Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Drug abuse has a long history in the world, and in the United States. During the late 1800s drugs like morphine and laudanum were marketed as cure-all medications. During the dawn of the twentieth century the United States began taking a more punitive approach to drugs. First we saw the 1909 Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, and in 1914 the Harrison Act was passed targeting the distribution and production of cocaine. As alcohol prohibition was ending in the 1930s, concerns over marijuana began to rise, with Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Prohibition – later changed to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics – claiming it to be more dangerous than heroin. Anslinger was the first person to call the effort against drugs in the United States “warfare against drugs.”
By the 1960s, recreational drug use was on the rise. President Nixon considered the rise in drug use to be a major security issue. Under his administration, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act which created five schedules to regulate drugs. June 17, 1971 Nixon officially declared War on Drugs, calling drug addiction a “national emergency,” and designating drug abuse to be “public enemy number one.” By 1973 the Nixon administration created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
In the 1980s the war on drugs fired up again with President Ronald Reagan signing the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. The new law granted $1.7 billion for law enforcement to fight the War on Drugs, and established greater mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenders.
The War on Drugs escalated during the nineties, with President Bill Clinton signing the 1994 Crime Bill. As the strategies and funding increased, drug related crimes rose from 50,000 to 400,000 between 1980 and 1997. Since then, the number of people convicted for drug related crimes have risen 500%.
Someone once asked me what I thought about the War on Drugs, and I responded, “the drugs refuse to surrender.”
While I suppose going after drug use can be an important part of the equation, the reality is that whenever there is a demand for anything, there is also a supply. If the supply is cut off, the demand can be reduced. Yes, I get it, the drug world has this amazing ability to transform as needed. Another problem is that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to make laws regarding drugs. From a purely original intent perspective, drugs are a state issue. Should the federal government have the authority to make law regarding drugs? That is a matter of debate, but if they are going to engage in the way that they are, there technically needs to be an amendment added to the Constitution to authorize federal enforcement.
President Donald Trump doesn’t see the drug problem as his predecessors did. He views the drug crisis in America as being a national security emergency. President Trump’s focus is not on drug use penalties, but instead he believes the way to handle it is to attack the source – and he views drugs coming across the border as being an attack against the American People. During his 2024 Presidential Campaign Trump vowed to take on the drug cartels, viewing them as no different than enemy combatants attacking America – but rather than sending armies across the border, their method of attack has been drugs and human trafficking. Once in the White House, President Trump took immediate action, moving heavy weapons to the border, using spy flights to collect data, sending reaper drones into Mexico, has sent the American military to Mexico to help train the Mexican military so that they can work together against the cartels, declaring cartels foreign terrorist organizations, and he has authorized strikes against drug cartels and their operations including at sea.
Trump signed a directive ordering the U.S. Military to start using force against Latin American drug cartels, and there has been over twenty strikes against sea-going craft bringing drugs into the United States.
A part of the reason for the strong effort by this administration is Fentanyl. The drug, more addictive and deadly than heroin, has been coming into this country from China in deadly amounts. China is the primary provider of illicit precursor chemicals, and to get it under control President Trump has designated drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. By doing so, the War on Drugs has shifted from what we’ve known it to be for a century to a national security issue and warfare against the suppliers before the drug gets into the United States in the first place.
Closing the borders has been an important part of this new strategy in the war against drugs. Trump has also gone after the main supplier, China, with a 20% tariff. Trump’s most controversial move in this new war on drugs, at least according to his opposition, has been the use of military force at sea to destroy vessels identified as transporting fentanyl or other narcotics.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has described recent military actions as “rooted in the fact that President Trump has a heart for all those families and all those Americans who’ve been affected by the drug trade…it’s personal for him. He’s met the families. He’s seen the communities.”
Hegseth, as has President Trump, states that the real war on drugs that is now being waged is “self-defense… defense of the American people. We have been poisoned, our kids have been poisoned, our communities have been poisoned, and we’ve allowed it to happen because for some reason we are not willing to look holistically or seriously at the problem…This is about America and America first.”
