So… is this the big one?
In a dramatic announcement Friday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified over 100 pages of documents that are alleged to reveal a coordinated campaign by the Obama administration to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The documents, dating back to the final months of Barack Obama’s presidency, allege that top officials—including then-DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey—worked in concert to portray Donald Trump as a Russian asset, despite internal intelligence assessments that found no evidence supporting such a claim.
Wow.
So where does such a case go from here?
Let’s recount the allegations. According to Gabbard, the Obama administration knew as early as September 2016 that Russian cyber operations had not changed a single vote tally. Yet, the White House and intelligence community continued to brief selected media outlets and Democratic operatives on the threat of Russian interference. By January 2017, the infamous revised Intelligence Community Assessment — which, at John Brennan’s insistence, included the bogus Steele dossier — publicly reversed earlier internal conclusions, asserting that Russia had directly sought to assist Donald Trump. This assertion led to years of media speculation and political polarization, and a consistent drag on Donald Trump’s first term.
Gabbard’s documents suggest that the Steele dossier, that now-discredited collection of opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign, was central to the decision to initiate surveillance and investigations into Trump associates. The release calls into question not only the origin of the Crossfire Hurricane probe, but also the integrity of top federal law enforcement agencies during a critical election year (memo to Brennan and Comey: lawyer up).
Now, what still remains unclear is the structure of the investigation Gabbard has triggered. She’s vowing to hand all materials over to the Department of Justice, but no official announcement has yet been made as to which office or personnel are handling the case. This is key. Who has the case at DOJ? And how well-staffed is the investigation?
One of the most intriguing possibilities involves Judge Jeanine Pirro—former Fox host and a longtime Trump supporter—who was hired-on to the administration as the head of DOJ’s Washington office. Was it the early stages of this case that led to Trump bringing Pirro aboard? It’s undoubtedly a case that will lead to major political fallout — the administration will need someone with the stomach to take the incoming and push through it. Anyone who has seen Pirro in action cannot doubt she fits that bill.
Still, questions abound. Will the investigation take standard DOJ form, or will a special task force be assembled to sift through classified intelligence, subpoena records, and question former senior officials? Will the Washington office catch the case, or will another venue, one that covers a jury pool more favorable to the Trump administration, be used?
And will a current DOJ attorney even be used — or will Trump opt for a Special Prosecutor from the outside?
The Special Prosecutor option has advantages. Theoretically, it would provide insulation from political pressure and ensure the probe has the latitude to follow the facts wherever they lead. It could also allow the administration to handpick and staff a separate investigative unit which would allow DOJ to sidestep the bureaucratic entanglements of its (large) D.C. field office, where some Obama/Comey loyalists likely remain.
Then there’s the elephant in the room: What happens if Barack Obama himself is demonstrably implicated? Could the 44th President of the United States actually be criminally charged?
In all likelihood, no. Prosecuting a former president—especially one as revered by the political establishment as Obama—would be an explosive act, setting off a constitutional and cultural earthquake. Immunities, public opinion, and institutional inertia would make such a move exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. But the damage to Obama’s legacy, and to the broader Democratic narrative of the past decade, could be substantial.
Which raises another possibility—one that would be classic Trump: a pardon.
If the investigation produces credible evidence of wrongdoing at the highest levels, it is not far-fetched to imagine Donald Trump publicly granting Barack Obama a pardon — whether Obama needs one or not. This would allow Trump to portray himself as magnanimous and unifying—while simultaneously confirming his long-standing claim that he was the victim of a “deep state” coup attempt.
Such a move would not only flip the current narrative on its head but would drive Trump’s political opponents to apoplexy. The left, having spent years insisting that no such conspiracy ever existed, would now be forced to reckon with the prospect that their political icon was spared prosecution by the very man they tried to destroy.
Even raising the possibility of an Obama indictment would also serve to “normalize” a prosecution against Brennan and Comey. If the public is forced to contend with the possibility of a former president in handcuffs — a prospect that didn’t seem to bother the left when that president was Donald Trump, by the way — cases against Brennan and Comey suddenly might not feel so shocking. They might feel, in fact, like a compromise.
In the days ahead, all eyes should be trained on the Department of Justice. Will it confirm the contours of an active investigation? Will Pirro emerge as a central figure?
And will Tulsi Gabbard’s explosive charges lead to accountability—or become yet another chapter in the endless partisan wars of post-Obama America?
The answers may define the 2026 election, the legacy of two American presidents... and the nation’s political future.
