Chris Wray and Chris Krebs Lied: They Knew Iranians Breached US Election System in 2020, Stole 100,000 Identities, and Then POSTED VIDEO ONLINE of the Stolen Data Being Used to Create UOCAVA Ballots — And Hid This From American People!

 Recent developments have brought to light claims regarding Iranian interference in the 2020 US presidential election. Reports indicate that key officials, including FBI Director Chris Wray and former CISA Director Chris Krebs, concealed significant breaches of election security from the public.

1. Reported Breach and Misrepresentation:

● Documents unsealed in 2025 revealed a successful breach of the US election system by Iran, contradicting earlier claims that the 2020 election was the most secure in history.

● Chris Krebs, in December 2020, claimed before Congress that the 2020 election was secure, promoting this narrative alongside Democratic leaders and the media.

2. Discovery of Hidden Reports:

● Investigative journalist Yehuda Miller uncovered a CISA report from October 30, 2020, which detailed Iranian hacking attempts but was never made public until recently.

● This report included information on how Iranian hackers created fictitious media sites to spread misinformation, undermining voter confidence.

3. Details of the Interference:

● Iranian hackers compromised a state's voter roll database, specifically in Alaska, acquiring names and personal information of over 100,000 voters.

● They allegedly used this stolen data to fill out UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) registrations, facilitating potential fraudulent voting actions.

● A video demonstrating how the stolen information was manipulated was reportedly released by the hackers.

4. Indictments and Legal Actions:

● Two Iranians were indicted for their roles in this cyber intrusion, emphasizing the seriousness of the campaign to influence the election's outcome.

● The indictment indicated a broader effort involving multiple state voter websites, though the government's portrayal of the situation downplayed its significance.

5. Official Responses:

● The reports created controversy and led to assertions that Chris Krebs, Chris Wray, and other officials misled the public regarding the security of the 2020 election, especially in failing to disclose the Iranian breach.

● The information was allegedly hidden from the public for over four years, raising concerns about transparency in election security.

The revelations about Iranian interference in the 2020 US presidential election challenge the narrative presented by various officials post-election. The concealment of important data regarding breaches raises questions about the integrity of the election process and the safeguarding of voter information. This situation highlights the need for transparency and accountability in election security matters to restore public trust.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/07/chris-wray-chris-krebs-lied-they-knew-iranians/

Rhode Island Chooses Tax Hike Death Spiral

 Rhode Island has implemented a significant tax increase aimed at high-income earners, which critics argue will drive wealthy residents out of the state and worsen its financial troubles.

● Tax Increase Details: Rhode Island's Governor Dan McKee has signed a budget raising the income tax rate on earnings over $1 million from 5.99% to 8.99%, marking a 50% hike aimed at generating more revenue.

● Political Context: McKee's decision seems politically motivated as he faces a tough reelection battle, despite opposing such tax increases previously.

● Impact on Wealthy Residents: Similar tax increases in other states have led to a trend where affluent individuals move to low-tax states, negatively impacting revenue in higher-tax states.

● Comparative Analysis: Reports indicate a decline in business activity and job availability in cities like Seattle and Los Angeles due to heavy taxation. In Seattle, jobs decreased by 30,000 since the introduction of such taxes, while the number of vacancies increased dramatically.

● Population Migration: States like New York, Illinois, and California have lost significant populations due to high taxes, while states like Florida and Texas are experiencing growth as they attract those fleeing these tax burdens.

● Future Outlook for Rhode Island: With the new tax hike, Rhode Island is expected to struggle further. The author posits that this increase will not solve the budget crisis and may lead to further declines in service quality and living conditions for remaining residents.

Increasing tax rates on high earners in Rhode Island is predicted to exacerbate existing economic issues by pushing out wealthy taxpayers and businesses, leading to greater revenue shortfalls. Experts suggest that only cutting spending could potentially improve the state's situation. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/07/rhode-island-chooses-tax-hike-death-spiral/

Dems’ Star Witness For AG Hearing Pushed Clemency For ‘Rapists, Child Molesters, And Murderers’

 The contentious confirmation hearing for Todd Blanche, who has been nominated as U. S. Attorney General. It touches on the implications of clemency actions taken by former President Joe Biden under the recommendation of Liz Oyer, a former pardon attorney at the Department of Justice (DOJ). The article conveys the political dynamics surrounding the hearing, the priorities of the current administration regarding clemency, and highlights the views on the severity of crimes committed by various individuals on federal death row.

1. Confirmation Hearing for Todd Blanche:

● Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Dick Durbin, are highly critical of Todd Blanche's nomination as Attorney General. They aim to block his appointment using various political strategies.