This war on drugs is more like the war on terror, says Hegseth. “These cartels, they terrorize, they extort, they rape, they kill. They are terrorists. So you designate them, which we have done, as foreign terrorist organizations. That puts them in the category of al-Qaeda or ISIS. Do we negotiate with al-Qaeda or ISIS? Do we treat them like civilians when they are delivering precursors of death? No, we don’t. So, we give them an option to get out of this business because America’s serious about it…nobody tracks, hunts, finds networks of international terrorists better than the United States of America. And so, to these narco-terrorists, if they think we’re not looking or we don’t know, we’ve just gotten started. Wait until we truly map every aspect of your web.”
The Democrats have challenged Trump’s use of force against drug cartels, calling his targeting to sea-going drug runners “illegal.” In response, Trump said, “What’s illegal are the drugs that were on the boat, and the drugs that are being sent into our country.” Amid a major military buildup in the Caribbean, it has been suggested that Trump plans to attack Venezuela, and may even be interested in regime change in that country. Trump has denied any plans of attacking Venezuela, much less plans of regime change. He has denounced Venezuela’s Marxist president Nicolas Maduro as “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world,” and has announced a $50 million bounty for information leading to his arrest. In response, Venezuela has mobilized its army and civil militia.
While no formal lawsuits have been filed against President Trump for his use of military force at sea against alleged drug cartel vessels, legal experts and commentators have voiced concerns about the legality of the actions by the President. In each case, however, President Trump is within his constitutional authorities.
- Critics argue that Trump may not use military force without congressional approval because in Article I, Section 8 only Congress has the power to declare war. While it is true Congress has the authority to “declare” war, as Commander in Chief the President may wage war as he believes to be necessary in order to address national security issues. If Congress has a problem with his use of the military, they may use legislation to defund the activities.
- Critics argue that Trump overstepped his authority designating cartels as terrorist organizations because they argue it doesn’t meet the threshold for armed conflict under international law. The President of the United States is not subject to international law. He is subject to U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution. Groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua do indeed exhibit the same markers as terrorist organizations, and Trump’s designation of them as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” with the intent to use the designation to justify lethal force fits the standard used historically.
- Critics have raised alarms calling the attacks violations of international humanitarian law and maritime conventions. The President does not answer to international law, and if an invasion is en route he has the authority as Commander in Chief to stop that attack, be it a military invasion or an attack with any array of weapons that can include drugs that are designed to kill Americans.
- Critics accuse the Trump administration of lacking transparency and oversight regarding their war on the importation of drugs. Secrecy to ensure successful operations are carried out is necessary. While the Pentagon has not released detailed strike protocols or evidence supporting the targets’ cartel affiliations, evidence after the fact has each time confirmed that the targets were cartel affiliated and carrying massive amounts of drugs. Congress has received memos from the White House about the strikes, but no formal legislative rebuke or legal action has emerged.
In conclusion, yes, as a matter of national security, the President of the United States as Commander in Chief may use military forces to blow up boats from other countries carrying drugs, and other weapons that may be used against the American People, in the name of national security.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Good afternoon, patriots. Welcome to Constitution Radio, where we don’t just talk about liberty—we defend it.
Let’s begin today with a word that’s been dragged through the mud, twisted, redefined, and even denied: truth.
Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Not opinions. Not trends. Not feelings. Truths. Self-evident. So clear, so foundational, that they require no explanation—only recognition.
But today, truth is under siege.
Those who oppose the Constitution call it outdated, irrelevant, a relic of a bygone era. And yet, when it suits their agenda, they wrap themselves in its language like a cloak of legitimacy. But beware: when they do, it’s often not truth they’re invoking—it’s manipulation. Because tyranny, by its very nature, cannot coexist with truth. Tyranny thrives in the shadows of deception. It fears the light of truth because truth exposes its lies.
