“It’s a Bit of a Distraction” – Jim Comey is Asked about the Plot in His New Book that Is Just like His Assassination Threat Against Trump (VIDEO)

Former FBI Director Jim Comey joined John Berman on CNN on Wednesday to discuss his new book.

During their discussion Comey continued his lies that he didn’t know what 8647 meant.

Last week Comey posted a photo of seashells he said he ran across lined up perfectly in an 8647 arrangement.

Comey Trump assassination social media post (Screenshot via @Comey on X)

Comey told the CNN audience on Wednesday that the “seashell thing” is a bit of a distraction.

Comey’s book also happens to be about a ‘right-wing extremist’ who is making threats that may lead to violence.

Funny, how that lines up perfectly with his seashell threats against President Trump!

Jim Comey: Actually, it still doesn’t (hit me), that it’s (8647) associated with violence.

John Berman: It still doesn’t, even though people have pointed it out, that it has been used in that context?

Jim Comey: Yeah, I’ve never seen it used in that context or heard it used in that context. Still…

John Berman: How was your interview with the Secret Service about this?

Jim Comey: Oh, good. They’re total pros. I’ve worked with Secret Service for many, many years, and they asked the right questions, trying to understand why I did it. We had a very similar conversation to the one you and I just had.

John Berman: Did you leave thinking that they believed you, or did you leave thinking they still had concerns?

Jim Comey: Well, I don’t have any reason to believe they don’t believe me. And so I feel like they askedComey Trump assassination social media post (Screenshot via @Comey on X) the right questions, and I can’t imagine there’ll be any more on it.

John Berman: Your book is about protected speech when protected speech becomes political violence. Is that a fair way to characterize it? It’s about an extreme podcaster who talks about things, and then there are acts of political violence.

Jim Comey: Right. It’s about a right-wing extremist trying to motivate followers to violence through his words in his broadcast.

John Berman: It’s interesting that your book is about that, and now there is this discussion about speech, things said, and whether it can be motivating toward violence. Yes?

Jim Comey: Yeah, not interesting to me. A bit of a distraction, actually. But The book’s about an important question. I don’t see the seashell thing as an important issue, but I hope folks will read the book and see that it’s a great thriller, but it’s also about things that are important and current.

John Berman: How challenging is it to write political fiction now when it seems like almost every sensational political event that could happen has happened in real life?

Jim Comey: Yeah, and some of the stuff that goes on, a journalist being invited to a signal chat. If you put it in your novel, your editor would say, Come on, cut that out. This is fiction, but it’s got to be real. So truth continues to surprise and be stranger than fiction. I’m trying to write very real fiction, so show people.

Via Midnight Rider:

The post “It’s a Bit of a Distraction” – Jim Comey is Asked about the Plot in His New Book that Is Just like His Assassination Threat Against Trump (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Trump’s DOJ Files Federal Lawsuit Against Small Idaho Town for Targeting Evangelical Church

President Trump’s Department of Justice has filed a federal lawsuit against the far-left leadership of Troy, Idaho, accusing the city of blatantly targeting a Christian congregation simply for trying to worship.

The lawsuit, United States v. City of Troy, is a blistering rebuke of how local officials weaponized zoning codes to shut down Christ Church, a growing evangelical church based in neighboring Moscow, Idaho.

Trump’s DOJ alleges that city leaders engaged in open discrimination, suppressing the church’s right to assemble — while allowing secular organizations to flourish in the same exact zone.

Christ Church, with a congregation too large for its Moscow area, sought to expand into Troy.

They tried renting a former bank building downtown to host Sunday services — a common sense solution given the building had been vacant for over a year and had ample street parking.

But after just two services, the city attorney sent a cease-and-desist order. The message was clear: Churches are not welcome in downtown Troy.

The church followed the law, applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and faced nothing short of a hostile inquisition.

City officials opened the floodgates to anti-Christian bigotry during the permit hearing. Opponents called Christ Church “a hate group,” accused it of “grotesque” beliefs, and claimed it would “destroy another Idaho town.”

The council then cited these comments — rooted in religious animus — as part of their decision to deny the church the right to worship.

Under Troy’s zoning code, churches are treated as second-class citizens, requiring a special conditional use permit to operate in the very same downtown district where art galleries, community centers, libraries, and even fraternal organizations are allowed to operate without any permit at all.

The lawsuit points out that while bars, movie theaters, and labor union offices are freely welcomed downtown, Christ Church was subjected to a grueling approval process, forced to defend its theology and endure public abuse simply to rent a modest former bank building for Sunday gatherings.

More from DOJ:

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho alleging that the City of Troy, Idaho, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it denied a conditional use permit (CUP) application sought by Christ Church, a small evangelical church.

The lawsuit alleges that Christ Church had outgrown the space where it had been worshipping and was unable to find a space to rent. It then sought a CUP to operate a church in the City’s C-1 zoning district, where nonreligious assembly uses such as clubs, museums, auditoriums, and art galleries were allowed. Local residents vociferously opposed the Church’s CUP application, and many of their written and verbal comments reflected animus against Christ Church’s beliefs. In its denial of the Church’s CUP application, the City cited the fact that the public was “heavily against” it and that the “great majority of the city residents” opposed granting the CUP.

“RLUIPA unequivocally forbids local governments from deciding zoning matters based on their dislike of certain religious groups,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Department of Justice will not hesitate to file suit against jurisdictions that discriminate in land use matters on the basis of the applicants’ religious beliefs.”

The lawsuit alleges that the City’s denial of the CUP imposed a substantial burden on Christ Church and was based on the community’s discriminatory animus against the Church. It also alleges that the City’s zoning code treats religious assembly use worse than nonreligious assembly use.  The lawsuit alleges violations of RLUIPA’s substantial burden, equal terms, and discrimination provisions.

RLUIPA is a federal law that guards individuals and religious institutions from unduly burdensome, unequal, or discriminatory land use regulations. More information about RLUIPA and the department’s work can be found on the Place to Worship Initiative’s webpage.