2. Liz Oyer's Testimony:

● Oyer, who was fired by Blanche, is expected to provide testimony that may damage Blanche's credibility. She has expressed strong opposition to former President Trump and claims her dismissal was due to her refusal to support the restoration of firearm rights to Mel Gibson, a convicted domestic abuser.

3. Clemency Recommendations by Oyer:

● Oyer had recommended clemency for all federal death row inmates, and Biden granted clemency to 37 of 40 inmates. This decision is portrayed as controversial, with critics arguing that the pardoned inmates include serious criminals who committed heinous acts.

4. Impact of Biden's Clemency Actions:

● Critics argue that Biden’s clemency actions created a perception of leniency, which they believe undermines justice for victims' families. The article states that Biden's actions halted executions and led to a significant number of clemency grants, exceeding those of any previous president.

5. Controversial Criminal Cases:

● The article highlights specific cases of murderers who received clemency and discusses Oyer's defense of her recommendations. It emphasizes public safety concerns and the impact on victims' families, branding the clemency grants as morally troubling.

6. Public Reaction and Criticism:

● Families of the victims express anger and concern, indicating that they feel let down by the DOJ's decisions. Additionally, the article mentions Oyer's relationship with a left-leaning legal organization, suggesting that her motives may be politically charged.

7. Overall Political Climate:

● The article reflects broader partisan tensions regarding crime, punishment, and the use of clemency powers, illustrating how legal decisions can be influenced by political affiliations and public safety perceptions.

The piece portrays a complex intersection of law, politics, and morality surrounding the clemency decisions made under the Biden administration. It highlights the ongoing debates about justice, the role of government agencies, and the responsibilities of political leaders in making decisions that can have lasting impacts on victims and society as a whole. The upcoming confirmation of Todd Blanche is positioned within this contentious atmosphere, drawing attention to the implications for the future of the DOJ

https://thefederalist.com/2026/07/15/dems-star-witness-ag-hearing-pushed-clemency-for-rapists-child-molesters-and-murderers/

Constitutional alarm raised after DOJ records reveal Jack Smith got private texts from 44 lawmakers

 Special Counsel Jack Smith's team accessed private text messages from 44 lawmakers without following established protocols. This has raised significant constitutional concerns, bringing attention to the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

● Document Disclosure: Records released by the Senate Judiciary Committee show that Jack Smith's investigative team reviewed texts from 44 members of Congress during its investigation into President Trump. The Justice Department confirmed the findings.

● Constitutional Rights: The Speech or Debate Clause of the U. S. Constitution protects Congress members’ communications regarding their official duties from executive scrutiny. Lawmakers view the DOJ’s actions as a serious breach of these protections.

● Investigative Overreach: Lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Grassley, accused the DOJ of abusing its power. They allege the Special Counsel’s Office bypassed their own protocols meant to protect privileged communications, suggesting a disregard for constitutional limitations.

● Bipartisan Outrage: The lawmakers involved included 40 Republicans and four Democrats. The findings have sparked bipartisan outrage, with many calling for accountability for those responsible for the oversight.

● Inquiry Titles and Phases: The investigations conducted by Smith included several high-profile probes, including those related to January 6 and Trump’s handling of classified documents. The records were allegedly obtained through a subpoena to the National Archives.

● Calls for Accountability: Lawmakers are demanding a full investigation into the breach of privacy. Senators like Ron Johnson and Josh Hawley are actively participating in discussions about the misuse of the Justice Department's powers.

The incident involving the review of congressional texts by Jack Smith's team highlights a critical conflict between the executive branch's investigative reach and the constitutional protections afforded to Congress. Lawmakers are now emphasizing the need for a comprehensive investigation into these actions to uphold the integrity of the legislative process. There is a growing sentiment among Congress members that such overreach must be addressed to avoid setting a precedent that could threaten individual rights in the future.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/doj-records-show-special-counsel-accessed-texts-congressmen-raising-constitutional

Drone’s Eye View: The Spread of the Latest Ukrainian Tech to the Mexican Cartels Needs to Be Taken Seriously

 Recent developments indicate that drug cartels are rapidly advancing their technological capabilities, especially through the acquisition of sophisticated drone technology. This article discusses the implications of this trend, particularly concerning the potential threats to the United States.

● Discovery of a Kamikaze Drone: A kamikaze drone, which can be directly flown into targets, was found in a cartel compound in Mexico. This discovery highlights the evolving nature of drug gangs, which increasingly resemble state actors in terms of military capabilities.

● Treatment of Drones in Warfare: Drones are changing the battlefield landscape, with Ukraine utilizing them extensively during its conflict with Russia, where they perform various military functions, including long-range strikes and targeted assassinations.

● Cartel Interest in Ukrainian Tactics: South American cartels are closely observing innovations in drone warfare in Ukraine. Reports suggest that cartel members are even volunteering in Ukraine's international brigades for drone training.

● Shift in Drone Technology: Contemporary drones utilize fiber-optic technology to avoid being jammed by electronic devices, thus enhancing their effectiveness in operations.

● Cartels on the Offensive: By 2023, cartels reportedly conducted numerous drone attacks, signifying their increasing reliance on this technology for enforcing power against rivals and law enforcement.

● U. S. Vulnerability: The U. S. is starting to recognize the threats posed by these advancements. Reports indicate thousands of drones cross into the U. S. monthly from Mexico, with military and civilian installations at risk due to limited counter-drone capabilities.

● Government Response: Former President Trump has made efforts to counteract cartel activities, including designating specific cartels as terrorist organizations and implementing sanctions. However, the threat remains significant.

The use of advanced drone technology by drug cartels represents a growing concern for U. S. national security. As these organizations continue to refine their methods and capabilities, it is crucial for American authorities to address the vulnerabilities posed by this development before a significant incident occurs within U. S. borders. The increasing sophistication of cartels and their capabilities reflects a dire need for proactive measures to counteract this escalating threat.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/15/drones-eye-view-the-spread-of-the-latest-ukrainian-tech-to-the-mexican-cartels-needs-to-be-taken-seriously/

Massachusetts Proposes Government Islam Commission

 In Massachusetts, a proposed bill (S.2134) aims to create a permanent commission to support American Muslims, raising significant concerns about the separation of church and state, as well as potential violations of the First Amendment.

● Historical Context: In 1833, Massachusetts became the last state to disband its established church. Now, Bill S.2134 seeks to 'reestablish' Islam by forming a government commission focused on the Islamic community.

● Legislation Details: The bill proposes a commission to advance the civil rights of Muslims, which will have the authority to recommend Muslims for government positions, receive funding, and propose legislation.

● Legal Concerns: Critics argue that this represents a religious test for public office, something prohibited under the U. S. Constitution (Article VI). There are fears that the commission would blur the line between mosque and state, allowing religious criteria in government appointments.

● Controversial Endorsements: The bill is endorsed by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others, which raises concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential influence of groups that may not align with broader Islamic beliefs.

● Definition Issues: The bill lacks a clear definition of "the practice of Islam," potentially leading the state to determine who qualifies as a Muslim, which could alienate certain Muslim groups.

● Funding Problems: The commission could accept both public and private funding, complicating the relationship between state and religious entities.

Bill S.2134 presents numerous constitutional challenges and ethical dilemmas regarding the establishment of a government-backed commission to promote a specific religious group's interests. It reflects a significant shift from historical precedents of church and state separation in Massachusetts. As it progresses through legislative committees, the implications for religious freedom and equality are at stake.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/massachusetts-proposes-government-islam-commission/

The Courts Finally Let America Enforce Its Own Immigration Laws

 A recent ruling by the D. C. Circuit Court has changed the enforcement of U. S. immigration laws. The court's decision supports stricter immigration enforcement across the country, undermining sanctuary city policies.

● The D. C. Circuit Court recently allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enforce "expedited removal" of illegal aliens nationwide, rather than just within a 100-mile border zone.

● This ruling reverses an earlier district court decision that favored an open borders group, asserting that the policy violated due process.

● Under the new ruling, any illegal immigrant who cannot prove continuous residence in the U. S. for at least two years can be deported quickly.

● The decision strengthens the administration's ability to deport illegal immigrants residing in cities that typically protect them, known as sanctuary cities.

● Prior to this ruling, many illegal immigrants believed they would not face deportation if they settled deeper within the country.

● The ruling clarifies that legal proceedings are not required before expedited removal, challenging previous interpretations that demanded extensive legal defenses.

● The ruling is influenced by legislative changes made in 1996 and expanded under past administrations, including Trump's, aiming to streamline removal processes.

● Legal representatives from both sides have expressed their views, with the ACLU indicating plans to appeal the ruling.

The D. C. Circuit's decision marks a significant shift in how immigration laws are applied, potentially leading to increased deportation efforts across the U. S., including in traditionally safe areas for undocumented immigrants. It emphasizes a renewed focus on enforcing immigration laws as they were intended by Congress and challenges the protections offered by sanctuary cities. Despite the victory for immigration enforcement, legal challenges are expected to continue. 

https://spectator.org/the-courts-finally-let-america-enforce-its-own-immigration-laws/