Let’s be clear: truth doesn’t change. The truth about liberty and tyranny hasn’t changed since 1776. The need for limited government, for checks and balances, for the separation of powers—these are not outdated ideas. They are timeless safeguards. They are the architecture of freedom.
Truth doesn’t go out of style. It walks hand in hand with tradition and morality. It is anchored in facts, in common sense, and it is protected—when we allow it to be—by sound education and critical thinking.
But today, truth is on the ropes. We live in an age where wrong is called right, and right is condemned as wrong. Where the merchants of deceit peddle “their truth” as if truth were a matter of personal taste, like choosing a flavor of ice cream. They say the old truths are dead. But let me tell you something: when truth dies, civilizations die with it.
The Constitution is not just a document—it is a declaration of truth. Biblical principles are not just religious ideals—they are moral truths. And if we are searching for a way back to the America we remember—the America that rose from the ashes of the American Revolution and again from the War Between the States and became the beacon of Western Civilization—we must return to the truth.
Truth is what America is built on. Constitutional truth. Biblical truth. Enduring truth. And the future of this republic depends on our willingness to defend it.
Because without America, truth dies. And when truth dies, liberty follows.
So today, as we begin this broadcast, let us remember: truth is the key. And we have known from the beginning that not only will the truth set you free—but that these truths are self-evident.
Let’s get to work.
==================================================
Saturday, 1:00 pm Pacific
Constitution Radio
KMET 1490 AM
———————————————————————————–
Program Videos: https://vimeo.com/showcase/11537183
Classic Podcast Page on SoundCloud (for pre-2022 episodes)
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It’s all unraveling. Everything the Democrats try fail for them, and the failures are making them lurch leftward with each blink of an eye. This is where President Donald Trump has always excelled: Getting the Democrats to admit who they are, and then double down on their ideological radical nature. I remember when the whole pro-football thing happened with the kneeling of players during the National Anthem, and all Trump did was Tweet in 2017 about it. His exact quote was: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say: ‘Get that son of a b**ch off the field right now, out, he’s fired! He’s fired!'”
I remember hearing people say how mean the Tweet was. Allies were arguing with me that while they liked Trump, they wished he’d just shut his mouth instead of Tweeting things like that. “No,” I responded. “I like the mean Tweets and rash things he says; not because of what it is, but because of the reaction he draws from them.”
And like obedient little test animals in a cage, the leftwing DEI segment of the Democratic Party and their radical allies doubled down on their hatred for Trump, their hatred for America, and their disdain for the National Anthem. He exposed them, and got them to strut their ideology around like it was the fanning of the feathers of a peacock. And as a result, the Democrats lost voters.
That is what Trump does. He exposes them. He uses their hatred of him for his benefit, and their downfall. He knows that once they get their teeth into something, they won’t let go because they can’t admit they’re wrong, and they can’t admit he might be right.
Now, the whole Epstein files thing has proven once again how masterful Trump is at playing the Democrats like a fiddle. As they tried to promote a fake narrative and smear President Donald Trump, it has exploded into another scandal that exposes them for the deceptive liars they are, and President Trump is making sure everyone sees the writing on the wall.
As the stage is being set for the Epstein showdown to complete its run, and vindicate Trump overall, we have to realize that the Democrats, the Swamp, and the Deep State never lost control of any records or files regarding the Epstein Lolita Express thing until the day Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025. At any time they could have made the files they had public, but they didn’t. They didn’t have the positioning, or what they believed to be the upper hand, at any time despite possessing the files. Why? The files don’t implicate Trump in the way they hoped. But, as we are learning, they do implicate leftwing allies, and more importantly, many of their funding arms. But, the Democrats are all about smoke and mirrors, so they squawk like a parrot that acts like it knows something, and hope everyone’s imagination runs away with the perceptions they are driving for. Along the way they have planted just enough suggestions to make people believe that Donald J. Trump may have taken a trip to Epstein’s sex island. Trump and Epstein did, after all, bump into each other a lot, we were told. Look, they exclaim, we even have photographs of the two together.