Make no mistake — this could indeed, be the “the big one.”
Who Is Roy Singham?
Roy Singham isn’t a household name—but he should be. The tech billionaire behind ThoughtWorks has quietly become one of the most influential financiers of far-left, anti-American political activism in the U.S., all while maintaining cozy ties with the Chinese Communist Party. Singham-bucks fuel a network of organizations that claim to fight for justice and equality, but whose real aim often seems to be undermining the very foundations of democracy in America.
Singham, a U.S. citizen who once self-identified as a Marxist in the Bay Area, has morphed into a kind of shadow donor for the global socialist movement. After selling his software company for hundreds of millions, he relocated to Shanghai and embedded himself in a pro-China ecosystem. From there, he began funding U.S.-based nonprofits, media outlets, and activist groups that echo Chinese government talking points—from defending the crackdown on Hong Kong protesters to blaming the U.S. for global instability (his wife, for instance, reportedly runs Code Pink, the notorious kook factory that shows up at every hyper-left demonstration).
Quite surprisingly, it is The New York Times that has led the charge in exposing Singham. In 2023, the Times published an investigation that exposed how Singham was secretly bankrolling organizations that act as mouthpieces for Beijing’s foreign policy. This included American leftist publications and protest groups that champion causes like “anti-imperialism”—which conveniently aligns with Chinese state narratives. His web of influence spans continents, with his funding disguised through a maze of NGOs and shell foundations. It’s the kind of subversive soft-power strategy that the Chinese Communist Party dreams of—and Singham makes real.
But the story doesn’t end in Shanghai. As The New York Post has shown, Singham’s influence stretches all the way back to New York City, where Singham’s niece, Alicia Singham Goodwin, is the founder and head of a political group called “Jews for Zohran.” The group was launched in support of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic Socialist and anti-Israel New York assemblyman now running for NYC mayor. The group was clearly set up to soften Mamdani’s image and rebuild credibility among New York’s left-leaning Jewish Democrats.
Singham’s influence isn’t just controversial in the United States. In India, he has been named in an official investigation tied to the NewsClick terror funding case. The Indian government has accused the Newsclick media outlet of receiving illicit funds from a global network associated with Singham to promote anti-India and pro-China propaganda under the guise of independent journalism there. According to Indian enforcement agencies, these funds were part of a larger “terror module” involving foreign influence and money laundering. NewsClick’s offices were raided in 2023, and multiple arrests followed. Singham has denied wrongdoing, but the charges have put a spotlight on his global funding apparatus and its political motives.
Roy Singham’s influence isn’t just about money—it’s about narrative warfare. He funds groups that teach Americans to hate their own country while praising an authoritarian regime, China, abroad. He builds pipelines of influence from a foreign redoubt to local elections (after all, why should Roy Singham in Shanghai care who runs New York City?). And through relatives like Alicia, he helps install ideologically aligned candidates at every level of government.
In an age where we worry about Russian bots and TikTok propaganda, we should also be asking: how much of America’s homegrown radicalism is actually being seeded from abroad—by people like Roy Singham? If you want to find the real foreign interference, follow the money. On the campuses, on the streets, in elections— it doesn’t always come in rubles. Sometimes, it’s Marxist tech wealth wired straight from Shanghai.
And as we stated last time: couple these connections with the fact that Mamdani owes much of his success to his use of TikTok, an acknowledged Chinese influence operation… and you begin to see the contours of what’s really going on here.
Public Broadcasting Circles The Drain
As Americans raised on Sesame Street and The Electric Company, we’re sad to see the potential end of Public Broadcasting. Regardless of the fond memories, the service has long been neglecting its mandate to provide balanced reportage.
Trump convinced the House and Senate to pass his Rescissions Act of 2025, which would remove $1.1 billion in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which encompasses PBS and NPR). Public Broadcasting is fighting a legal battle against the act, but time is short as the cuts go into effect in October of this year.
Many smaller network outlets that carry PBS will fold immediately without a major influx of cash from other sources. That is a shame, but the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not following the law and hasn’t been for decades. Don’t blame Trump, blame Public Broadcasting itself.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was conceived in 1967 with the passing of the Public Broadcasting Act. The Act calls for objectivity and balance, specifically stating that its mandate should:
That is a far cry from what NPR and PBS have been pumping out for decades now. “Strict adherence,” indeed. Their programs have been awash in lefty bias for years.