As part of this initiative, the department distributed a letter to state, county, and municipal leaders throughout the country to remind them of their obligations under RLUIPA, including its requirement that land use regulations treat religious assemblies and institutions at least as well as nonreligious assemblies and institutions.

The post Trump’s DOJ Files Federal Lawsuit Against Small Idaho Town for Targeting Evangelical Church appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Far-Left Democrat Delaware Governor Officially Signs Bill Legalizing State-Sponsored Euthanasia

Delaware Governor Matt Meyer

Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, a Democrat, signed House Bill 140 into law on Tuesday.

The new law, deceptively named “The Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law,” opens the floodgates for state-sanctioned euthanasia by allowing terminally ill adults to request and self-administer life-ending medication — with full government and medical backing.

This radical measure was championed by far-left Democrats Rep. Paul Baumbach, Rep. David Bentz, Rep. Eric Morrison, and Sen. Bryan Townsend.

Under the new law, once a mentally competent individual is diagnosed with a terminal illness and deemed to have six months or less to live, doctors and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) are empowered to prescribe death-inducing drugs.

According to Delaware Public, the end-of-life medication may only be prescribed to a terminally ill patient after they make two verbal requests and one written request themselves — a legal guardian or healthcare surrogate is not permitted to make the request on their behalf.

The individual must perform the final act themselves—swallowing the pills in private, without medical oversight at the time of death.

Governor Meyer emphasized that the legislation promotes compassion, dignity, and respect for individual choice.

“The End-of-Life Options Act is now law in Delaware, giving terminally ill residents the choice to end their lives with dignity. With strong safeguards and years of advocacy, this marks a historic and compassionate step forward. Thank you to all who made it possible,” Gov. Meyer wrote on X.

Gov. Mayer said in a speech, “Today I’m going to sign a bill that speaks to compassion, dignity, and respect for personal choice… This signing today is about relieving suffering and giving families the comfort of knowing that their loved one was able to pass on their own terms, without unnecessary pain, and surrounded by the people they love most.”

WATCH:

The End-of-Life Options Act is now law in Delaware, giving terminally ill residents the choice to end their lives with dignity. With strong safeguards and years of advocacy, this marks a historic and compassionate step forward. Thank you to all who made it possible. pic.twitter.com/6Fe885q6mD

— Governor Matt Meyer (@MattMeyerDE) May 20, 2025

Delaware has become the 12th U.S. jurisdiction to authorize medical aid in dying, joining 10 other states and Washington, D.C. The law is set to take effect on January 1, 2026, or earlier if the necessary regulations are established sooner.

The post Far-Left Democrat Delaware Governor Officially Signs Bill Legalizing State-Sponsored Euthanasia appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Massive Scandal Unfolds in Colorado Alleging Elections are Rigged, and the Cover Up is Real – Free Tina Peters Now

Guest post be Erin Clements

First reported at JoeHoft.com

Massive Scandal Unfolding in Colorado Proving Elections are Rigged, and the Cover Up is Real – Free Tina Peters Now

Guest post by Erin Clements

Introduction

Former Mesa County Clerk and Gold Star Mother, Tina Peters, is sitting in prison right now for preserving her own election records following the 2020 election before Dominion Voting Systems and Colorado Secretary of State, Jenna Griswold, could come in and erase them. Peters was following state and federal law to preserve those records, while Dominion and SOS Griswold are more likely the criminals unlawfully erasing them. This persecution of the innocent and promotion of criminality was a hallmark of the Biden era.

Trump’s DOJ has filed a statement of interest in Peter’s case, and President Trump himself has called attention to the fact that the persecution of Tina Peters is nothing more than Democrats covering up their own election crimes:

In the last week, new bombshell revelations have emerged out of Colorado that show there is a massive cover up of election crimes, just as President Trump stated.

The Fraud is Real

The revelations start with an analysis done by mathematician, Edward Solomon, for a case brought by Andy Thompson, a Nevada Citizen, against the Democrat Nevada Secretary of State, Cisco Aguilar. Solomon is an expert witness in the case and has done extensive analysis on election night reporting and election records – uncovering likely fraud by deriving the very algorithms that are being used to create the “results” in elections all over the country. Solomon’s work has never been debunked.

Nevada SOS Cisco Aguilar, Defendant in Nevada Election Case

Solomon’s expert analysis for the Nevada case can be found here, with a pared down explanation of his findings in this February 2025 article, where he boldly offered $80,000 to anyone who could disprove his findings. He hasn’t found any takers.

Solomon found two ballot measures in two separate counties in two different states that displayed the same impossible arrangement of votes, which could only be explained by fraud. He found these impossibilities by examining the mail-in ballots in each county’s Cast Vote Record. The Cast Vote Record is an electronic file that shows the votes cast on each individual ballot in the order they were processed by the election system.

A 2024 ballot measure in Nevada asked voters whether or not the state should adopt Ranked Choice Voting – a favorite tool of Democrats to bewilder citizens and rig elections. While the measure was ultimately rejected by voters – it wasn’t for lack of trying to rig the result. The Cast Vote Record in Nevada’s most populous county, Clark County, showed that until 75 percent of the mail-in ballots had been “counted,” Trump voters voted identically as Harris voters on the Ranked Choice Voting question. Solomon called this “parallel partisan behavior”:

In an honest election, Republicans would have tended to vote against a partisan question like Ranked Choice Voting, while Democrats would have tended to vote for it. But in the 2024 Clark County election, Republicans and Democrats appear to have coordinated with one another to send in their mail-in ballots with impeccable orchestral precision so that their opinions matched exactly as the ballots were being “counted” by the Dominion Voting System equipment used in that county.

As you can imagine, the odds of Republican and Democrat voters agreeing this closely on any partisan issue is zero. Americans concerned about election integrity have become used to election officials and judges dismissing obvious fraud like this as a “fluke,” “anomaly,” or “glitch.” So, for good measure, Solomon searched for this same impossible pattern in another county. He quickly found one in Arapahoe County, Colorado, which proudly posts its Cast Vote Records on the Internet.

