This article adheres to strict editorial standards. Some or all links may be monetized.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk isn’t known for mincing words and his comments on New York City’s incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani, were no exception.
“Mamdani is a charismatic swindler,” Musk claimed in a recent appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast (1). “I mean, you gotta hand it to him — he can light up a stage, but he has just been a swindler his entire life.”
Musk predicted that Mamdani was “likely to win” the New York mayoral race — and he was right. A few days later, the 34-year-old democratic socialist defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo, becoming the first Muslim and first South Asian to serve as New York City’s mayor.
But Musk is far from optimistic about Mamdani’s agenda.
“If Mamdani’s policies are put into place, especially at scale, it would be a catastrophic decline in living standards — not just for the rich, but for everyone, as has been the case with every socialist experiment,” Musk warned.
Western Economists have noted that highly centralized socialist systems — as seen historically in the Soviet Union and other centrally-planned economies — often led to stagnating or declining living standards, chronic shortages and inefficiencies (2).
One of Mamdani’s proposals is to create a network of city-owned grocery stores, designed to keep prices low rather than turn a profit (3). The stores would buy and sell at wholesale prices, be exempt from rent and property taxes and pass savings on to shoppers.
Musk dismissed the idea outright, highlighting what he sees as inherent government inefficiency.
“The government is the DMV at scale. Do you want the DMV running your supermarket?” He asked. “Was your last experience at the DMV amazing? And if it wasn’t, you probably don’t want the government doing things.”
While Mamdani identifies as a democratic socialist, Musk framed his critique in stark terms, likening potential policies to communism:
“The problem with communism is its universal low income,” he said. “I mean the thing about communism is it was all breadlines and bad shoes. Do you want ugly shoes and breadlines? Because that’s what communism gets you.”
Musk isn’t the only billionaire voicing concern. Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of hedge fund Citadel, said he is praying for New Yorkers:
“For the people of New York, I pray that the policies Mamdani uses to govern and lead New York are different than the talking points he used to win the mayoral race,” Griffin said (4). ”The people of New York deserve better.”
That said, not all wealthy figures are worried. Alex Soros, son of George Soros and chair of the $25 billion Open Society Foundations, posted a photo on X standing beside Mamdani, writing: “So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor @ZohranKMamdani” (5).
If Musk’s warnings have you wondering what the future might hold, you’re not alone. While political shifts inevitably bring uncertainty, there are strategies you can use to protect yourself, hedge against potential economic changes and stay ahead of the curve.
How does the above sound legal – Como ran and lost as a Democrat in the primary and then ran as an independent in the final election which split the votes? Is that legal? The purpose of the primary is to bring the vote down to two people?
Elon Musk’s Brain Crashes When Asked Why He Thinks Zohran Mamdani Is a Liar
Noted deep thinker Elon Musk suffered a cerebral blue screen of death when he was asked to explain why he thought Zohran Mamdani was a liar.
On an episode of the Joe Rogan Experience uploaded days before Mumdani’s victory, Musk launched into a snippy rant about the newly elected mayor of New York City after complaining about the glowing press coverage he received. In Musk’s view, Mamdani was nothing more than a “charismatic swindler.”
“You got to hand it to him, he does — he can light up a stage,” Musk said of Mamdani. “But he’s just been a swindler his entire life.”
But after a lengthy aside on the evils of socialism, the centibillionaire’s gloating got derailed when Rogan sucker-punched Musk with a tough question: what has Mamdani actually done that makes him a swindler?
“Ummm,” Musk ponders, before stuttering into a series of words seemingly intended as an answer. “Well I guess if you say — uh, what, I mean, if you say, if you say to any audience whatever that audience wants to hear, uh, instead of, what, instead of having a consistent message, I would say that is a swindling thing to do.”
“Umm, and uhh, yeah,” he adds, nodding his head. “Umm…”
He takes a sagacious pause.
“Yeah,” he finishes.
Mamdani won the election for New York City mayor on Tuesday, beating his opponents, Democrat-castoff-turned-independent Andrew Cuomo and Republican eccentric Curtis Sliwa, by a landslide. He catalyzed voters by cultivating an authentic persona and keeping a consistent message on affordability, promising housing reform and an increased minimum wage.Related video: Andrew Ross Sorkin discusses his Elon Musk interview (Boardroom – Video)
Boardroom – Video
Andrew Ross Sorkin discusses his Elon Musk interview
An ultrawealthy business tycoon like Musk would obviously have a lot of negative things to say about Mamdani’s proposed policies, but it’s odd that he’s accused Mamdani of not having a “consistent message,” since his clear messaging formed the bedrock of his successful campaign.
Of course, we’re generously assuming Musk was fielding a sincere critique and not just grasping at straws. It’s plain to see that he couldn’t cite any real examples of Mamdani’s career “swindling,” and instead BSed his way into something he hoped sounded profound instead. Life’s tough when you can’t ask Grok for all the answers.
In any case, Musk hasn’t been taking Mamdani’s victory well. On his website X, formerly Twitter, he promptly began laying the groundwork for a conspiracy theory arguing that the mayor-elect’s victory was fraudulent.
“The New York City ballot form is a scam!” Musk wrote in a tweet with a photo of a ballot, listing what he saw as suspicious flaws that are in reality standard ballot features.
It looks like the Jewish people in New York have forgotten WWII and their suffering. Soros was one of the people supporting and working for the Germans during WWII and supported the new Mayor
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York’s next mayor exposed a deepening rift between traditional Democratic Jewish voters and younger progressives — one that could reshape politics for years in the metropolitan area with the world’s largest Jewish population outside Israel.
Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, handily defeated Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic former governor of New York who ran as an independent, while beating back accusations of antisemitism over his support of Palestinians in the conflict in Gaza.
A Muslim immigrant, Mamdani benefited from a wave of anger over Israel’s conduct in Gaza among some Democrats and Jewish Americans who had initially supported it but grew disillusioned. That shift manifested itself in spring protests at Columbia University last year that Mamdani supported and politically benefited from.
A Pew Research Center poll last year found that just half of Jewish Americans under 35 said the way Israel has carried out the war has been acceptable, while 68% of Jews ages 50 and older said it was acceptable.
In New York, about one-third of Jewish voters in Tuesday’s election supported Mamdani, exit polls showed, powering a victory that alarmed his Jewish opponents unaccustomed to backing the losing candidate.
“The morning after the election, many members of our community woke up with a sense of unease,” said Hindy Poupko, a senior vice president at the UJA-Federation of New York, a major Jewish nonprofit. “There’s a lot of uncertainty about how Mayor Mamdani might act once in City Hall.”
Mamdani was tested quickly. When in the hours after his election antisemitic graffiti was scrawled on a Brooklyn Jewish Day School, the mayor-elect condemned the act.
“As Mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root the scourge of antisemitism out of our city,” he posted on X.
‘GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA’
Jewish opponents of Mamdani expressed concern about his refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” a slogan of support for Palestinians that some interpret as a call to violence against Jewish people. After his nomination, Mamdani privately told a group of business leaders that he would not use the phrase and would discourage others from using it, according to a July New York Times report.
He has said he supports the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, or BDS, movement, which calls for the economic and cultural boycott of Israel.
The Anti-Defamation League last week launched a “Mamdani Monitor” to track his executive appointments and other actions for potential harm to the Jewish community. It also established a tip line for New York residents to report incidents of antisemitism.
“Our job is quite simple – to protect the Jewish people,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the group’s chief executive.
COURTING VOTERS
Amidst the Democratic divisions over Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Republican President Donald Trump, an ardent backer of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has made the case to Jewish voters that his party is a better home.
That appeal came despite the fact that Trump’s 2024 rival, Democrat Kamala Harris, won 79% of the white, Jewish vote in 2024, according to exit polls.
Trump said on Tuesday any Jewish voter who supported Mamdani was a “stupid person.”
The Republican Party was rocked by accusations of antisemitism after right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson hosted white nationalist Nick Fuentes last month for a sympathetic interview on his podcast.
Carlson, a former Fox News Channel personality, was denounced by Republican lawmakers including U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who this week said, “a handful of voices are spreading this garbage, and it is giving every one of us a time for choosing.”
Republicans plan to seize on Mamdani’s election to court more Jewish support in next year’s midterms, when control of Congress is at stake. That backing could prove pivotal in swing districts like the one north of New York City held by Republican Mike Lawler.
