led by an FBI supervisor who had expressed anti-Trump sentiments and was later taken over by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The probe treated the effort by Trump’s allies to submit alternate electors to Congress during the 2020 election certification as a potential criminal conspiracy — despite similar actions in two prior instances of U.S. history not resulting in prosecution, Just the News reported.
According to the newly released materials, the FBI memo that launched the investigation in spring 2022 — around the same time Trump announced his bid for the presidency — relied heavily on interview clips from CNN as primary evidence “suggesting” Trump’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy, the outlet added.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said Wednesday that he believes the FBI memo authorizing the Arctic Frost investigation was legally flawed and reflected the same politicization and investigative overreach seen in the 2016 Russia collusion probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”
Jordan obtained the document from current FBI Director Kash Patel and told Just the News that both investigations targeted Trump based on weak evidence and partisan motives before ultimately being discredited.
“Sure looks that way. … and it looks like this was just the same old weaponization, same old political focus, focus on politics, going after your political enemies,” Jordan said during a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise TV show.
“Same mindset that said we’re going to put the dossier in the intelligence community assessment, even though we know the dossier is garbage, we know there’s no underlying intelligence support,” he continued.
“That same mindset that was there in 2016 is the mindset we see now in 2022 with Arctic Frost, and then as it transformed into Jack Smith, special counsel, later in 2022—same mindset. So yeah, that’s what it sure looks like,” he added.
Smith has denied any wrongdoing and said he intends to present his side of the story. Jordan has invited Smith to testify before the committee, warning that he will issue a subpoena if Smith declines to appear voluntarily.
Documents released in recent weeks by Patel indicate that the Arctic Frost investigation was approved at the highest levels of the Biden administration, including by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, with assistance from a lawyer in the White House.
The inquiry centered on efforts by Republican officials in several states to submit alternate slates of electors ahead of Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021.
The probe was later transferred from the FBI to Smith’s office, which issued subpoenas to hundreds of Trump allies.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Wednesday released 197 subpoenas that Smith and his Justice Department team issued “as part of the indiscriminate election case against President Trump,” identifying more than 400 Republican groups and individuals whose information was sought.
Separately, the House Judiciary Committee disclosed that more than 160 Republicans — including many closely tied to Trump — were flagged for possible investigation under the Arctic Frost operation.
The opening electronic communication (EC) that launched what became a broad investigation into Trump associates was written and approved in April 2022 under the title “Requests Opening of New Investigation – Arctic Frost.”
The probe, designated as a “Sensitive Investigative Matter” (SIM), was authorized by then–Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault — who later left the FBI after his anti-Trump social media posts came to light — along with other senior bureau officials, including Steve D’Antuono, then the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Paul Abbate, who was serving as the FBI’s Deputy Director at the time.
DISGRACEFUL: Democrat Caught Sharing Guillotine With Trump’s Head — Now Her Career May Be Over
North Carolina Representative Julie von Haefen (D) is facing explosive backlash after posting a video from a Raleigh “No Kings” protest — including a shocking sign of a guillotine with a head resembling President Donald Trump. The scandal has set off a political firestorm.
Almost immediately, von Haefen deactivated her social media accounts and issued an apology, admitting she had edited the video to remove the disturbing image. She insisted: “I condemn political violence in all forms.”
But leaders across the state aren’t buying it. N.C. GOP Chairman Jason Simmons declared: “Her posts do not show the judgment or temperament of someone fit for public office. She should resign.”
House Speaker Destin Hall went further, condemning her “disgraceful behavior” and noting the chilling timing: “On the same weekend a gunman targeted lawmakers in Minnesota, she glorified violence against political opponents — including the President.”
Even Apex Mayor Jacques Gilbert rebuked the imagery, saying it “crosses a moral line” and promotes division.
Meanwhile, conservative influencers are calling for her removal. One viral post read: “Julie von Haefen should be nowhere near state power. She pushed tampon bills, union garbage — and now violent fantasies of Trump’s beheading. Remove her.”
The fallout is growing by the hour. Will von Haefen be forced to step down — or will Democrats protect her? One thing is certain: the outrage isn’t going away anytime soon.
ALERT! New Minnesota Fraud Bombshell Puts Ilhan Omar Front and Center
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A massive $1 million federal payout quietly inserted by Representative Ilhan Omar has been yanked from a federal spending bill after fierce conservative pushback exposed glaring irregularities.
The $1,031,000 earmark was slated for Generation Hope MN, a Somali-led 501(c)(3) addiction recovery group. But a closer look revealed the non-profit was operating out of the space directly above a Somali restaurant in Minneapolis—and its official IRS paperwork raised immediate alarms.
"FULL OF RED FLAGS FOR FRAUD"
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) spearheaded the effort to strip the funding from the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) minibus spending package. In a fiery interview with Fox Business, Ernst didn't hold back, exposing the shocking lack of scrutiny over how taxpayer dollars are handed out by Minnesota Democrats.
“What I uncovered the other day... was a $1 million earmark from Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota,” Ernst revealed. “This earmark was supposedly going to a substance abuse clinic, which actually happened to be housed in a restaurant and run by three individuals who share the same residential address, according to their IRS paperwork. Tons of red flags.”
Ernst immediately connected the shady earmark to the exploding daycare and nutrition scams currently ravaging the Somali community in the North Star State, warning that "easy money has been flowing to bad actors in Minnesota."
Following the exposure, House Republicans stripped the funding from the bill entirely. Ernst took to X (formerly Twitter) to celebrate the removal—which had also been jointly led in the Senate by Minnesota Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith—calling it a "squeal win" and declaring: "Taxpayer dollars should not be funding more fraud in Minnesota."
THE RESTAURANT DEFENSE
The owner of Sagal Restaurant and Coffee attempted to defend the setup during an interview with Fox News, claiming the building features eight distinct office spaces on the upper floor and insisting there is nothing inappropriate about the non-profit's operations. Generation Hope MN, founded in 2019, maintains that it assists the East African community with substance use recovery and job training.
However, with fraud cases proliferating across Minnesota, critics argue that the basic appearance of questionable connections—like sharing a residential address among multiple directors—warrants severe scrutiny before handing over $1 million in public funds.
ILHAN OMAR'S EXPLODING $30 MILLION FORTUNE
The axed earmark couldn't come at a worse time for Ilhan Omar, who is currently facing intense national scrutiny over her judgment, her associations, and her rapidly ballooning personal wealth.
Omar has recently been photographed posing with Abdul Dahir Ibrahim, a Somali immigrant with prior fraud convictions. Even more startling to ethics watchdogs are recent financial disclosures indicating that Omar and her husband's net worth has exploded. Once claiming to be in near financial distress with massive student debt, her latest disclosures reveal assets valued between $6 million and $30 million—an astonishing trajectory that has prompted widespread calls for greater congressional transparency.
With "Squad" members under the microscope and Republicans standing guard over the federal checkbook, Ilhan Omar's $1 million pet project has officially hit a brick wall.
JUST IN: Jeanine Pirro Stuns Washington by Rapidly Endorsing Jim Jordan’s “Born on American Soil” Proposal.
What’s in the proposal? A sweeping restriction that would bar anyone not born within U. S.
borders from serving in Congress or ascending to the presidency regardless of how long they’ve lived in the country or how deeply they’ve contributed to it.
Advocates argue it safeguards American heritage. Opponents say it strikes at the heart of inclusion.
But the real surprise came when Judge Jeanine Pirro publicly threw her weight behind the bill just hours after its release, urging Americans to “defend the foundational principles this nation was built upon.” Her remarks instantly ignited social media.
Supporters celebrated. Critics erupted. Newsrooms rushed to respond. Now bolstered by one of the country’s most unapologetically vocal figures, the proposal could sideline more 2026 contenders than anticipated and trigger a constitutional showdown unseen in decades.
JUST ONE HOUR AFTER JIM JORDAN UNVEILED THE “NO FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS” BILL – JEANINE PIRRO SHOCKED THE NATION BY BACKING IT
The morning in Washington began like any other – until Representative Jim Jordan walked into the Capitol holding a slim packet of papers that would soon ignite one of the most volatile political debates of the decade.
The proposal was straightforward yet staggering: prohibit any American not born on U. S.
soil from ever serving in Congress or the White House, regardless of residency length, service record, or national contribution.
Within minutes of the bill’s release, “NO FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS” surged across social media platforms.
Supporters hailed it as a long-overdue stand for national identity. Critics condemned it as unconstitutional and exclusionary.
But few anticipated what came next a forceful endorsement from one of the most recognizable conservative voices in America: Judge Jeanine Pirro.
Only hours after Jordan’s press conference, Pirro posted a statement on X that instantly went viral.
“This isn’t about hostility,” she wrote. “It’s about legacy, sovereignty, and remembering the principles this country was founded on.”
The post amassed 2. 4 million views within thirty minutes. By nightfall, it had unleashed a nationwide media frenzy.
News outlets scrambled to dissect every word, motive, and implication. To some, Pirro’s message sounded like patriotic resolve.
To others, it echoed a dangerous revival of exclusionary politics many believed the country had moved beyond.
Later that evening, Pirro expanded on her position during her Fox segment, her delivery firm yet composed.
“When we talk about defending America,” she said, “we’re not talking about shutting doors.
We’re talking about ensuring that those making the most consequential decisions for our future share a deep-rooted connection to the land that defines us.
I respect immigrants. But Congress and the Oval Office are sacred institutions. They’re not participation prizes.
They are responsibilities born from this soil.”
The studio audience erupted in applause. The clip spread rapidly online.
Hashtags like #PirroBill and #BornOnUSSoil quickly climbed the trending charts.
What began as a legislative proposal had transformed into a cultural wildfire.
Thousands of Americans flooded comment sections with emotional testimonies about immigrant parents, grandparents, and their own aspirations for public service.
One commenter wrote, “I served 22 years in the Army. Born in Germany to American parents.
Does that make me less American?” Others applauded Pirro’s stance: “She’s right. If you weren’t born here, how can you truly understand what this country stands for?”
Inside the Capitol, reactions were divided but intense.
Democratic leaders labeled the bill “a betrayal of American ideals,” while several Republicans quietly praised Jordan’s boldness behind closed doors.
When pressed for comment, Senator Ted Cruz responded cautiously, hinting at the ideological tug-of-war now gripping the GOP.
Political analysts framed the moment as a defining test for the conservative movement’s identity.
The debate wasn’t merely about policy – it was about belonging. Who qualifies as fully American?
Who is entitled to lead? And what does “homegrown” truly mean in a nation built by immigrants?
In the days that followed, opinion pieces flooded major outlets. Some called the bill the most exclusionary proposal in decades.
Others defended it as a necessary reinforcement of national boundaries.
Social media devolved into an ideological battleground – reels, podcasts, viral clips, and heated debates everywhere.
At the center of it all stood Jeanine Pirro – unflinching, unapologetic, and fully aware of the storm she had unleashed.
During a quieter moment on her Sunday broadcast, Pirro looked directly into the camera. “This isn’t about politics,” she said.
“It’s about protecting a promise – the promise that those who shape this nation understand what it means to belong to it.”Whether history remembers her words as an act of patriotic conviction or a mark of exclusion remains to be seen.
But one thing is undeniable: in less than twenty-four hours, Jeanine Pirro transformed a controversial bill into the defining political debate of 2025 country hasn’t stopped talking about it since. and the country hasn’t stopped talking about it since.