Arapahoe County is Colorado’s third most populous county. In 2020, Colorado voters were asked to vote on Proposition B, which would remove a cap on property taxes that had been enacted in 1982 by the Gallagher Amendment. Amazingly, the proposition passed with 57 percent support.

According to Solomon’s article, “The aftermath was significant — property taxes doubled, if not tripled, in many areas.” Why would voters do that to themselves? It turns out they probably didn’t.

Solomon’s analysis of the Cast Vote Record for Arapahoe County showed the exact same, perfect, but impossible coordination between Democrats and Republican voters as they mailed in their ballots:

Property tax increases are an even more partisan issue than the confusing and little-known Ranked Choice Voting. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the Republicans in Colorado were in such perfect agreement with Democrats, that they mailed in their ballots in a coordinated manner such that at any given moment, the average results for this proposition on their ballots matched exactly between the two parties?

Did Republicans in Colorado suddenly relish the idea that Colorado local governments should be able to extort more money from them in perpetuity in the form of skyrocketing property taxes? Or was Colorado’s election system fixing the vote so that the government could get a guaranteed and unlimited pay raise? If you have any common sense and faith in mathematics, the answer has to be the latter.

Solomon’s analysis concluded,

“… Arapahoe County played the most pivotal role by providing the largest number of fraudulent Yes votes, ultimately pushing through this highly unpopular measure. The Arapahoe manipulation involved flipping 23,031 No votes to Yes votes — which when doubled (since each flip removes a No and adds a Yes) creates a 46,062-vote margin that helped secure Proposition B’s passage.”

This analysis is stunning and irrefutable proof that elections can be rigged across the country and in any election cycle. But the scandal doesn’t stop there. Realizing that there is no defense to Solomon’s conclusion that the Proposition B election was a fraud, someone went to truly bizarre lengths to try to cover up this crime and frame Solomon for his analysis. It is an understandable reaction when you consider that the phony election has already been used by local governments across Colorado to extort billions of dollars from Colorado property owners since 2020.

The Cover-Up Begins

As he documents on his X account, by a divine coincidence on May 12, 2025, Ed Solomon decided to livestream himself recreating the parallel partisan behavior analysis on the Arapahoe County Cast Vote Record to show the public exactly what he did so they could reproduce it for themselves. During this exercise, Solomon started by going to the Arapahoe County website to download the file again so he could do the analysis publicly and entirely from scratch – proving every inch of it to be accurate. He quickly realized that the file on the website was not the same one he had analyzed and submitted as evidence for the Nevada case months earlier.

In an attempt to figure out what had happened, he looked at archived versions of Arapahoe County’s website and found that a different file had been loaded sometime before March 21, 2025. He discovered the original file was still on the internet if you knew how to find it – but both had a November 30, 2020 date notation so they would both appear to have been created shortly after the 2020 election. However, the metadata on the new file showed a creation date of February 20, 2025.

The new Cast Vote Record file did not have the perfect coordination between parties on Proposition B, but looked a little more like it is expected to look, with a wide divide between partisan preferences. Solomon plotted the original fraudulent and altered data in the graph below where you can see that now Republican voters are overwhelmingly against Proposition B, while Democrat voters are overwhelmingly for it:

In order to come up with the altered Cast Vote Record, the votes on individual ballots had to be switched around in significant numbers, and not just on the Proposition B question. Another expert election data analyst, Draza Smith, reported on her X account that a huge number of votes throughout the altered Cast Vote Record were reordered to give them an appearance that they were natural and not manipulated.

This is as big a bombshell as Solomon’s original discovery. It means that Arapahoe County election officials have software at their disposal that allows them to shuffle and reorder votes to make a fraudulent election look more natural. Where did they get such software? Dominion? Or some other part of their election system? Who in their office is aware of this ability and who ran the cover up?

Solomon quickly realized that it appeared that being unable to refute his evidence, some bad actor had simply substituted the original file for an altered one so that they could claim that he had somehow created the parallel behavior himself and therefore submitted false evidence to the Nevada Court – a crime which would end in the case’s dismissal and leave Solomon open to prosecution. So, Solomon went about proving the cover-up by brilliantly documenting every step of his discovery of the original and altered files, proving when they had been created and when they had been uploaded to the Arapahoe County website with video evidence, which he livestreamed on X for his own protection.

Solomon then contacted the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder, Joan Lopez, to warn her about the file swap. Scrambling to cover up, a bizarre statement about the swapped Cast Vote Record appeared on the Clerk and Recorder’s website on May 13th:

Statement posed on the Arapahoe County Website Regarding as an Excuse for their Altering of Election Records

The Clerk and Recorder’s office claims that a political science professor from Yale University, Mr. Shiro Kuriwaki, for some reason took a look at their website and determined that they had incorrectly “redacted” their four-year-old 2020 Cast Vote Record, resulting in errors in the data. They claim he alerted the Clerk and Recorder’s Office on October 29, 2024, and the Clerk’s office claims to have confirmed his findings. They say they did a new “redaction” and uploaded a new file on April 2, 2025. The new file had magically removed the parallel partisan behavior proving a bad actor had manipulated the outcome of Proposition B.

Political Science Professor Shiro Kuriwaki

Nothing about this statement is plausible. First, why was Kuriwaki suddenly interested in searching out an obscure, four-year-old Cast Vote Record file in a county two thousand miles from where he lives? What methodology could Kuriwaki have possibly used to determine that the file had errors? And what logic did he use to pin the errors on the “redaction” process?

Redaction of public records simply means blacking out or hiding sensitive data before it is released to the public. A Cast Vote Record is a spreadsheet-type, electronic file. Redaction of a Cast Vote Record might entail deleting a column, but there is no “redaction” process in existence that would result in shuffling votes throughout the record so that an impossible lockstep voting between parties on a ballot issue was the result.

In fact, the Cast Vote Record is considered by the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) to be an audit document. Federal law supposedly guarantees Americans that election systems are auditable and the results provable in the event a dispute about the result arises. There would be no earthly reason to shuffle votes throughout a Cast Vote Record into an impossible pattern and call that “redaction” – in fact, altering election records is a crime.

The other issue is the claimed timing – Kuriwaki supposedly alerted the Arapahoe election officials in October 2024 that something was wrong with their file. Coincidentally, Ed Solomon’s analysis of the fraud apparent in Arapahoe County is dated November 28th, 2024. Placing Kuriwaki’s alert prior to Solomon’s reveal of the fraud would make it unlikely he had been part of any conspiracy initiated by a nervous Nevada SOS to do something about that file.

Arapahoe election officials then claim that they waited six months to upload a new “corrected” file on April 2, 2025. That is also a lie because the documented evidence proves the altered file was uploaded sometime before March 21, 2025. If they had uploaded a new file, why did they wait until the day after they were caught to make a statement about it? The metadata from the statement itself shows it was created the same day it was posted by Tom Skelley, the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder’s Communications Partner.

The Players

Let’s look at three people who we know were involved in this apparent cover-up: Professor Shiro Kuriwaki, and officials in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder’s office – including Communications Partner Tom Skelley and the Clerk and Recorder Joan Lopez.

Political Science Professor Shiro Kuriwaki is not a new name to election integrity activists. Following the 2020 election there was a groundswell of grassroots investigation into election processes, equipment, and data. The Cast Vote Record was identified early on as containing evidence of fraud.

Professional statistician Cindy Butler completed a Cast Vote Record analysis for the Otero County Audit of the 2020 Election showing manipulation occurring in absentee ballots in New Mexico. Based on a tip from a whistleblower, Dr. Walter Daugherity discovered clear evidence of fraud in the Pima County, Arizona 2020 election.

These early findings led to a nationwide investigative effort promoted at the Frank Speech 2022 Election Summit where citizens obtained Cast Vote Records from all over the country. This effort resulted in a huge collection of Cast Vote Records, which were collected and published by database expert Jeff O’Donnell on his website. O’Donnell also automated some types of analysis of these hundreds of files so that suspicious patterns could be quickly identified by the public. O’Donnell later published a document where he shows that Cast Vote Records all over the country contain patterns that prove that elections are not honest.

Professor Shiro Kuriwaki was on a team of academics who set out to gaslight the public with alternative explanations for the impossible patterns being found in Cast Vote Records everywhere. In an article published November 28, 2024, Kuriwaki admits that he took O’Donnell’s database, which was clearly copyrighted, and republished it under his own name on Dataverse. He, and other academics, used this purloined database to write articles disparaging the many qualified experts who have rightly concluded that elections are widely and systemically manipulated. It’s intriguing that Kuriwaki appeared in the middle of the Arapahoe County scandal.

The second person we know was involved in this sloppy cover-up was Tom Skelley, the Communications Partner for the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder’s office. Tom Skelley was the subject of a CBS News puff piece about Colorado elections that appeared after Jenna Griswold had posted the election system passwords to the internet, was caught, lied about it, and finally was forced to embark on a public relations campaign to convince the citizens of Colorado that their elections are “safe and secure” in spite of the massive security breach that she was responsible for.

Tom Skelley, Arapahoe County official

Lastly, Joan Lopez, the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder, is ultimately responsible for the fraud and cover up that occurred in her county. Lopez was the subject of an ethics hearing in 2019 dealing with misuse of public funds, which she didn’t even show up for.

Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder, Joan Lopez

A little fudging of the numbers leads to a lot apparently. The fraud perpetrated by reporting manipulated results for Proposition B has already led to local governments taking billions of dollars from property owners in Colorado through ballooning property tax rates. The repercussions of this scandal are far reaching and devastating.

In this November 2021 article, Lopez assisted in the media pile-on against Tina Peters who had recently blown the whistle on Dominion and Griswold’s attempt to delete election records. Lopez said,

“It is extremely unfortunate that county clerks (in) Colorado are being harassed and threatened based on allegations that are untruthful, unproven and, in many cases, maliciously spread to sow mistrust in our elections process. It is especially frustrating because we know our voting systems and our completely bipartisan elections processes have performed flawlessly, election after election, and we have no doubt whatsoever in the integrity of the equipment or procedures.”

In light of recent revelations, the hypocrisy of Lopez’s statement is staggering. The concerns citizens were trying to bring to Lopez’s attention that she found so offensive were well-founded after all. Tina Peters was right. It is also noteworthy that Lopez pointed to “completely bipartisan elections processes” when you consider that impossible parallel partisan behavior was found in her county.

Conclusion

Ed Solomon submitted a complaint to the FBI that beautifully sums up this conspiracy:

“I call the FBI because the 2020 General Election Cast Vote Record of Arapahoe County, Colorado, is one of our main exhibits in the Nevada Court Case of Andy Thompson vs. the Secretary of State of Nevada, and was entered as an exhibit in December of 2024 to show that Dominion Voting Systems (that operate in both Nevada and Colorado) produce impossible patterns (such as Trump and Biden voters voting identically on a ballot proposition in every batch of ballots).

The Nevada Attorney General has been unable to find an expert witness to testify on their behalf. So what they did instead was retroactively alter the 2020 Colorado Cast Vote Record, without telling the public, the Court or the Plaintiff or me.

They were intending to frame me for a perjury charge, since I submitted the original 2020 Cast Vote Record exhibit under penalty of perjury. Here is how:

Step 1: Retroactively Change the Arapahoe County 2020 General Election’s Cast Vote Record on the public website: https://www.arapahoevotes.gov/transparency

Step 2: Get a new slate of unknowing expert witnesses to download it from their site, without telling them it was a new forgery.

Step 3: Then have these new expert witnesses testify against me, claim there was no lockstep motion between Trump and Biden Voters.

Step 4: Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Case (Andy Thompson).

Step 5: Arrest me for perjury, throw the book at me, like they did to Tina Peters, to scare anyone from ever using Cast Vote Records again from questioning elections.

All of this requires a conspiracy of the Nevada and Colorado State and County Officials.”

Ed Solomon rightly remembers Tina Peters when calling out the obvious coordination that must have gone on between election officials and an Ivy-league professor to enact this sloppy, ineffective cover up of election fraud.

Tina Peters is innocent, but the election officials and those responsible for persecuting her, many of whom have worked for Dominion, are clearly not. Thankfully Ed Solomon has a well-documented, public paper trail of exactly what transpired. We also have an FBI that is under the direction of Kash Patel and is actually catching criminals rather than weaponizing the justice system against innocent Americans as was the norm under the Biden regime.

If the lessons learned from the Tina Peters persecution are any indication, it is likely that Ed Solomon will still face a long road to use his voice and genius to help bring those responsible for the fraud and cover up in Arapahoe County to justice. Please consider donating to Ed Solomon’s legal costs and living expenses as he works full-time on this issue: https://www.gofundme.com/f/donate-to-edward-solomons-election-integrity-battle

I have reached out to Professor Kuriwaki and the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder’s office for answers to the questions raised in this article. I have yet to hear back.

The post Massive Scandal Unfolds in Colorado Alleging Elections are Rigged, and the Cover Up is Real – Free Tina Peters Now appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

THE TWO FACES OF RUSSIA: Moscow Between Dialogue With the US and Maximalist Goals in Ukraine

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, former President of Russia (left) and Kirill Dmitriev , CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Special Envoy of President Putin for investment and economic cooperation (right).

We have been reporting on the two different mindsets in Russian society these days: on the one hand, there’s a real engagement from the Vladimir Putin Government to rebuild diplomatic and commercial ties with the US administration of Donald J. Trump – this is personalized by Special Envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

But on the other hand, there’s profound mistrust of Ukraine – or rather, of the Kiev regime – and a sense that maximalist goals in the war are the safest way to go. This school of thought can be best represented by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Kirill Dmitriev is the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Special Envoy of President Putin for investment and economic cooperation. He is also the greatest cheerleader for the peace process and diplomatic re-engaging between the US and Russia.

Kiril Dmitriev.

Read: Top Russian Negotiator Dmitriev Visits DC, Goes on a Media Blitz, Touts Progress in Peace Negotiations: ‘The Trump Administration Prevented World War 3’ (VIDEOS)

Russian sources report on his defense of the peace process against European warmongering:

“The dialogue between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump is crucial for the U.S. to understand the root causes, essence, and possible solutions to the Ukraine conflict. The fact that this dialogue contributes to the balanced and constructive stance of the Trump administration is causing hysteria among European politicians and in European and British media. Western politicians and media are exerting titanic efforts to derail the constructive Russia-U.S. dialogue. We will continue working on potential mutually beneficial projects with the U.S. in investment and economic spheres.”

Dmitriev also reports on the changing public perception in regards to the peace process: remember how the percentage of US citizens who view Russia as an enemy dropped from 70% in 2022 to 50% in 2025, a 20-point decrease over Biden’s term?

It seems that in Russia things are going even better.

NEW: Only 27% of Russians consider the US to be adversarial (vs 76% in 2022) and only 38% consider Ukraine in that category (vs 43% in 2022).

Top 3 countries considered adversarial by Russians:
1. France (48% vs 21% in 2022)
2. UK (42% vs 39%)
3. Germany (41% vs 32%) pic.twitter.com/aX8GaC956J

— Kirill A. Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) May 20, 2025

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Read: ‘THINK TWICE, NAZI!’: Russia’s Medvedev Torches Germany’s Merz After Incoming Chancellor Vows To Send Long-Distance Taurus Missiles to Ukraine

But when it comes to Ukraine, it’s a whole different ballgame.

Russians believe that Kiev broke all peace deals since 2014 when the Donbas wars started.

They believe the country weaponized by NATO against Moscow, and that Volodymyr Zelensky is illegitimate since his mandate ended a year ago and he rules by martial law.

To some, maximalism goals in the Ukraine are the safest path – and they find their voices amplified by people like Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, Medvedev.

Slavyangrad reported on how Medvedev said that many in Russia much prefer the path of Ukraine’s unconditional surrender:

“‘We are ready for negotiations without preconditions, but taking into account the realities on the ground and the proposals that have been formulated. And such negotiations can help find peace. But we must remember that there is another path for the Kiev regime, which has also been repeatedly stated. This is the path of unconditional surrender. Such a formula for peace also exists in international law. To be honest, many in our country like it much more’, he said.”

SURRENDER

“Ukraine has two paths to peace:

1) negotiations and agreeing to a peace deal
2) the path of unconditional surrender, which many Russians prefer”

— Medvedev pic.twitter.com/cZ5HA31Dvu

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) May 20, 2025

You can add to that the fact that it is generally expected in the Russian channels that Putin will unleash a big offensive in the summer.

“There is in all likelihood a new offensive coming: Mordvichev’s appointment to commander of the whole front very likely means that the High Command is planning a large offensive this summer. While Mordvichev’s appointment by itself does not necessarily lend credence to such an idea (his predecessor was 70, and by Russian law that is the age of retirement in the military), there is the undeniable fact that the amount of Russian personnel in the SМO zone has swollen to 680.000 troops if not even more. [Some] of these soldiers are currently being committed outside of rotations. There is a very good chance that they are being held in reserve for some good reason.”

Read more:

As Rumors of a New Big Offensive Swirl, Putin Appoints Mordvichev as New Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces – A General that Ukraine Announced it Had Killed!

The post THE TWO FACES OF RUSSIA: Moscow Between Dialogue With the US and Maximalist Goals in Ukraine appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Could Pope Leo Be the Key Trump Needs for Russia–Ukraine?

Could Pope Leo Be the Key Trump Needs for Russia–Ukraine?

Bringing peace to Eastern Europe and beyond seems to need a diplomatic assist from outside Washington.

(Vatican Media/Vatican Pool – Corbis/Getty Images)

In his 2006 book The President, The Pope, and the Prime Minister, the veteran conservative journalist and former National Review editor John O’Sullivan celebrated John Paul II for helping Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher win the Cold War.

Could Pope Leo XIV help President Donald Trump bring about an end to the war in Ukraine, thereby saving countless lives and tying up some of their predecessors’ loose ends in the process? He has offered to play a key role.

It might not be so far-fetched as it first seems. Trump teased the possibility after his calls with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. “The Vatican, as represented by the Pope, has stated that it would be very interested in hosting the negotiations,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Let the process begin!”

Vice President J.D. Vance elaborated on this in an interview after he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had an audience with the first American pope, and he didn’t limit the possible peacemaking to Russia–Ukraine.

“We talked a lot about what’s going on in Israel and Gaza. We talked a lot about the Russia–Ukraine situation,” Vance told NBC News. “It’s hard to predict the future, but I do think that not just the pope, but the entire Vatican, has expressed a desire to be really helpful and to work together on facilitating, hopefully, a peace deal coming together in Russia and Ukraine.”

It’s a long way from Trump reposting AI-generated images of himself as the pope. Perhaps Leo is more convincing in the role of Henry Kissinger, though that comparison might be equally blasphemous. 

“We have an American pope of the world’s largest single religion — a guy who doesn’t have an army, but who I think has an incredible amount of capacity to convene and to influence, not just Europe, but, really, the entire world,”  Vance, who is a Catholic convert, said in his NBC interview. He told the outlet Leo “does care a lot about peace.”

“If there is a single most productive thing [from his trip to Rome], my hope is that it will be that the relationship between us and the Vatican leads to a lot fewer people getting killed and a lot less humanitarian disaster,” Vance added.

And if it came to fruition, it might be the first time a pope collaborated with a Republican administration in this way on foreign policy since the Polish-born pontiff stood in opposition to the Soviet Union in the waning years of the Cold War. John Paul II was outspoken in his opposition to the Iraq war. Some believed Leo’s mission would be to push back against Trump, much as the American Catholic bishops have clashed with Trump and Vance over immigration.

The new pope won’t do Trump’s bidding, whatever his brothers’ political affinities might be. But the world could use a little just war theory right now, and not just a thin Christian veneer on warmaking.

“The martyred Ukraine is waiting for negotiations for a just and lasting peace to finally happen,” Leo said at his inaugural Mass. He has also met with Zelensky and the Ukrainian president’s wife.

One hopes it doesn’t take a miracle to end the war in Ukraine, which is costly in its own right and puts the world at risk of a broader conflict between nuclear-armed powers. But Putin could well need divine intervention to persuade him his current course is wasteful and destructive.

Putin still seems willing to pay the costs of wearing down Ukraine’s defenses, even for the most marginal gains as his own troops suffer casualties. He might have some interest in better relations with the United States, but not enough to engage in serious peace talks yet. The Russian leader was a no-show at direct negotiations in Turkey despite Zelensky sending a top-level delegation. 

Trump is still trying to get Putin to the negotiating table, as patience wears thin in a Washington driven wild by Trump-Russia talk for the past eight years. “What the president is trying to do is end a war,” Rubio said of Trump during heated testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

He may need a pope and a prime minister to help him. 

The post Could Pope Leo Be the Key Trump Needs for Russia–Ukraine? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Elon Musk Announces Significant Change to His Political Strategy Going Forward: ‘I’ve Done Enough’

In a move that could mildly sting the GOP’s short-term political aspirations, it appears megadonor Elon Musk will be tightening up his coffers.

Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, spoke at the Qatar Economic Forum Tuesday, outlining his newfound political strategy.

Independent journalist Sawyer Merritt posted the relevant clip on X:

NEWS: Elon Musk says he will spending “a lot less” in the future on politics. “I’ve done enough. If I see a reason to do political spending I will, but I don’t currently see a reason.” pic.twitter.com/5L2pjTzACA

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 20, 2025

“You’ve spent a lot more money on the last U.S. election that you envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago,” prefaced the forum host, while Musk was speaking via teleconference.

“Are you going to continue to spend at that kind of level on future elections?” she asked in follow-up.

“I think, in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk said.

“And why is that?” the host asked.

“I think I’ve done enough,” Musk answered.

“Is it because of blowback?”

Musk made it clear that the blowback mattered little to him — and that he wasn’t completely closing up his coffers.

“Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it,” Musk said. “I do not currently see a reason.”

“What about political influence beyond the U.S.?” the host again asked in follow-up. “How often do you speak to [Russian President Vladimir Putin]?”

Musk, making a face, answered, “I don’t speak to President Putin.”

He then recalled that he was on a video call with him about five years ago, but apart from that, Musk had never spoken to the Russian oligarch.

The tech mogul, clearly a bit annoyed, then turned it around on the questioning host.

“But why would you think I speak to President Putin?” Musk asked the host, this time, as an audible response arose from the audience. “Oh, I get it, you believe the legacy media.”

According to The Washington Post, Musk donated a whopping $288 million on the 2024 election to help get President Donald Trump elected.

That’s nothing to sneeze at, and the GOP will certainly feel a short-term sting from losing out on a chunk of it — especially during the 2026 midterms.

But by that same token, Musk is a relative newcomer to the political spending arena, and the Republican Party has won plenty of elections before the billionaire entered the fray.

Of note, Musk has recently spoken out about a more general move away from politics, not just political spending, with a late April announcement confirming as much.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Elon Musk Announces Significant Change to His Political Strategy Going Forward: ‘I’ve Done Enough’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Carlos Lehder Reveals: Fidel and Raúl Castro Facilitated Medellín Cartel Drug Trafficking from Cuba in the 1980s

Carlos Lehder, co-founder of the Medellín Cartel and former ally of Pablo Escobar, has dropped a bombshell that the left and progressives don’t want to hear: the Cuban regime, led by Fidel and Raúl Castro, was a key ally in trafficking cocaine to the United States in the 1980s.

This truth, revealed exclusively by Martí Noticias, shatters the image of Cuba as a supposed revolutionary model and exposes the corruption and cynicism of a government that conservatives have always denounced.

While progressives in the U.S. and Europe were busy praising Castro, this regime was helping flood the streets with drugs, lining their pockets and betraying their own people.

Lehder is direct in pointing out the culprits. In his memoirs and interviews, he states:

I met with Raúl Castro and Colonel Antonio de la Guardia to negotiate the logistics of these operations.

He details how Cuba opened its doors to the Medellín Cartel, setting up airstrips in Cayo Largo and charging for every kilo of cocaine that passed through the island. And he leaves no doubt about who was in charge:

Fidel Castro had to know; he was the orchestra conductor.

This isn’t gossip; it’s the testimony of a drug trafficker who lived the business from the inside and now exposes the hypocrisy of the Castros.

For Republicans, this comes as no surprise. We’ve always seen the Cuban regime as a nest of opportunists who crush their people while engaging in dirty business. While the left romanticizes Fidel and Raúl, Lehder reveals the reality:

I was allowed to use facilities in Cayo Largo, where airstrips were set up and a payment was agreed upon for each kilo of cocaine transported.

That drug made its way to the streets, killing young people, all under a government that progressives defended as a «victim» of imperialism. What irony.

This happened in the ’80s, during the height of the Cold War, when Cuba presented itself as an ideological enemy of the United States.

They didn’t just attack us with speeches; they also hit us by facilitating drug trafficking to destabilize us. The supposed egalitarian paradise was a platform for drug lords, and the left in the West blindly applauded, ignoring the misery and complicity of Havana.

The regime, as always, denies everything. But their excuses can’t cover up the truth that Lehder has laid bare. This is a blow to the progressive narrative that paints Cuba as a model to follow. We know you can’t trust a government that represses its people while profiting from drug trafficking.

The post Carlos Lehder Reveals: Fidel and Raúl Castro Facilitated Medellín Cartel Drug Trafficking from Cuba in the 1980s appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

WATCH: Scott Jennings Sends CNN Panel Into Tailspin by Defending Charges Against Dem Rep. LaMonica McIver (VIDEO)

Watching Scott Jennings, the lone conservative voice on CNN, blow the minds of his liberal colleagues never gets old.

This week, after charges were filed against Dem Rep. LaMonica McIver over her behavior at a New Jersey ICE facility, people on the left are going crazy. Have they forgotten that no one is above the law?

Scott Jennings defended the charges against her, pointing out that if she were a civilian rather than a politician the charges would have been worse.

The Daily Caller reports:

Republican strategist Scott Jennings sent CNN host Abby Phillip and two Democratic guests into a tizzy Monday while discussing the charges against Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey.

McIver was charged with assaulting and impeding federal agents for her involvement in a May 9 fracas outside the ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey, during which Democratic Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark was arrested, that also involved Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez Jr. of New Jersey. Jennings stepped in after Baraka claimed McIver would be “vindicated.”

“I mean, the videos are pretty clear, are they not? I mean, she’s shoving elbows, some punches. I mean, this is — this is —” Jennings said before Baraka interrupted by saying, “There’s a lot of pushing and shoving.”…

“Would a regular person. If they came and did that to a federal officer, get away with it?” Jennings asked, with Baraka responding, “A regular person?”

Watch the clip below:

Feds well within rights to charge Rep. McIver for assaulting law enforcement at ICE facility in Newark.

The video doesn’t lie – it ain’t no cheap fake! Amazing how much energy Dems put into illegal aliens. Week after week. They’d never fight that hard for the American people. pic.twitter.com/yjP0GiJSdr

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) May 20, 2025

How is Jennings wrong? The liberal hive mind on CNN just can’t deal.

The post WATCH: Scott Jennings Sends CNN Panel Into Tailspin by Defending Charges Against Dem Rep. LaMonica McIver (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

At Harvard, the ‘Cathedral’ Clashes with Curtis Yarvin

At Harvard, the ‘Cathedral’ Clashes with Curtis Yarvin

Increasingly, liberal elites engage, while legacy conservatives gatekeep.

“I have had incredible opportunities—immense privilege—here in the cathedral.”

This was Harvard Professor Danielle Allen’s satirical jab at prominent New Right theorist Curtis Yarvin in a debate on American democracy at the Harvard Faculty Club earlier this month.

“The cathedral,” a term coined by Yarvin in his blog Unqualified Reservations in 2007, is a way of describing the decentralized system of elite institutions—primarily academia, media, and government—that shape public opinion and enforce ideological conformity. In Yarvin’s innovative theory, the cathedral is the legitimizing and self-reinforcing architecture of the modern American oligarchy.

Yarvin’s opponent, Professor Allen, exemplifies the sort of polished figure that can be found in the upper quartile of the cathedral: She is an esteemed academic and professional expert in liberal democracy, with ambitions to run for Senate or governor in Massachusetts. Enjoying close relationships with the prestige media, she invited her personal friends at The Washington Post and The New York Times to attend the debate, perhaps to ensure favorable coverage.

As the debate kicked off, Allen riffed on the central themes of liberal democratic theory, noting, “[autocracies] have consistently violated freedom […] no absolute power is ever accountable. Absolute power inevitably corrupts, tramples on, persecutes freedom.”

At times, Allen slid into a routine that resembled a stump speech, heavy on personal biography and liberal applause lines like “empowerment is the bedrock for human thriving and wellbeing” and “we can talk about and appreciate human difference only because of human equality.” Allen is a respected intellectual, but these were not intellectually serious points—more sloganeering than political theorizing.

In response, Yarvin observed that Allen’s “abstractions” sounded like “Islamic history written by a Muslim” and critiqued her work as being “uncorrelated with the realities” on the ground. An example of the difference: While Allen believes in human equality as an ideal, Yarvin disputes its reality. 

Allen tied civic strength to pluralism, going so far as to call pluralism America’s founding ideal. Yarvin pushed back, “I don’t believe in pluralism. I believe in veritas,” he said, urging a revival of Harvard’s own founding value—the pursuit of truth.

However, the most interesting takeaway from the debate pertains not to its content, but rather, its sociological context: Liberal luminaries approaching top positions in the cathedral, like Allen, now feel the need to engage—or to be seen as engaging—with the New Right.

This trend of engaging the New Right extends beyond academia. For example, earlier this year, Gavin Newsom—the slick California governor with ambitions to run for president in 2028—launched a podcast, This is Gavin Newsom. Instead of opting for friendly conversations in the first episodes, he hosted MAGA influencers like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.

Why do some figures of the left want to be seen as being able to dialogue with the New Right? The answer likely lies in the failure of the cathedral in 2024. Former Vice President Kamala Harris lacked the competency to navigate combative long-form interviews, which hindered her presidential run. After getting tripped up by Fox’s Bret Baier over simple questions on the immigration issue just twenty days before the election, Harris’s team pressed pause. She withdrew from any further unedited, long-form interviews, unless in explicitly friendly territory—most prominently opting out of the Joe Rogan Experience.

Following Harris’s election loss in November, ambitious political leaders on the left have been trying to distinguish themselves by proving they can hold their ground in conversations with their opposition. This is appropriate, since positions of privilege should be assigned to individuals who can best their challengers, not sideline or suppress them. However, for decades now, liberal elites have refused to engage with their supposedly “far-right” challengers, instead signaling contempt for credible opposition and delivering soupy abstractions. They are out of practice and vulnerable.

One audience member at the Yarvin-Allen debate, Carter Stewart (Harvard ‘25), told me that Allen misperceived her own position of power and prestige and, as a result, lost the debate on democracy: “She argued that we can dismantle the oligarchy and achieve true democracy by getting rid of party primaries and so on, but she’s a part of the oligarchy, and true democracy is populism. It’s MAGA. It’s remigration. Be careful what you wish for.” 

Beyond Allen’s frequent reliance on guilt-by-association tactics, she made no effort to hide her disdain for Yarvin and her displeasure with the whole event. According to the moderator David Vega (Harvard ‘24), before the debate Allen told him, “I’m not shaking hands with [Yarvin]. Before or after.” And she did not. Yarvin thanked Allen in his opening statement, but the courtesy was not returned. Allen’s body language remained closed off throughout, especially toward Yarvin. She repeatedly objected to the speaker’s timing, pushing Vega to move to the next section of the debate. As soon as the program ended, she hurried out, whereas Yarvin stayed and socialized with the students.

At the close of the debate, which featured one of the foremost experts on democracy at perhaps the most hallowed academic institution on the planet, one had to wonder: Was this really the best argument that can be mustered against Yarvin?

While New Right ideas are gaining ground among young people, it remains unclear whether the cathedral yet feels the need to win the argument on substance. Allen’s rote performance makes more sense if you assume that her appearance in this format was not about changing minds or introducing new responses to the intellectual challenge posed by the New Right; it was about signaling openness to intellectual exchange and demonstrating a willingness to engage with taboo ideas.

To Allen’s credit, she did participate in actual intellectual exchange, however performative her own contribution, and her students now have a better idea of those dangerous right-wing ideas they keep hearing about. By contrast, several legacy conservative groups did not participate in the event. Leo Koerner, President of the Harvard Republican Club (HRC), was pleased with the debate, but expressed to me his “disappointment” that other conservative institutions with presence on campus refused to back the event, despite the obvious student enthusiasm.

But as legacy conservative institutions remain on the sidelines, opportunities are emerging for ambitious young people and new organizations on the right. The Harvard debate was organized as a collaboration between two new institutions, the John Adams Society, a student group refounded in 2014 and dedicated to philosophical inquiry and “the old Harvard,” and Passage Press, Yarvin’s publisher founded in 2022 by Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman.

In a message to me, Keeperman reflected on the event: 

Throughout the process everyone acted in good faith, just as one would hope. This is no small feat. An event like this would have been unthinkable even a couple years ago. The protester presence, despite some heated online chatter, amounted to nothing. Yarvin and Allen had a respectable debate and everyone went home happy.

Organizations like the John Adams Society and Passage Press are challenging the academy and other legacy institutions, which are increasingly plagued by timidity and unearned elitism. The prestige such institutions have inherited was never rooted in brands and titles, but in the hard-won excellence those labels were meant to signify. But increasingly, the heirs look small in their chairs.

Rather than stepping away from the cathedral, ambitious young people should follow the model of the John Adams Society and Passage Press, organizing resources and coordinating head-on challenges between the best of the New Right and the best of the left and prestige conservatism.  

Building this infrastructure will take creativity. Young people will need to selectively navigate the traditional stepping stones into the cathedral: pipelines into consulting, law, academia, finance, the media, and the like, challenging from within where possible, and exiting from these “finishing schools” at opportune times to build new political and cultural institutions.

Various disruptive dynamics continue to threaten the cathedral: loosening online censorship, advancements in artificial intelligence technology, and the bull-in-a-china-shop policies of the Trump presidency, to name a few. In the years ahead, pent-up cultural energy on the right could be unleashed, creating new, meaningful opportunities for young people. 

Keeperman advises on the path ahead:

A healthy ecosystem includes a lot of life. We need more people willing to risk capital and time to participate professionally in culture, rather than just as a hobby. The more people who take on risk—adding their resources and talents to this ecosystem—the stronger we will all be.

The post At Harvard, the ‘Cathedral’ Clashes with Curtis Yarvin appeared first on The American Conservative.