Of course Trump and Epstein were in the same room every once in a while. Doing business, especially when it comes to the money part of it, with Trump seeking funds for his projects and Epstein managing funds (sort of), will put people in the same room every once in a while, whether they have an active business relationship, or not.
Armed with the knowledge that the Democrats have nothing on him, and their attempts to implicate him were on a one way train to nowhere-ville, Trump and his team went to work, combing through the Epstein files, separating fact from fiction, and preparing for the day that they would spring the trap on the Democrats. And for the most part, MAGA was never concerned. We know the lefties well enough to realize that if Trump was indeed in those files as being someone cozying up to Epstein, the Democrats would have spewed that evidence long ago. They would have never needed to pull the whole lawfare thing with Leticia James and Jack Smith and the rest of the leftwing goons because they would have had the ultimate ace up their sleeve. But they didn’t have that ace. They only strutted around like they might have that card up their sleeve, and many of their lemmings, and even some of the GOP’s version of mindless automatons, believed the bull squat and that was all they needed, the Democrats believed.
Now, after a disastrous government shutdown (disastrous for the Dems, anyway) and the emergence of more evidence of the egregious overreach and weaponization of government that took place during the Biden administration against Donald Trump in an effort uncovered as Jack Smith’s “Arctic Frost” investigation, another trap is snapping into place. The Democrats, with nowhere to turn because they are not up against a wall, are screaming for a release of the Epstein files. It’s all theater, though. It’s all a bluff. Their problem is, nobody believes them, anymore. Their dirty laundry of constant deception and sleight of hand tricks is out for everyone to see. The public is being educated more than ever before about how devious the left has been in their pursuit of Trump. Just recently we’ve been watching the revelations of Arctic Frost emerge. They have needed to project their violent nature upon the Republicans as long as I can remember, and they thought that January 6 did the job. But, to make sure it stuck they took unprecedented actions regarding January 6 to try to make the insurrection narrative stick by violating the Fourth Amendment with the collecting of cellphone data from nearly a dozen Republican Senators, and then issuing 197 subpoenas in 2023 against Trump and numerous people and organizations in Trump’s orbit. Their unconstitutional criminal missiles of deceit were directed at 34 individuals and 163 businesses. The Jack Smith team criminally sought communications with media companies, anyone associated with the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, White House advisors such as Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner and others, data on Republican donors and fundraising efforts, and broad financial data relating to conservative individuals and entities, including credit reports.
Meanwhile, information is coming out that the Democrats through the FBI sought “armed” conflict at the Capitol on January 6, but the intelligence was not distributed effectively in order to shore up security ahead of the day’s events. FBI embedded persons were in Washington D.C. with the full intent of attacking the Capitol of the United States, but it wasn’t Trump allies. Intelligence reports are being exposed that the FBI withheld evidence that would have assisted the Capitol Police to better prepare for what was coming that day, and that the FBI was not only expecting violence at the Capitol on that day, they were hoping for it and planning on it knowing that leftwing elements like Antifa would be mixed in the crowd to make sure the violence took place. The Democrat Hollywood production was designed to become an armed attack of the Capitol, and even against law enforcement if they got in the way. And if the truth of what they were up to was known at the time, Trump would have never been allowed for security reasons to give his speech at the ellipse in the first place. U.S. Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), who chairs the GOP-House led investigation on January 6 has stated that “the far-left terrorist group Antifa was behind the planning of armed attacks…there was concerns that Antifa would be embedded within the crowds there…they had heard that Antifa would be embedded within the crowd.”
I bring all of this up because it shows that as the public is being made aware of these things, any trust they may have had regarding anything the Democrats have to say is vanishing quickly. Which brings us back to Epstein. If we can’t believe anything the Democrats say (from the general public’s point of view) regarding the shutdown, January 6, or their unconstitutional lawfare against Trump, how can anyone consider them to be truthful about the Epstein affair?
The coup against Trump is not just being perpetuated by the Democrats in America, either. The recent deceptive editing scandal at the BBC reminds us that this is a global hatred and effort against Trump. They are bringing actors from around the world to go after Trump. That’s why USAID was such a big deal. Through that agency the left was conducting workshops on resistance tactics drawn from historical insurgencies using a network of authoritarian groups, organizations and person from around the globe. We’re talking Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Soros-backed entities who are still organizing the violence in the streets of America that’s going on right now, which is mostly targeted against ICE at the moment. They believe there’s a crisis because Trump was elected and inaugurated, and despite all of their efforts, they couldn’t stop him. The maneuvering behind the scenes at all levels, including through USAID, didn’t work. Billions in funding has fallen flat. They were unable to sideline the MAGA voice and prevent another Trump win. So, as I explained earlier, they’ve got nothing left. The Epstein Hoax is their last ditch effort, and Trump literally set that trap for them and they are literally willingly stepping into the biggest pile of dung they could that will destroy any credibility they may have with voters without even realizing that it is all getting ready to go sideways for them really fast.
The latest gambit by the Democrats are newly released emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate which they wanted to try to use to create more public perception that Trump may have been somehow guilty of involvement with Epstein’s sick web of sexual and trafficking criminality. The emails in question seem to show that Donald Trump knew about Epstein’s operation and that he even confronted Ghislaine Maxwell about the whole thing.
Democrats, as these documents remained out of public eye, alleged that the Trump administration has been withholding nonpublic documents as a part of some kind of “cover-up.”
The emails, however, that the Democrats released are not telling the story the Democrats want you to believe. Epstein wrote to author Michael Wolff in one of the emails, “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever.” In that email Epstein was referring to his ouster from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. President Trump has maintained that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after a dispute and has dismissed any suggestion that he was involved in Epstein’s crimes.
No evidence has ever emerged linking Trump to Epstein’s trafficking ring even though the Democrats have repeatedly tried to connect him to the late sex-trafficker and financier.
Still, the Democrats claim that the emails implicate Trump despite the fact that their claims are collapsing under scrutiny. Newly uncovered evidence shows that a Democrat-led Oversight Committee intentionally redacted the name of Virginia Giuffre, the very witness who has repeatedly testified that Trump never engaged in or witnessed Epstein’s misconduct, from the released emails. Democrats in the current House Oversight Committee have been claiming that there were “damning” emails from Epstein’s estate suggesting Trump had “knowledge of the girls” Epstein trafficked. “It’s time to end this cover-up and release the files,” wrote the Oversight Democrats, attaching screenshots on X of several redacted emails between Epstein, his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and author Michael Wolff. However, the full, unredacted emails revealed that the “victim” referenced by Epstein in those emails was not an unidentified girl, but Virginia Giuffre (now deceased). Wolff in public statements then advised Epstein on how to “hang” Trump in public statements. If that is true, then it reveals that Epstein wasn’t Trump’s buddy – he hated Trump just like the rest of his lefty brethren. And if that is the case, it raises questions about the credibility of the documents that Democrats are trying to showcase that they claim implicates Trump.
What this means is that the House Oversight Committee Democrats’ released e-mails that the Democrats claim raises “serious questions about Donald Trump and his knowledge of Epstein’s horrific crimes,” but they prove nothing of the sort. Despite claiming that Trump was, according to the emails, “the dog that hasn’t barked,” the reference was attached to an alleged victim (Giuffre) that allegedly spent hours at Trump’s house even though Trump’s name had never once been mentioned, and the alleged victim stated under oath that she never witnessed Trump engage in any wrongdoing. She testified Trump never acted inappropriately with her, she never saw Trump and Epstein together, and she never saw Trump at any of Epstein’s homes. According to Giuffre’s memoir published after her death, Trump had zero involvement in Epstein’s illegal activities.
The smoking gun that the Democrats are claiming reveals Trump knew about Epstein’s sex trafficking has blown up in the faces of the Democrats. They are, as NBC has even said, misinterpreting what the email in question was actually about, and it was actually referencing Trump and Epstein’s soured relationship and how Trump banned Epstein from his club for being a creep who poached employees from him. Not exactly the cozy relationship the Democrats want you to believe that Trump and Epstein had. The emails prove nothing other than that Trump was distancing himself from Epstein because he was realizing Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and a creep. In short, the emails being released by the Democrats in their desperate attempt to salvage their anti-Trump narrative after all of their other failures are actually undermining the narrative they are trying to push. Epstein hated Trump and wanted to, as Wolff put it, “finish him,” but Epstein had no dirt on Trump. That’s why the allegedly damning emails not only don’t implicate Trump, but there are no replies in that email exchange.
The latest Epstein smear attempt by the Democrats doesn’t just fall flat, it actually vindicates Trump. After years of trying to finagle a way to make it look like Trump is guilty, their alleged email proof of wrongdoing by Trump actually confirms that Trump had no connection to Epstein’s criminal activities and that rather than have any ties to Epstein at all, Trump cut ties with the man long before his arrest. The emails reinforce that Trump recognized Epstein for being the creep that he was, and wanted nothing to do with him. And what this all does is reveal that as the Democrats desperately are trying to spin the whole Epstein thing, it turns out Epstein was pressured to falsely implicate Trump, exposing the whole Democratic push on this matter to be just another politically motivated hoax.
The party that shrugged off Ashley Biden’s diary revealing her father showered with her as a young child is outraged because they can’t seem to corner Trump for sexual and criminal wrong-doing… and they are even angrier that in the end it turns out that Donald Trump actually kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the newly released materials by the Democrats were “a deliberate distraction from the Democrats’ shutdown fiasco,’ and accused the Democrats of “manufacturing a smear against President Trump.” Republicans on the House Oversight Committee echoed the White House’s response to the release, stating that the Democrats were “cherry-picking documents to generate headlines,” while withholding other records that name prominent Democratic officials, and donors.
President Trump on Truth Social wrote, “the Democrats are using the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax to try and deflect their massive failures, in particular, their most recent one – THE SHUTDOWN!”
The full-scale political storm that has blown up in the Democratic Party’s faces even has their Democratic colleague, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman criticizing them over the whole thing. If they had files implicating Trump, why didn’t they release them while Biden was President? The answer is obvious. They didn’t have anything that implicated Trump, and now they are simply in panic-mode. What is even worse for them is that as these revelations become more public, President Donald Trump is now turning the table on the Democrats, asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement with prominent Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton. On Truth Social, President Trump wrote, “I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.” Trump called Democrats’ obsession with Epstein “another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats.”
“Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life with Epstein, and on his ‘Island,’” Trump wrote.
The House of Representatives will be voting on a bill that would compel the Justice Department to release the complete Epstein files.
Alan Dershowitz says he wants to public “important” files related to Jeffrey Epstein, but judicial seals by lefty judges have been blocking him from doing so. Why are these judges sealing depositions? Dershowitz says his documents would further open up what the truth really is. But the Democrats through their judges are blocking those documents, while trying to release the ones they think might hoodwink the public just enough to doubt Trump’s story.
The game is not over yet, but I have a feeling this will be just another failure for the Democrats, and another reason the voting public will continue to abandon the Democrats in droves.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Judge James Boasberg was nominated by President Barack Obama. He is the chief judge of the United States District Court for Washington D.C. Judge Boasberg has presided over several cases where actions by President Trump or his administration were challenged or overturned, particularly involving immigration enforcement and executive authority. Some of these rulings were later reversed by higher courts.