“Mamdani’s ascent to Gracie Mansion could rewrite the playbook for Republicans, tightening their hold on the U.S. House,” said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist, referring to the New York mayor’s official residence.
Mamdani also promises to be a factor in next year’s race for New York governor. Elise Stefanik, a top Trump ally, said last week she will seek the Republican nomination and assailed Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul for endorsing Mamdani.
A SPLINTERING BLOC
The city’s expense and high cost of living were central to Mamdani’s campaign, fueling a surge of support among young progressive voters. Even some of Mamdani’s detractors, like Greenblatt, credit his victory to his relentless focus on pocketbook issues.
Mamdani’s Jewish supporters said the election proves that the Jewish vote is far from monolithic.
“I support Mamdani not in spite of his views on Israel and Palestine but because of them,” said Roni Zahavi-Brunner, 26, an Israeli who canvassed for the candidate. “I don’t think that speaking out against genocide is that big of a risk.”
Others rallied to Cuomo, 67, because of his support for Israel.
“I feel deflated,” said Alison Devlin, 50, a Jewish resident of Manhattan’s Upper East Side who voted for Cuomo. “I definitely feel concerned because I am openly Jewish, I am openly Zionist.”
She added: “I don’t know what is going to happen. I don’t know if I’m staying in the city after this.”
Corinne Greenblatt, 27, who works in higher education in the city, said she appreciated the way Mamdani was “interested in reaching out to a really broad range of the Jewish community, not just those who are completely in political agreement with him, because the Jewish community is very politically diverse.”
The war in Gaza, Corinne Greenblatt said, has brought a “sea change in Jewish politics now, where it’s very clear that there are pro-Palestine Jews, there are pro-Israel Jews. There are Jews who have no relationship to Israel.”
Andrue Kahn, a Brooklyn rabbi, said that Mamdani has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to fight antisemitism and criticized groups such as the ADL for “deepening division by using Jewish fear as a reason for surveillance.”
“Let’s give him a chance to show that his commitment to fighting antisemitism is legitimate, and work with him to build the kinds of cross-community solidarity that make all New Yorkers safer,” Kahn said.
(Reporting by Helen Coster in New York and James Oliphant in Washington. Edited by Scott Malone and Howard Goller)
11/07/2025
Well, here we are in New York City!
Remember the Obama Statement That He Was Going To Bring America Down To The Rest Of The World?
Well – here it is – NEW YORK CITY. You got it and now we will see!
Remember that.
We have had 12 years of Democrat corruption according to DOGE.
We have had Democrat NO KING’S parades in our country sponsored by Soros still fighting us for WWII – and our President was in the process of trying to rebuild what Obama/Biden/Rice/Schumer took the country into – the worst deficit. The lefties are so weak they can’t even help repair what they helped destroy. Now, the lefties in New York followed Obama down the communist path and have taken its city into the path of socialism.
I hope the left in New York city remember when they see a disabled veteran who fought our wars in the past and kept our freedom – that you have just broke that chain of freedom.
How disgusting is that? All the lives lost – for what?
Obama’s record looks strikingly different than the one he imagined when he took office. | AP Photos
By James Hohmann and John F. Harris10/02/2012 04:51 AM EDT
Ahead in the polls, looking strong in key swing states: This must be exactly what Barack Obama dreamed his reelection campaign would look like, five weeks from Election Day and on the eve of the firstdebate.
But, as the president and his team well know, Obama in Denver on Wednesday will be defending a first-term record that looks strikingly different than the one he imagined when he took office in January 2009.
Obama’s own words, and those of his closest aides, culled from his first campaign and the early phase of his presidency, tell the story. Cumulatively, the quotations are an anthology of lofty aspirations that fell to earth and boastful predictions that didn’t come true.
All presidents have plans that don’t work out. But many of Obama’s off-the-mark quotes echo because — as a president with a short history in Washington and no previous executive experience — he faced an especially jarring collision between his confident assumptions about how he would govern and the reality of what was possible.
The economy and other problems were more impervious to Obama’s remedies than he expected; Washington, and the rest of the world, were less impressed by the purity of his intentions than he imagined. He is certain to be confronted with many of these contradictions by Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s encounter.
What follows are 10 quotations — some famous, some not — that Obama surely hopes voters won’t dwell on as he makes his case for a second term.
• “Washington is broken. My whole campaign has been premised from the start on the idea that we have to fundamentally change how Washington works.”
Obama delivered those words on Sept. 11, 2008, at a ServiceNation summit. He has said similar things on countless occasions, starting with the 2004 Democratic keynote address in Boston that vaulted the then-state senator to national acclaim.
There is little doubt that Obama was sincere in his belief that Washington is driven by irrational partisanship. He was sincere also in believing that the power of his own cool and cerebral example would help drain the capital of malice and rebuild a rational center.
In retrospect, Obama’s exaggerated belief in his own capacity to transform Washington — not to mention his own wavering self-discipline in resisting nakedly partisan politics — looks like his most naïve miscalculation about his own power.
Obama himself has embraced this conclusion — albeit slowly.
In a December 2011 interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Obama said he had not miscalculated how difficult it would be to change Washington: “I didn’t overpromise. And I didn’t underestimate how tough this was gonna be.”
In an interview last month with “60 Minutes,” Obama said he had miscalculated: “I’m the first one to confess that the spirit that I brought to Washington, that I wanted to see instituted, where we weren’t constantly in a political slugfest … I haven’t fully accomplished that. Haven’t even come close in some instances. And, you know, if you ask me what’s my biggest disappointment [it] is that we haven’t changed the tone in Washington as much as I would have liked.”
• “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
This quote was attributed to Obama by Patrick Gaspard, who was Obama’s first White House political director, in an interview with The New Yorker in November 2008.
Obama biographers and even friends have noted his tendency from a young age to sometimes to let self-confidence curdle into excessive self-regard — a trait he will try to suppress in Denver.
But the main problem with Obama’s quote was not that it was immodest but that it was inaccurate.
Obama has not presided over an especially skilled political operation. Relations with key members of Congress and with key political figures in states have been frayed, driven by complaints that Obama does not do enough outreach and political fence-tending.
As for his speechifying talents, while obviously formidable on some occasions, they have not added up to effective presidential communication.
This is Obama’s own self-appraisal in a recent interview. “It’s funny — when I ran, everybody said, ‘Well, he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job?’” he told CBS in July. “And in my first two years, I think the notion was, ‘Well, he’s been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where’s the story that tells us where he’s going?’ And I think that was a legitimate criticism.”
• “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
In this quote, from a February 2009 interview on NBC’s “Today” show and widely repeated this year by taunting Republicans, Obama was referring to the pace of economic recovery.
Obama’s explanation, of course, is that his policies, including the $787 billion stimulus package, averted depression and made possible a slow but still incomplete comeback.
But the words haunt Obama because they were a reminder of how profoundly he and his economic team misunderstood the long-term nature of the crisis that confronted them upon taking office.
Christina Romer, then the West Wing’s economist, forecast in January 2009 that the unemployment rate would be around 5.5 percent by the third quarter of 2012 if a large stimulus package passed. It is currently 8.1 percent. Former budget director Peter Orszag explained after leaving office that economic models led the administration to expect that the economy would look like a “V” — a steep decline followed by a steep rebound — and instead it was more like an “L,” a sharp drop followed by a long period of flat growth.
If Obama had seen the future, he would have sought to shape public expectations, and might even have delayed expensive and arguably growth-slowing measures like his overhaul of health care in favor of more measures to coax job creation.
• “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not.”
That quote, to the Reno Gazette-Journal in January 2008, was designed partly to taunt Hillary Rodham Clinton during Obama’s nomination fight against her.
But it’s also plain that Obama really believed this. It often seemed like Obama and his top aides couldn’t decide what they disliked more — George W. Bush’s policies or Bill Clinton’s politics.
David Axelrod, Obama’s top political adviser, thought Clinton stood for a small and contrived brand of politics, the kind that doesn’t make history.
Obama has overcome his doubts. A TV commercial with Clinton endorsing Obama is among the most widely played of this cycle, and Clinton’s spirited address at last month’s Democratic convention played a central role in the bounce Obama enjoyed coming out of Charlotte.
It was another lesson in humility for Obama, who learned that the 42nd president knew a few things about how a Democratic president can navigate in a country that still has a center-right political culture.
• “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”
This comes from comments to reporters after signing an executive order on his third day in office.
Here is a bogus prediction — turned out the administration had no good ideas of what to do with these terrorism detainees — that isn’t necessarily causing great problems for Obama. It’s not like Romney is running to Obama’s left on Gitmo.
To the contrary, the fact that there was more continuity than reversal of Bush-era surveillance, detention and other anti-terrorism policies is one reason Obama has flipped the historical advantage that Republicans usually have in polls about which party people trust more to keep the country safe.
Obama likewise essentially borrowed Bush’s Iraq surge strategy for Afghanistan, with mixed results.
That’s a funny bounce of the ball for someone who won his party’s nomination partly on the strength of anti-war support. Obama must have new appreciation for what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. meant when he said, “The future outwits all our certitudes.”
• “I think that health care, over time, is going to become more popular.”
Not really. A little, at best.
The quote in this case actually comes from Axelrod on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in September 2010, a half-year after the overhaul of health care passed with an all-Democrats strategy, and a couple months before the Republican takeover of Congress, fueled in part by an “Obamacare” backlash.
But there is no question the sentiment was shared by Obama himself, who placed his chips on the health care square early in his presidency. He always knew it would be politically difficult to pass. The assumption, though, was that the legislation would be much more popular — a true accomplishment to run on for reelection — once it became law.
A Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that a plurality — 45 percent to 40 percent — have a favorable view of the health care legislation. That’s a reversal from before, but the support is hardly strong enough to make passage a key part of Obama’s reelection appeal.
Obama’s errant assumptions about the politics of health care shaped his presidency in other ways. Recall the “big bang” strategy from 2009. The plan was that his first year in office would produce a trio of legislative achievements: reform of health care, reform of the financial services sector and a cap-and-trade measure to limit carbon emissions. The idea was that victory would beget victory, and that a rapid string of first-year successes would infuse years two, three and four of his presidency with even greater momentum.
Obama achieved two of the three — cap and trade fell by the wayside — though it took longer than expected. But far from generating new momentum, each victory drained his political capital. The result is that Obama has had few big domestic policy achievements since 2010.
• “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
Obama maintains that these words about gay marriage were not his own when they appeared in a Chicago gay newspaper, Outlines, in 1996, when he was running for an Illinois state Senate seat. A candidate survey was supposedly filled out in error by a staff member.
The words sting even so. Obama has said that his views on gay rights, like those of many Americans, are “evolving.” But there weren’t many Americans evolving toward a less tolerant position, which is what Obama seemed to be for much of his term. Until this summer, Obama was on record opposed to gay marriage, a position that had him to the right of Dick Cheney.
He changed that in a May interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, essentially adapting the Cheney view of gay marriage — personally in favor, but regarding it as a state matter. The political calculation behind Obama’s view was made plain by the statements of White House aides who said the president’s timing was forced by spontaneous comments from Vice President Joe Biden. Obama had planned to wait before clarifying his views until around the Democratic convention.
Obama was praised for making history with his interview. But the degree of caution in his hedged endorsement has left his position still something of a muddle. A politician in the 1960s who said he was personally opposed to segregation but that the matter should be left to the states would not have been praised for bravery. And it seems likely that Obama’s position will evolve even further over time.
• “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”
This one is a gotcha that is almost too easy. The problems with one corporation don’t necessarily speak to the viability of a broader energy policy.
There were already red flags in May 2010 when the president went to speak at Solyndra’s headquarters in Fremont, Calif. The company went belly up after winning $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees from the administration.
On the positive side of the ledger, independent analysts say Obama has at least plausibly followed through on his 2009 promise to “double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.” According to Energy Information Administration data on new electricity generation, the U.S. is on pace by the end of this year to have doubled its wind capacity and increase its solar capacity four-fold. Geothermal and biomass — two other forms of renewable energy — will be at roughly the same levels as 2009.
But Obama is going to eat his Solyndra quote for at least a while longer. Romney attacks him on this regularly, and the House GOP’s campaign arm is citing the failed company aggressively in some races.
• “I fought with you in the Senate for comprehensive immigration reform. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as President.”
It’s possible Obama at least suspected this promise was B.S. when he made it speaking to the National Council of La Raza in San Diego in July 2008. There was hardly a feint of effort in his first year of pushing the issue to passage.
Speaking to Univision, the Hispanic news network, two weeks ago, Obama blamed first the bad economy for diverting his attention in 2009, and then Republicans for politicizing the issue: “What I confess I did not expect — and so I’m happy to take responsibility for being naïve here — is that Republicans who had previously supported comprehensive immigration reform — my opponent in 2008, who had been a champion of it and who attended these meetings — suddenly would walk away.”
• “ What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”
Obama was talking about the growing expense of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and in his Jan. 15, 2009, interview, five days before taking office, he vowed he was ready to make the tough calls.
A little more than a month later, in February 2009, Obama struck a similar tone at a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” at the White House: “I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”
So far, entitlement reform hasn’t happened, nor has serious deficit reduction. Obama claims he tried to do both things, but was stymied by Republicans who were opposed to making any revenue increases part of the solution.
For now, the only chance that these problems get solved by Obama “under my watch” is if he convinces enough viewers on Wednesday, and enough voters in November, that both his past record and future intentions — no matter how many errant predictions along the way — merit another four years.
Barack Obama and his aides are reworking his longstanding strategy of minimizing his public presence to allow the next generation of Democrats to emerge. President Donald Trump’s moves to block …
A man who spent his presidency alienating Israel and coddling its enemies just proved he hasn’t learned a thing. In a post published Thursday to the social media platform X, former President Barack …
A: Under the Biden administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened an investigation in April 2022 codenamed Arctic Frost. I started my congressional oversight of Arctic Frost in July 2022 after whistleblowers approached my office. Ostensibly, the FBI investigation was opened to examine an alleged false electors scheme following the 2020 election. Since then, my oversight has exposed the partisan spear that launched the investigation to go after President Trump, his circle and poison his campaign to return to the White House. Arctic Frost created the framework that Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed by the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ), used to form his election case against President Trump. Even before the special counsel appointment, I flagged the partisan bias of the senior FBI official who ran Arctic Frost. This official’s political tilt undermines the credibility of the entire investigation. FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault was assigned to oversee public corruption matters. Ironically, he allowed his partisan views to corrupt his decision-making process and tarnish the rule of law. Whistleblower disclosures to my office revealed how Thibault bent FBI rules and, in so doing, weaponized the federal government to take down a political opponent. The Office of Special Counsel confirmed Thibault also broke the law; the Hatch Act prohibits political activity among federal employees while on duty.
As part of its Arctic Frost investigation, the Biden DOJ, FBI and supporting agencies issued hundreds of subpoenas and conducted dozens of interviews across the country at taxpayer expense. The facts show the investigation was a sweeping partisan fishing expedition to take down political foes. Earlier this year Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and I released tranches of whistleblower records detailing the plot to pin Trump in the Jack Smith electoral case. What’s more, my congressional oversight also found the probe targeted 92 conservative organizations, including Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Thanks to the courageous disclosures by whistleblowers, the truth is seeing the light of day. I’ll continue working to root out abuses of power to restore public trust in government.
Q: How is this targeting of political opponents during the Biden administration worse than Watergate?
A: My oversight work continues to pull back the curtain on the full extent of partisan misconduct at play in the Arctic Frost investigation. Most recently, I learned that as part of the investigation, the Biden FBI misused the long arm of the law to target at least eight Republican senators. In 2023, it sought and obtained cell phone “tolling data” for their devices even though they weren’t under investigation. This is a serious breach of the constitutional separation of powers. I’ve also discovered the Arctic Frost documents have been hidden as so-called Prohibited Access Files at the FBI to prevent them from ever seeing the light of day. As a lifelong family farmer, I know it takes the light and heat of the sun to grow crops. Likewise, I’ve learned in Washington it takes the heat of congressional oversight, often aided by the courage of whistleblowers, to shine light on wrongdoing and hold government accountable to the public. No matter how long it takes, I’ll continue to follow the facts to shut down political misconduct that weaponizes government against law-abiding citizens. That means I’m crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s of my oversight work before holding public hearings as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As part of that effort, I’ve sent letters to the DOJ and FBI, as well as various other federal entities and telecommunications companies, seeking all records related to Arctic Frost and all records they provided to former Special Counsel Jack Smith for his investigation into President Trump and others. In the infamous Watergate tapes, President Nixon delivered the marching orders to fire a Pentagon whistleblower for telling the truth. As a freshman member of the U.S. House of Representatives elected post-Watergate, I cut my teeth on holding government accountable. History shows transparency brings accountability. As a watchdog for good government, I’ll keep digging to root out wrongdoing to ensure the government works for the American people, not the other way around.
Ted Cruz sounds off on Operation Arctic Frost, says it was Biden’s ‘Watergate’
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, is formally introducing impeachment articles against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday for his role in the “Arctic Frost” probe.
Republican allies of President Donald Trump have been criticizing Boasberg after news broke that he was the judge who signed off on subpoenas and other measures in former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe.
“Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis. He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction,” Gill told Fox News Digital.
Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel. I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Gill’s resolution accused Boasberg of one count of abuse of power, according to text obtained first by Fox News Digital.
“Ignoring his responsibility to wield the power of his office in a constitutional manner, Chief Judge Boasberg granted Special Counsel John L. Smith authorization to issue frivolous nondisclosure orders in furtherance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation project codenamed ARCTIC FROST,” the text said.
“These nondisclosure orders covered Members of Congress who were acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”
The redacted Arctic Frost documents were made public late last month by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. They included subpoenas of phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker, and gag orders sent to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. Verizon complied, but AT&T did not.
Both the subpoenas and gag orders were signed by Boasberg, according to the documents — a detail that prompted fresh criticism and indignation from Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who blasted the investigation as “worse than Watergate” and a gross violation of prosecutorial powers.
Under the Stored Communications Act, federal judges exercise discretion in signing off on such orders — they are not automatic. It is unclear what materials Boasberg would have reviewed in this particular case before authorizing the tolling records of the senators, as much of the information and materials in the probe remain classified or are heavily redacted.
Republicans named in the subpoenas have argued they are potential violations of the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which protects lawmakers from being arrested or questioned by law enforcement for things they say or do in their legislative roles.
Those protections are not absolute, however, and the clause remains the subject of ongoing, spirited debate over the separation of powers and what degree of protection members of Congress should enjoy from the other two branches of government.
The federal judge was the target of Republican impeachment threats earlier this year after he issued an order temporarily pausing Trump’s migrant deportation flights to El Salvador.
Gill and other GOP lawmakers pushing impeachment resolutions backed off of those threats after House Republican leaders suggested it was not the most potent route to affect change.
Glad to know what is wrong with the Democrat/Socialists – did you say they have TDS? Oh! My! That is bad news. How can they make rational decisions if that is the case?
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused House Democrats of “selectively” leaking the emails to the “liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.” Trump accused Democrats of “trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown,” referring to the record-setting federal government shutdown that reached its 43rd day Wednesday.
Key Background
Epstein died by suicide in 2019 in his Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking minors to his wealthy friends and associates. Trump is among a long list of Epstein’s high-profile associates, including billionaire Les Wexner, Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton. Many of Trump’s MAGA allies have pushed conspiracy theories about Epstein through the years, including that he was killed, rather than died by suicide, and kept an alleged list of high-profile clients. The Justice Department has said no such list exists and reiterated that Epstein died by suicide.
Virginia Giuffre raved about the first time she met Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club, Knewz.com can reveal. Giuffre was working at the future president’s South Florida estate when she first met British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who soon introduced her to financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Were they (any) held as hostages? How long did they stay in this employmnet?
Why did they stay employed after finding out what the requirements were?
This type of employment will always be in play.
God made men and women to reproduce. Then he gave us a brain and decisions we make in life give us good and bad results.
So, here we are when the results reflect good and bad decisions>
There are results or regrets that people can handle and there are the results which are spoken here in which people have a hard time accepting when young people are taken advantage of at the time and later regret. Some are trying to reach the outside to help young people learn from the experience they have had.
The important thing is – life moves on in this world but that type of world will continue due to “human nature and emotions.”
Mr. Epstein was in jail at the time of his death and his lady in waiting is also in prison. Book after book will be written and people will buy and read them and wait for the next book.
FOX News
kommonsentsjane 