Former NPR business editor Uri Berliner published an essay critical of the organization, pointing out that of the personnel assigned to editorial decisions in the Washington, D.C. station, 87 were registered Democrats and exactly zero were registered Republicans. They couldn’t find one Republican to add an opinion — and that is in radio, a bastion for conservatism outside the NPR bubble.
A look at PBS’s news operations shows a similar hard-left slant. Topics such as institutional racism, implicit bias, gun control, immigrant rights, and LGBTQ issues are constant on their news programs. Mention Donald Trump and you can see News Hour hosts recoil in disgust, show expressions of anger and flashes of horror. Even the allegedly neutral Ken Burns of documentary fame put up what I (and most cops) would consider a virulently anti-police, biased series on the Central Park Five before publicly coming out as anti-Trump. (Doubt us? Watch the raw tapes of the Central Park Five confessions here). I strain to think of one reliably pro-Republican host – Margaret Hoover certainly isn’t cutting it.
It is clear to any reasonable person that Public Broadcasting hasn’t been following the original law that created it for a long time, and is completely unapologetic about it — they evince absolutely no intention of changing.
And that’s all we need to know. “No one is above the law” as the saying goes – not even Bert and Ernie.
Kids will likely suffer the loss of shows like Sesame Street and other educational programs, unless another network picks them up. We hope they do, but Republicans have finally seen the light and pulled the plug on biased Public Broadcasting. It’s something that probably should have happened a decade ago. It’s a shame but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Sunday Podcast: So what’s it like to work alongside Zohran Mamdani? A conversation with Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz
Join us for a deep conversation on what is really driving the rise of “democratic socialist” (aka, communist) mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, featuring one of his colleagues in the NY State Assembly — Jake Blumencranz (R).
How did Mamdani get this far? Can he be stopped? Who has the best chance to beat him?
Join us here for something increasingly rare these days — a measured, intelligent conversation on a deeply important issue: What is it that’s plaguing states like New York and California… and what needs to be done before they all go the way of Cuba.
For NY City, the state, and the Electoral College map… the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Click the above for a snippet, and HERE for the whole discussion.
Masking Up
There’s a phrase in the fire service: “mask up.” It means donning a face-piece and breathing bottled air as conditions inside a burning building deteriorate. It’s both literal and metaphorical—a signal that conditions are getting worse.
Cops today, especially ICE agents, are “masking up” more often—not just to conceal their identities on the job, but to protect their private lives, families, and basic right to safety.
This isn’t something we’ve seen much in America before. As Michael Corleone says in The Godfather Part II, “times are changing.” Conditions really are getting worse.
Traditionally, American law enforcement officers have been open about their profession. They took pride in their work. Criminals might hate cops, and an occasional death threat wasn’t unheard of, but few officers worried much about being targeted at home or while off duty.
That’s no longer the case. Respect for police has eroded in some corners of society, and it’s no longer just criminals posing a threat. Increasingly, officers fear being doxed (or worse) by activist types who despise the institution of law enforcement. And it’s the political left that has normalized this behavior—posting officers’ names, addresses, and personal details online to encourage targeting.
Like anyone, cops will do what they must to protect their families. So they mask up—especially when assigned to operations the far-left finds objectionable, which, these days, is nearly all of them.
Don’t expect help from the media or the justice system. Doxing cops should be a societal taboo, but post-George Floyd, it isn’t. And legally, it’s difficult to prosecute. So officers are left to fend for themselves.
Admittedly, even within law enforcement, some believe the optics of masked officers aren’t great. It once seemed like something that only happened in cartel-infested countries. But this is America now—and the reality is different. The masks are necessary.
Make no mistake—this is a new phenomenon in the U.S.
It’s a troubling commentary on our culture, our politics, and our discourse. And it’s a shame. It undermines the legitimacy of a noble profession.
No one should have to fear being attacked or harassed for doing their job legally and diligently. But that’s the reality American law enforcement faces. And those who complain about masked officers would do well to ask themselves why the masks are necessary in the first place.
Until something changes, expect ICE to continue to “mask up.” And blame the people who made it necessary.
And finally…
Roughly 4,000 pardons and commutations — including child-murderers, rapists, and cop-killers — all by autopen.
The question, as I said HERE, remains: Who, exactly, ASKED for specific pardons for some of these lowlifes?
And among those making those requests of the Biden White House, on behalf of others: Did money change hands at any point in the chain?
I think two impeachments and multiple lawsuits against Trump as a private citizen in NY and GA have pretty much answered the question on whether or not Obama can be tried. If it’s a good idea is another question…
...stellar information always!