Boasberg was the judge who found the Trump administration to be in criminal contempt for refusing to abide by his order to stop deportation flights to El Salvador. The D.C. Circuit Court later ruled Boasberg abused his discretion.
Boasberg was the judge who in 2023 also went after President Trump’s attempt to expand deportations of illegal aliens, seeking to block the deportations by citing procedural violations and potential harm to asylum seekers. The controversial ruling was later challenged in higher courts, and was ultimately overturned in 2025 with the Circuit Court once again ruling that Boasberg exceeded his authority.
As part of Jack Smith’s probe into 2020 election-related activities, Boasberg was the judge who approved secret subpoenas for phone records of Republican members of Congress and the Senate, including Senator Ted Cruz. The subpoenas were a part of the larger Arctic Frost Investigation. The GOP alleges that Boasberg’s role was an abuse of judicial power and a violation of constitutional protections. The Republicans have responded with impeachment articles.
Boasberg’s role in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) have also placed him at the center of debates over government secrecy and civil liberties. He is now facing impeachment articles, being accused of operating in violation of a separation of powers, abusing his judicial power in politically sensitive investigations, including those involving allies of President Trump. He has a history of abuse of judicial discretion for ideological reasons.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
More about Boasberg:
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/11/01/rogue-judge-boasberg-may-finally-be-impeached-n4945495
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The British Broadcasting Corporation’s doctored edit of Trump’s January 6 speech confirms what we’ve long been warning: the mainstream media’s war on truth is global, coordinated, and deeply dishonest.
In a stunning admission of media malpractice, the BBC has ignited its own raging firestorm after airing a deceptively edited clip of President Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech. The edit was so misleading it prompted the resignation of Director-General Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness. The clip, broadcast on the BBC’s flagship program Panorama just one week before the last U.S. presidential election, spliced together two separate statements made nearly an hour apart, falsely implying that Trump was inciting violence at the Capitol.
Hardly a simple mistake, the timing of the clip was a calculated act of narrative engineering and foreign influence on an American election – a clear effort to sway voters and reinforce the left’s false insurrection storyline. The BBC’s own internal memo, a 19-page document reviewed by The Daily Telegraph, raised serious concerns about the impartiality and editorial integrity of BBC’s personnel in charge of the broadcast. The BBC has since apologized, but the damage was done. Trust has been shattered, and the implications reach far beyond London.
For those who don’t adhere to the anti-Trump narrative the scandal is vindication. Trump’s long-standing critique of the media as “Fake News” has been proven right, not just in the U.S., but across the Atlantic. The BBC’s breach of public trust reveals a global media ecosystem willing to distort reality to fit a political agenda. It also lends weight to the argument that January 6 was not the spontaneous insurrection portrayed by the left, but a rally hijacked by agitators, infiltrators, and dishonest reporting.
The resignation of top BBC executives is a rare moment of accountability. But, it’s not enough. The real issue is systemic. What we have is a legacy media culture that prioritizes narrative over truth, and activism over journalism. And while the BBC may be the latest to fall, it is far from alone. From CNN to MSNBC, the pattern is clear: selective editing, partisan framing, and a relentless campaign to demonize Trump and his supporters.
This controversy should serve as a wake-up call. Not just for voters, but for anyone who still believes in the power of honest journalism. The fight for truth has never been only domestic. It’s global. We only know now because the rise of Trump is exposing it in a manner it never has been before.
The BBC’s doctored Trump edit served as a visible spark in the world of media bias, but the wildfire of Fake News burns across America, designed to undermine the truth, enable lawlessness, and sabotage the presidency of Donald Trump. They seek to shape public perception through omission, distortion, and outright fabrication. The BBC’s Panorama scandal was not an isolated incident. It’s emblematic of a broader, global media campaign against Trump and the MAGA Movement.
