Attorneys for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein filed requests for records retained by American intelligence agencies that could reflect an affiliation with the CIA or whether the National Security Agency retained information about him, according to documents released by the Justice Department.
This comes amid suspicions that Epstein’s operation, entangled with a circle of predominantly Rich-rooted financiers and influencers, served as a honeypot for agencies like the CIA, FBI, Mossad, and MI6, holding the republic hostage to hidden scandals.
The documents, part of a mandated disclosure from federal probes into the disgraced financier who died in custody in 2019 (officially a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound), detail requests from attorneys Martin Weinberg and Darren K. Indyke. In 2011, the CIA responded to Weinberg that it found no “open or otherwise acknowledged” affiliation records from 1999 to 2011, but neither confirmed nor denied classified connections, citing national security—a classic agency dodge that only deepens distrust in these opaque institutions. The NSA, in 2014, rejected Indyke’s FOIA appeal for 14 years of Epstein-related materials, again invoking secrecy to avoid exposing “intelligence sources and methods.”
📁 More Jeffrey Epstein
These denials align with persistent whispers of Epstein’s intelligence links: An undercover FBI informant reportedly believed he was a “co-opted Mossad agent,” citing calls involving attorney Alan Dershowitz (who denies wrongdoing) and former Israeli PM Ehud Barak. Epstein’s emails show him facilitating deals between Barak and UAE figures, and he boasted insider knowledge on events like a 2016 Turkish coup tip-off from Russia or a €500bn Euro bailout.
His Russian expatriate tech investor ties, scrutinized by U.S. intel, and meetings with William J. Burns (Biden’s CIA director, who regrets the encounters) add layers. Burns claims ignorance of Epstein’s crimes, but such “brief” diplomat chats raise eyebrows in a world where agencies like the CIA and Mossad allegedly exploit elite networks for leverage.
Trump, who once wished Maxwell “well” and hasn’t ruled out her pardon despite her recent plea for clemency in exchange for testimony (potentially clearing him and Clinton), gets a mixed nod: Pro for not rushing leniency amid base furor, anti for administration figures like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick facing resignation calls over Epstein island plans (he denies involvement).
Republicans like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna decry any mercy for “child predators,” yet the party’s oversight probes seem selective, avoiding deeper dives into bipartisan entanglements. Democrats, with Clinton’s island visits and jet rides, push for transparency but conveniently ignore their own vulnerabilities—both parties complicit in a system possibly blackmailed by Epstein’s web.
Poland’s reopened inquiry into Epstein-Russia links, dismissed by Moscow, exemplifies global ripples. As unredacted files trickle out, the blackmail theory persists: Was Epstein’s circle—heavy with Jewish heritage like his own and Maxwell’s—a front for controlling elites, with agencies turning a blind eye or worse? Until full disclosure, America remains ensnared.
More than $30 billion in taxpayer-funded welfare money intended to help America’s poorest families has instead beeen used as a ‘slush fund’ – diverted into programs ranging from college scholarships to government budget backfills.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, known as TANF, was created nearly three decades ago to provide direct financial support and services to struggling families.
Today, the program distributes about $16.5 billion annually in federal funds, supplemented by roughly $15 billion in state contributions.
But federal auditors and analysts say the program’s structure, which gives states broad control over spending with limited reporting requirements, has made it difficult to track how billions of dollars are ultimately used.
States often use TANF money to finance programs with only indirect connections to helping poor families, said Hayden Dublois of the Foundation for Government Accountability. He described the system’s lack of oversight as ‘fraud by design.’
‘There are very little, if any, safeguards,’ Dublois told the Wall Street Journal.
He estimates that roughly one in five TANF dollars, or about $6 billion each year, is misspent.
Then President Bill Clinton prepares to sign legislation in the Rose Garden of the White House overhauling America’s welfare system on Aug. 22, 1996. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Despite the program’s size, fewer families now receive direct cash assistance than in previous decades.
Federal data shows that about 849,000 families received monthly TANF payments in fiscal year 2025, down from approximately 1.9 million families in 2010.
Instead, states have increasingly directed funds to contractors, nonprofits and other government programs.
Nick Gwyn, a policy expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the shift reflects a broader transformation in how the program operates.
‘The program has drifted away from the core purpose of supporting families with very little income,’ Gwyn told the WSJ.
Audits conducted in multiple states have uncovered persistent problems with oversight and financial reporting.
In Louisiana, auditors found in 2024 that state officials failed to verify required work participation hours tied to TANF eligibility – the 13th straight year auditors flagged the same issue.
The audit also found gaps in documentation showing how TANF funds were distributed to contractors.
Even though employment numbers are back up, many people are worse off now because the government is no longer providing the cushion it did in 2020 and 2021. Rick Bowmer/AP
Louisiana officials said they agreed with the findings and would improve oversight.
In Connecticut, auditors reported that the state did not adequately review financial reports from more than 130 subcontractors receiving $53.6 million in TANF funds, making it difficult to confirm whether the money was spent on approved purposes.
Connecticut officials said they would strengthen compliance procedures.
Auditors also identified oversight problems in Florida, underscoring how weaknesses in TANF spending controls extended across states regardless of political leadership.
In Oklahoma, state auditor Cindy Byrd said her office has similarly found weak documentation tracking TANF expenditures.
State and federal records show TANF money has been used for a wide range of programs critics say fall outside the program’s intended mission.
These include college scholarship programs benefiting students from middle-income families, payments to antiabortion pregnancy centers, and child welfare programs already supported by other federal funding sources.
In Michigan, more than $750 million in TANF funds were directed into scholarship programs between 2011 and 2024, according to the Michigan League for Public Policy.
In Texas, federal data shows the state spent about $251 million in TANF funds in fiscal year 2023 on foster care and child welfare programs, while just 1.9 percent of TANF spending went directly to basic assistance payments.
Ann Flagg, who oversaw TANF at the federal level during the Biden administration, said the program’s layered structure made it difficult for federal officials to monitor spending.
‘Knowing that there were so many layers between the activity on the ground and the federal perch, there were many, many instances, I am sure, that funds were used in crazy ways,’ Flagg said.
The biggest scandal involving TANF funds took place in Mississippi. The embezzlement scheme saw at least $77 million of taxpayers’ money go toward frivolous things instead of helping those in need in America’s poorest state, according to authorities.
Instead of helping the less fortunate, cash was splurged on a lavish home in Jackson, cars, paying off a non-profit leader’s speeding ticket, and funding a new $5 million volleyball stadium at Mississippi University, among other items, authorities said.
A total of seven people have pleaded guilty to state or federal charges related to the fraud case, but former WWE wrestler Ted DiBiase Jr decided to plead not guilty and stand trial.
Concerns about misuse of public welfare funds have been amplified by a series of major fraud scandals in Minnesota, where federal and state investigators uncovered schemes involving millions of taxpayer dollars intended for child care and food programs.
Trump’s fraud crackdown was ignited by issues in Minnesota, but the state’s cases are unrelated to TANF.
In one case dating back to the 2010s, authorities found the operators of several daycare centers billed the government for services that were never provided, with surveillance footage appearing to show parents briefly bringing children to facilities before leaving immediately.
Prosecutors later said the scheme allowed providers to collect reimbursement payments despite not delivering actual care, and several individuals pleaded guilty to felony theft by swindling.
More recently, federal authorities have investigated what they described as a vast fraud network involving federally funded child nutrition programs.
FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau had ‘surged personnel and investigative resources to Minnesota’ to dismantle fraud schemes exploiting federal assistance programs.
Patel warned that such activity may represent ‘the tip of a very large iceberg,’ adding that ‘fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide.’
Federal watchdog agencies have also repeatedly warned about weaknesses in TANF oversight.
The Government Accountability Office found that audits in 37 states identified 162 deficiencies in financial oversight, including 56 considered severe.
The agency criticized what it described as ‘opaque accounting practices’ among groups receiving TANF funds.
The GAO has recommended since at least 2012 that Congress strengthen reporting requirements and expand federal oversight.
Those recommendations have not been enacted.
The ongoing fraud scandal in Minnesota dates back a decade as a 2015 video shows parents appearing to pretend to drop their children off at a phony daycare center
In testimony to Congress, GAO official Kathy Larin said states often use TANF funds precisely because of their flexibility.
‘States told us they use TANF because it’s more flexible and can cover costs not eligible’ under other federal programs, she said.
TANF was created in 1996 as part of sweeping welfare reform legislation signed by President Bill Clinton, who described the measure as ‘ending welfare as we know it.’
The reforms replaced an open-ended federal entitlement with block grants, giving states significant authority over spending decisions.
Supporters credited the program with reducing welfare dependency, but critics say the system created incentives for states to redirect funds away from direct aid.
Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who helped draft the legislation, said the program has drifted from its original goals.
TANF Trends and Its Oversight—Welfare Assistance Continues to Shift Away from Cash Assistance
‘Today all states are in de facto violation of the law’ because they aren’t spending all TANF funds on the intended purposes outlined in the original law, Rector said.
He added that both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for failing to enforce stricter oversight.
The Trump administration has recently moved to freeze billions in federal welfare-related grants to several states over concerns about fraud and misuse, including funds tied to TANF.
Several states challenged the move in court, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze.
Despite growing scrutiny and repeated warnings from auditors and watchdog agencies, Congress has not enacted any comprehensive reforms.
February 5, 2026 – Washington, D.C. – In a bold push to streamline the federal bureaucracy and ensure alignment with executive priorities, the Trump administration is advancing a long-awaited regulation that could make it significantly easier to dismiss up to 50,000 career federal employees. The move, which revives a concept first floated during President Donald Trump’s first term, aims to reclassify high-ranking policy-influencing positions into a new category stripped of traditional civil service protections, allowing for quicker removals based on performance or policy execution.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is set to finalize a rule creating what it’s calling “Schedule Policy/Career,” a designation for senior roles involved in policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating functions. This category, affecting roughly 2% of the federal workforce, would exempt these employees from the cumbersome procedural safeguards that have long made firing federal workers a protracted ordeal. According to insiders familiar with the matter, the regulation cleared its White House review late last week, paving the way for imminent publication in the Federal Register—a key step toward implementation.
This initiative isn’t new; it echoes Trump’s 2020 executive order establishing “Schedule F,” which sought to address what the administration views as an entrenched “deep state” resistant to presidential directives. That order was swiftly rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021, but Trump reinstated it on his first day back in office in January 2025, with modifications including the name change to avoid past legal pitfalls. OPM’s draft rule, released last April, estimated the impact on up to 50,000 positions, focusing on those where employees wield significant influence over policy outcomes.
From a right-of-center perspective, this is a welcome crackdown on government bloat. Trump has repeatedly argued that the federal government is inefficient and overstaffed, with career bureaucrats often prioritizing job security over taxpayer value. “This effort ensures taxpayer dollars support a workforce that delivers efficient, responsive and high-quality services,” OPM Director Scott Kupor stated last month, emphasizing the need to hold underperformers accountable. Supporters see it as draining the swamp—removing obstacles to bold reforms in areas like immigration enforcement, energy deregulation, and economic policy.
Critics, including federal employee unions and Democratic lawmakers, decry the move as a thinly veiled loyalty purge. They argue it undermines the merit-based civil service system established over a century ago to prevent politicization of government roles. “This amounts to a loyalty test for federal workers, threatening the jobs of those who aren’t Trump supporters,” said representatives from groups like the National Treasury Employees Union. Lawsuits are already brewing, with challenges filed as early as January 2025 against the related executive order, and more expected upon the rule’s finalization.
The administration counters that the rule is narrowly tailored to address “poor job performance or unwillingness to execute the administration’s policy agenda.” OPM officials have highlighted frustrations from agency supervisors who report “great difficulty removing employees for poor performance or misconduct.” Under current laws, firing a federal employee can involve lengthy appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), often dragging on for months or years. The new category would shift these roles to “at-will” status, similar to political appointees, enabling expeditious terminations without such hurdles.
This fits into Trump’s broader agenda of shrinking the federal footprint. In his second term, the administration has already taken aggressive steps, including reductions in force (RIFs) at various agencies. By October 2025, approximately 300,000 federal employees had exited the workforce—about 12.5% of the total—through layoffs, voluntary resignations, and attrition. Notable cuts have hit departments like Health and Human Services (HHS), which laid off 10,000 employees in April 2025, leading to a 25% staff reduction overall. Even science agencies haven’t been spared, with thousands trimmed through deferred resignations and targeted probationary reviews.
A new executive order last week further tightens the screws on probationary employees, requiring managerial sign-off for permanent status rather than automatic conversion. This, combined with Schedule Policy/Career, signals a comprehensive overhaul aimed at injecting accountability into a system long criticized for insulating mediocrity.
While left-leaning outlets portray this as authoritarian overreach, the reality is more pragmatic: Federal employment has ballooned, with staff often outlasting multiple administrations and embedding policies contrary to voter mandates. Trump’s first-term experiences, marked by leaks and resistance, underscored the need for such reforms. As he stated on social media, the rule will “allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or undermine the democratic process by intentionally subverting presidential directives.”
The proposed rule explicitly prohibits hiring or firing based on political affiliation, addressing concerns of discrimination. Yet, opponents fear it could chill dissent, turning nonpartisan experts into yes-men. Public comments on the April draft numbered nearly 4,000, many lambasting it on ethical grounds. Legal battles may delay implementation, as seen with a federal judge’s pause on similar actions at agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last year.
Still, for conservatives weary of endless bureaucracy, this is progress. It empowers elected leaders to enact the will of the people without sabotage from within. As Trump transitions into his second year, expect more such efficiency drives—potentially reshaping the federal government for generations.
he Biden-era FBI made more than $100,000 in payments to informants who were members of an anonymous group of tech sleuths known as the “Sedition Hunters” to gather and analyze video evidence in the January 6 Capitol riot — echoing the bureau’s reliance on paid FBI informant and British ex-spy Christopher Steele in 2016.
Just the News reported this week that the FBI made payments to a number of so-called “sedition hunters” as confidential human sources (CHS) as part of the January 6 Capitol riot and Arctic Frost probes despite the online network’s significant anti-Trump pronouncements and known ties to foreigners.
The payments are due to be disclosed by FBI Director Kash Patel to Congress along with acknowledged concerns that the Christopher Wray-run bureau’s approval of certain members of the Sedition Hunters as confidential human sources may have violated bureau policies concerning informant bias, informant secrecy, foreign influence, and contracting transparency, officials said.
Reminiscent of the ill-fated “Crossfire Hurricane” lawfare campaign
The revelations of source payments are certain to revive FBI concerns among Republicans that date back to the now-discredited Crossfire Hurricane probe, where agents used Steele as a CHS to pursue unsubstantiated allegations of Trump colluding with Russia. This was despite Steele’s foreign connections, his clear anti-Trump bias, and his work as a contractor for the campaign law firm of Trump’s main 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton. Wray had promised significant reforms in the wake of the 2016 debacle at the bureau.
Steele was eventually terminated in November 2016 as an FBI informant for violating his confidentiality requirements as a confidential human source, disclosing his role with the bureau, and making unauthorized disclosures to the media.
Government officials said a half decade later, the bureau may have entered into another troubling relationship by treating members of the Sedition Hunters as informants in a new Trump probe when, in fact, they were essentially performing computer analysis contract work identifying January 6 defendants around the Capitol and clearly expressed dislike for Trump.
FBI burned by decision to deploy the Steele Dossier against Trump
DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz uncovered huge flaws with the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation in a December 2019 report, finding at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants targeting former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. Horowitz also criticized the “central and essential” role of Steele’s debunked dossier in the FBI’s politicized FISA surveillance. Steele, a years-long FBI CHS, had been hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was being paid by Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias. