Many people were befuddled when I shared the statement that FBI Director Kash Patel really needs to get his arms around his FBI agency quickly, because operatives inside the FBI are currently working to attack other cabinet level national security and intelligence officials. One of those examples is outlined in this interview by Kristi Noem.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem notes how officials within the government (I’m specifically citing the FBI as the origin) have worked to conduct surveillance on her team, planted spyware on her devices and monitor the activity within the Dept of Homeland Security.

Watch this interview with DHS Secretary Noem and you will get a more comprehensive understanding of what her and all the other National Security officials (DNI, NCTC, DHS, ICE, FEMA, etc.) are having to deal with. WATCH:

Patrick Bet-David sits down with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to discuss her claim that “they spied on me,” the discovery of a secret DHS file room, the fallout surrounding El Mencho and cartel operations, and efforts to identify and remove alleged deep state actors inside the Department of Homeland Security.

TIME STAMPS:
00:00 – Show intro
04:54. – South Dakota Governor Journey
13:20 – China Threat Rising
18:09 – DHS Files & Spy Concerns

(more…)

Yesterday the alarming story surfaced of Biden-era FBI officials working for Jack Smith conducting phone record surveillance on Kash Patel and Susie Wiles in 2022 and 2023 when Donald Trump was organizing his second term candidacy.

Beyond the initial element of subpoenas for Patel and Wiles phone records was an alarming assertion made inside the Reuters report stating:

“[…] In 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. Wiles’ attorney was aware that the call was being recorded, and consented to it, but Susie Wiles was not.” (source)

That statement is shocking on many levels.  There is no legal mechanism for the FBI to gain wiretap authority to record a phone conversation between a lawyer and his client.  Every legal cannon that underpins the American legal system forbids such an intrusion.

Any lawyer who would consent to his client being recorded by the FBI while keeping the client unaware would be disbarred and lose their license.

No judge or legal authority would even consider approving a warrant for such a wiretap, and inside the judiciary any of the content from such a violative breech would be immediately nullified in any capacity.

Reporting by Marc Caputo of Vice News now reflects the lawyer categorically denying being aware of his conversation with Susie Wiles being intercepted or recorded.  “The lawyer representing Susie Wiles at the time of this incident categorically denies he allowed his client to be recorded by the FBI w/out her consent.  I understand she believes him & that the Biden-era FBI may have lied about it.  Here’s what the lawyer told me: “If I ever pulled a stunt like that I wouldn’t – and shouldn’t – have a license to practice law. I’m as shocked as Susie.” (source)

As the story now rests. If the FBI does indeed have a recording of a private phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney, the recording itself could have only come from an illegal wiretap by rogue elements of the FBI working in coordination with Jack Smith.  No judge would ever approve of such a violative action.

If such a recording and wiretap does factually exist, Jack Smith and the top elements of the former DOJ (Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco) together with FBI leadership Director Christopher Wray, now have a lot to answer to.  Again, that is if the predicate claim is factual; if a recording of such an intercept does factually exist.

This is certainly a story to watch closely and see who exactly is asking the right questions to get the right answers.

(more…)

The summary of the story basically circles back to that NSA/CIA whistleblower intercept they previously were using to attack DNI Tulsi Gabbard.  Now that the whistleblower’s lawyer (same lawyer as last CIA whistleblower, Ciaramella) has leaked the subject of the conversation was Jared Kushner the democrats really want to know the details.

Two foreign nationals (unknown countries) were discussing the U.S. position toward Iran. In their conversation they talked about Jared Kushner. Their conversation was intercepted by NSA/CIA using an “exceptionally sensitive surveillance method.”  The intercept was written, evaluated and determined to be “gossip” but given to the ODNI, Gabbard.

The whistleblower was upset the intercept was not shared with the larger intelligence apparatus. Thus, they were angry at Gabbard.  The ODNI followed the distribution for the whistleblower complaint, but not the underlying intercepted details of the conversation.

The White House has now asserted “executive privilege” over the content of the intercept, thereby bolstering the position of not sharing what was previously determined to be gossip.  The DNI was asked for the details, and Gabbard has told the Democrats the White House has asserted privilege.  The House and Senate Intelligence committee democrats are now big mad they don’t get to read the gossip.

(VIA WSJ) – WASHINGTON—The Trump administration told Congress it won’t share with lawmakers the classified intelligence that led to a whistleblower complaint against U.S. spy chief Tulsi Gabbard, citing presidential claims of executive privilege.

(more…)

President Trump captured a fantastic moment with the gold medal winning USA Mens Hockey team during his state of the union remarks.  After the Olympic team spent time in the White House earlier in the day, the team was introduced during the state of the union with thunderous applause and chants of “USA, USA” from the chambers.

Even a few of the communists in the audience stood to applaud the team as President Trump highlighted his remarks about their success and the very unique nature of the team as a whole.  A very American moment.

.

(more…)

During the State of the Union address, President Trump surprised the audience with the introduction of helicopter pilot Eric Slover who was severely wounded in his legs during the successful raid in Venezuela to capture Nicholas Maduro.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Eric Slover was repeatedly struck in the leg and hip by hostile fire as he was preparing to land. As his helicopter approached the target area, Venezuelan defense systems opened fire, and Slover was struck four times in the leg. The Chinook was also hit, but still flyable.

So, he kept flying. “One bullet after another. He absorbed four agonizing shots, shredding his leg into numerous pieces,” President Trump noted. Despite his wounds, Slover brought the aircraft and his team back to safety. Slover maintained control of the aircraft despite his wounds, executed the insertion, and ensured his crew successfully executed their objectives. He then piloted the aircraft back to the USS Iwo Jima. Within three hours, another team of helicopters would exfiltrate the assault team.

Slover is still recovering from his wounds and was standing with the assistance of a walker when he received the award. A total of seven Americans were wounded in the operation.

.

(more…)

Tonight at 9:00pm ET, President Donald Trump will be delivering the first State of the Union speech of his second term in office.  RSBN begins coverage at 7:00pm, with the speech scheduled to broadcast live on all broadcast and cable channels.

UPDATE: VIDEO & Transcript ADDED

[Transcript] – “Well, thank you very much, everybody. It’s really an honor. Speaker Johnson. Vice President Vance. First lady of the United States. Second lady of the United States.

Members of Congress and my fellow Americans, our nation is back, bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.

Less than five months from now, our country will celebrate an epic milestone of American history: the 250th anniversary of our glorious American independence. This July 4, we will mark two-and-a-half centuries of liberty and triumph, progress and freedom in the most incredible and exceptional nation ever to exist on the face of the Earth.”

(more…)

After Special Counsel Jack Smith was dispatched by Judge Aileen Cannon, his team continued to organize materials to frame the hit against an incoming Trump administration.  Judge Cannon calls out this wrongdoing as part of her ruling to keep all the records sealed.  [Ruling pdf Here]

[SOURCE]

“While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work,” Cannon wrote, “it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

(more…)

Speaking to the Economic Club of Dallas, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines what technical procedures the Trump administration will trigger now to retain tariff authority.  As anticipated Bessent outlines section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs, and Section 122 tariffs.  WATCH (prompted):

Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

(more…)

President Donald Trump delivers remarks and holds a media availability following the Supreme Court 6-3 decision on the meaning of the word “regulate.”  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The frustrating issue with the Supreme Court ruling [SEE HERE] is not simply the legal logic applied, which essentially boils down to actionable definitions surrounding the word “regulate,” but also the high court’s seeming blindness to the “emergency” part of the reason IEEPA was used.

Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation.  The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.

Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA.  Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.

The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation.

In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs.  This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.

It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake.  These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority.  Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

(more…)