In the United States the pattern is unmistakable. The FBI’s “Arctic Frost” operation secretly surveilled over 150 Republican congressional representatives and entities tied to Trump, including Turning Point USA. Yet, national broadcasters have given it zero coverage. CNN’s Evan Perez falsely claimed that semiautomatic weapons can fire “dozens of bullets” with one trigger pull, fueling a gun control narrative that misleads the public and threatens our natural right to keep and bear arms. An ABC Medicaid study downplayed spending on illegal aliens, helping to stoke outrage over Trump’s budget cuts, and ultimately contributing to the longest government shutdown in history. Speaker Mike Johnson’s press conference, where he accused Democrats of forcing the shutdown to restore healthcare for illegal aliens, was abruptly cut off by CNN, another example of selective censorship.
These aren’t merely editorial choices. They’re acts of narrative warfare. The media’s refusal to report honestly regarding the murder of a Ukrainian refugee by a criminal alien in North Carolina, or the fact that 70% of ICE arrests involve convicted criminals but it is not reported as such, reveals a dangerous allegiance to ideology over truth.
CBS’s 60 Minutes gave a sympathetic platform to Erez Reuveni, a discredited former DOJ official fired for failing to properly represent the United States in court. Reuveni’s dismissal stemmed from his conduct in the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadorian MS-13 gang member dubbed a “Maryland Dad” by the media even though he was credibly accused of a long list of charges, including human trafficking and domestic violence. CBS chose to frame him as a whistleblower hero, using his unverified claims to smear the Trump administration and derail the judicial nomination of Emil Bove. The segment was pure narrative theater, posing as yet another example of the legacy media bending facts to fit its anti-Trump agenda.
When the media distorts reality to sabotage elections, mislead voters, and undermine a sitting President, it raises constitutional questions. Article III defines treason as “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” While that legal threshold is high, the moral and civic betrayal is undeniable.
The institutions that shape public opinion have been misleading Americans in a manner that Thomas Jefferson warned about when he discussed the corruption of the press, and confirms James Madison’s insistence on checks and balances, not just in government, but in media.
From the BBC’s doctored Trump speech to CNN’s firearm falsehoods, ABC’s Medicaid distortions, and CBS’s glorification of a disgraced DOJ official, the pattern is unmistakable. The media has not merely reported the news, but has shaped it, twisted it, and weaponized it against President Trump and the MAGA Movement. But, with each passing moment, the truth bubbles to the surface. Resignations, retractions, and collapsing ratings are exposing the rot. The American people are waking up. And, as the fog of deception lifts, what remains is a clear view of a media establishment that has betrayed its duty, and betrayed a citizenry ready to reclaim the narrative.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the dust settles from another government shutdown, this one being the longest in American History, I find myself asking what went wrong. What would the Founding Fathers have thought about the whole affair?
Shutdowns are a modern day invention. In the early days of the Republic, Congress didn’t bundle the entire federal budget into one massive, bloated bill. They passed spending measures individually. The deliberations were transparent and the aim was to remain within the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Each appropriation stood on its own merit. If a program didn’t belong, it didn’t get funded. No hostage taking. No wheeling and dealing. No extortion. No omnibus monstrosities.
Today, we’ve traded principle for packaging. We cram transportation, defense, education, social programs and healthcare into one overstuffed legislative package and dare anyone to oppose it. The result? A single disagreement over even one small part of it can grind the entire government to a halt. Coercion by a machine that uses legislation to fuel its bureaucracy.
Would the Founding Fathers have sacrificed funding for military pay over a healthcare package? Most of these programs would have never passed constitutional muster in the first place had they been offered as an individual expenditure. When spending is decided bill by bill, unconstitutional expenditures find it more difficult to be passed. The most unconstitutional federal spending is achieved while hidden inside massive bills, more often than not present as a part of political ransom.
The Founding Fathers did not put all of their legislative eggs in one basket. Each item stood alone, was debated on its own merit, and was decided upon based on its own arguments. The Founding Fathers did not tolerate omnibus bills or earmarks, and nor should we.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary