My (Current) Take On The Nancy Guthrie Case

The three investigative lanes most likely to produce results

So having returned from spending the last week or so in Tucson — and with the orange dust in my lungs to prove it — there are, as I see it, three possibilities toward solving this one.

And yes — I think eventually, one will work.

Here’s why.

---

Let’s start with the latest development: The DNA. Reportedly, DNA found on the mysterious glove discovered by the roadside roughly a mile from Guthrie’s home might match DNA found at the scene (at this writing, the FBI is testing).

Now, let’s recognize that earlier DNA examination has been a bust. The Pima County Sheriff earlier said that the DNA found at the scene that most likely was donated by the perp was sent to the lab for rush analysis. Not only have we clearly not had a match to that — we learned nothing from it.

I base that on the fact that, (a) the task force is clearly at the point that they are willing to bring the public in on this case (they’ve released video, published the perp’s height, and named the backpack brand he had on). BUT, (b) they have not indicated any of the sort of things a basic DNA exam can show. Nothing about ethnicity, physical characteristics (like eye color, for instance), region of origin, etc.

That said, DNA may well be the best hope here, due to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). This is the technique that matches DNA to family of the perp — in some cases, those who are only distantly related. Then the real detective work begins, as cops work to ascertain which candidate is indeed related to the original kidnapper.

This is the technique that turned up about a dozen possibles in the Bryan Kohberger case, all of whom appeared to have little in common with each other. Eventually, it was a candidate named Michael Kohberger, who was discovered to have a son named Bryan that lived 10 minutes from the Idaho crime scene, that bore fruit.

Second possibility: Purchase History. At present, we know the brand of backpack — an item only sold by Walmart. There is a ginormous Walmart in Pima County, but there are others nearby. The good news: Walmart has a serious, robust security system that heavily tracks customers in-store. The bad news: each Walmart has different protocols as to how long they retain store video.

If the perp used a credit card to buy the backpack (and likely, other items, like his sweatshirt) at a Walmart, this becomes a major possibility for a solve. But if he used cash, it’ll come down to how long that individual store retained its video before it was overwritten.

Final possibility: A Tip. This last is why it was so important to raise the reward (as I, and others, have been advocating). If more than one person is involved in this crime, then there are many others who either know or suspect the perpetrators. As the old gangster saying goes, “two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.”

But even a solo actor could be given up by someone who recognizes his walk or movements from the video that’s been released.

I frankly don’t have a good answer as to why the reward has not been augmented even further by private entities. Perhaps the theory is that paying a reward incentivizes more such crimes? I’m not sure I buy that. A life-changing reward eliciting a tip could lead to that one break the task force needs.

But there is a possibility here that renders almost all of the above moot: that the perpetrator is an illegal migrant. The Guthrie home is an hour from the Mexican border. An illegal from Mexico (or elsewhere) leaves little-to-no footprint in this country. Paying with cash, using temporary (or no) cell phones, living a transient, mobile lifestyle… illegals are a unique challenge for today’s law enforcement.

Which is why I ask: Is the reward being advertised south of the border? Are Mexican authorities being asked to check with their informants?

If he’s an illegal who crossed the border… it could well be the Mexican cops who bring this one home.

(And if you want to delve deeper into this confounding case, click the image below, where I recently joined my friend, L.A. attorney and Fox News Contributor Josh Ritter on his podcast…. Just click the image below).

---

Eileen Gu, Citizenship, and the Question No One Wants to Ask

Let’s start with the obvious: talent isn’t the issue. Olympian Eileen Gu is a great skier. Gold medals. Global endorsements. Vogue covers. No debate there.

The question isn’t whether she can ski. The question is whether she can legally and ethically straddle two sovereign systems — and whether the United States should keep pretending not to notice.

Olympic skier Eileen Gu. (Photo courtesy wikimedia commons)

Gu was born and raised in the United States. She trained here. She developed here. She benefited from the infrastructure, coaching pipelines, and sponsorship ecosystem that exist because of American institutions and markets. Then, ahead of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, she announced she would compete for China.

That alone isn’t illegal. Athletes change national affiliations. It happens.

But here’s where it gets murky.

China does not recognize dual citizenship. It’s explicit. If you become a Chinese citizen, you cannot simultaneously hold another nationality under Chinese law. Gu has repeatedly said she is a Chinese citizen. Fine. Then the legal question becomes straightforward:

Did she formally renounce her U.S. citizenship?

If she did, then she is not an American. Full-stop. That means she is subject to U.S. immigration law like any other foreign national. Visas. Duration of stay. Compliance. Overstay penalties. Removal proceedings if warranted. No special carve-outs because she can land a double gainer with a half-twist.

If she did not renounce U.S. citizenship? Then there’s a different issue.

Because she is not merely skiing for China. She is functioning as a global ambassador for the Chinese state. She appears in state-aligned media. She promotes the country’s image. She has participated in messaging that dovetails neatly with the public-relations strategy of the Chinese Communist Party.

And she reportedly earns millions from Chinese state-linked endorsements and partnerships. (Ironically, even the general public in China is not happy with how much the government there is paying her).

If an American citizen is being compensated — directly or indirectly — to advance the interests or image of a foreign government, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) exists precisely for that scenario. It doesn’t require espionage. It requires transparency.

The requirement is to register, to disclose, so as to let the public see who is paying you and why.

You know the FARA law, whether you realize it or not. It’s the charge the Obama DOJ tried on General Flynn and Paul Manafort. It’s one of the charges that Hunter skated on in his plea deal (he too, was mixed up with China — as well as Ukraine).

The use of FARA on Gu isn’t about punishing success. It’s about legal clarity.

The U.S. government maintains mechanisms to determine citizenship status. Renunciation requires a formal appearance before a U.S. consular officer, an oath of renunciation, and issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. That process is documented. It is not vague. Agencies like U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services track status and entry compliance.

So, we ask here and now: What is Eileen’s citizenship status?

Because right now, we are left with a convenient fog:

• China says no dual citizenship.

• Gu says she is Chinese.

• The United States has not publicly clarified whether she renounced.

• Meanwhile, she operates commercially and publicly on behalf of China, while enjoying the benefits and protections of an American citizen.

That ambiguity benefits her. It benefits Beijing. It does not benefit the rule of law.

If she renounced — enforce immigration rules accordingly.

If she didn’t — evaluate FARA compliance accordingly.

Celebrity should be no protection against the law — and this is a legal question, in a nation of laws.

The question is whether the United States still expects clarity and accountability when its citizens — or former citizens — align themselves with a strategic rival.

That’s not “xenophobia” or “jingoism” or the inevitable, “racism!” that the left will deploy. That’s common sense.

That’s the law.

---

The Newest High School Course: Antifa 101

There’s a reason law enforcement doesn’t just listen for whispers — we listen for when they become a roar. A newly surfaced training manual from the Sunrise Movement — a well-organized, far-left activist network — is one such roar.

Their 25-page playbook, obtained by Fox News, urges students, including those in K–12, to walk out of classrooms, engage in “mass non-cooperation,” and stage monthly disruptions to spark what the authors call a “political revolution.” It’s not a civics lesson — it’s a recruitment guide.

What exactly is the Sunrise Movement? At face value, it’s a youth-led climate advocacy group pushing sweeping climate policy, including a Green New Deal. Founded in 2017 and operating as both a 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3), it works to elect aligned candidates and shift political debate on energy and economics.

Dig deeper and you’ll find significant backing from left-leaning philanthropic sources — including grants from the Rockefeller Family Fund and the 128 Collective, along with reports of financial ties to networks connected to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Its presence in education isn’t theoretical. Sunrise runs organized chapters at Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, NYU, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and UNC–Chapel Hill, among many others. These aren’t casual clubs. They coordinate walkouts, pressure campaigns, and electoral mobilization tied to a national political agenda.

In 2019 and 2020, Sunrise chapters helped organize nationwide climate strikes and divestment campaigns. The group also circulated tool-kits encouraging high school students to stage coordinated walkouts aligned with national protest days. That’s not spontaneous engagement. That’s infrastructure, designed to activate and indoctrinate kids who don’t know any better (especially with the teachers we have today…).

Student activism isn’t new. What’s new is the scale and centralization — messaging guides, disruption calendars, and long-term strategy designed to embed activism inside schools.

Parents deserve clarity. This isn’t just teaching kids to care about climate. When materials turn hallways into organizing hubs and promote “mass non-cooperation,” we’ve moved beyond civics into political instruction without consent.

(Is it any wonder the Chinese help fund this stuff?)

Why target schools? The plan seems to be, as with so much of the left these days, get ‘em early and you have them for life.

This is strategic training masked as empowerment.

We have a friend who became aware of this sort of thing going on in his New Jersey school board. He called it out, then ran for the board and helped flip it from far-left lunacy to something far more apolitical. It can be done. It needs to be.

Public schools should be places of learning, not recruitment centers. If parents don’t demand transparency, others will shape how their children are taught to understand civic engagement and dissent — and that’s not a gamble worth taking.

As a parent, you don’t want to wake up to a child whose newest form of expression is hostility, “body modification,” and antifa rallies.

More than ever, this stuff starts in the schools. Schools we pay for.

---

The Real Lesson Of The Epstein Files

Last week I wrote about the growing appeal of anarcho-communist ideology in the West. It is a political theory that, in my view, collapses under even basic scrutiny about implementation and sustainability. Its advocates often struggle to explain how a complex society would function without structure, hierarchy, or enforceable law.

So why is it gaining traction?

Part of the answer may lie in this week’s renewed attention to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The Epstein documents have offered a disturbing look at the elites in our society. Billionaires flocked to him. At least three U.S. Presidents associated with him. Power brokers in Europe and America called him for favors. And when the truth about Epstein’s activities was revealed, many denied knowing him.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave an interview saying he was disgusted by Epstein and would never associate with such a person. That appears to be a blatant lie from a government official shown to have visited Epstein’s island. He should be fired.

Bill and Hillary Clinton almost faced contempt of Congress to avoid speaking about their relationship with Epstein. We may watch them prevaricate or even invoke the Fifth Amendment on February 26th and 27th, when they are scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee.

Former Obama White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler was found in the Epstein files, joking about Epstein’s sexual activities and asking him for favors. She was fired from her position as Goldman Sachs General Counsel.

In the NYPD there is a rule prohibiting members from associating with someone like Epstein. Officers may not “knowingly associate with persons reasonably believed to be engaged in, likely to engage in, or to have engaged in criminal activity.”

When I was in Internal Affairs, we often investigated criminal association cases. Cops were penalized with transfers, loss of vacation, or fired if found guilty. This is a good rule for life. Even in retirement, I follow it. Keeping good company is a good way to stay out of trouble. Besides, I hate perps.

It doesn’t seem like many politicians and power brokers share that view. They appeared to relish their association with Epstein. He was a perp, convicted of criminal solicitation and solicitation of a minor in 2008. Those who associated with him likely knew about the sweetheart deal he received. Epstein openly bragged about the women at his parties.

He allegedly stole from Leslie Wexner, CEO of Victoria’s Secret. He likely lied to get a job at the Dalton School without a college degree. He appears to have scammed his way through life, committing crimes along the way. And the elites loved him for it.

Our wealthiest and most powerful contacted Epstein for favors. They requested introductions for financial deals. Asked to visit his island. Some even asked for introductions to women, questioning whether they were prostitutes.

The rule I learned as a young cop still applies: keep good company. Judgment matters. Character matters. Association signals values.

We should hold our alleged betters and politicians to the same standards we hold our cops. We cannot legally hold private citizens to that standard, but we can legislate criminal-association rules for government employees. And among the wealthy elite, we should shun those who associate with people like Epstein. Send a message with our wallets and public outcry.

It is imperative that, as a society, we correct this erosion of norms by our elites. Otherwise, public anger will continue to build. Bad ideas like anarcho-communism will spread. Eventually, we may not have a society left to defend.

Crime is up in NYC Subways. Who Would Have Thought?

A review of New York’s current crime statistics shows an alarming spike in subway crime. As New York’s been enveloped in a deep freeze, many criminals are likely heading underground, where the air is warmer and enforcement has become lax.

This may be a bellwether. Zohran Mamdani is sending a clear message to criminals — your time is now. He recently visited a man in the hospital who attempted to stab NYPD cops. Yes, the man is mentally ill and perhaps the justice system should prioritize treatment over punishment, but Mamdani called for all charges to be dropped. That is a dangerous message for a mayor to send.

He clearly is not tough on crime. And that message is heard loud and clear by criminals. They will respond accordingly.

In criminal justice academia, many believe cops have little effect on crime. We disagree, but there is some truth to the idea that police alone do not move the needle. I would argue that the perception that crime is tolerated is also a major factor.

In the 1990’s, William Bratton came to New York City with strong ideas about reducing crime. But the message he and Rudy Giuliani sent was just as important as the tactics. They stated unequivocally that crime would not be tolerated. New Yorkers, sick of living in an unlivable city, bought in.

Crime dropped like a rock.

We are still benefiting from that message. Crime is nowhere near what it was before their hard-nosed approach.

Mamdani is changing that message. We predict crime will rise. The subway spike may be only the first step in a broader turn for the worse.

Mamdani wants to reform criminal justice. Mental health reform may be positive — God knows we need it. But he can pursue reform without telegraphing that he is soft on criminals.

The NYPD has worked for decades to make this a livable city where people are safe and businesses can grow. Mr. Mayor, don’t throw that away. At least, any more than it has been already.

---

And finally…

Oopsie.

---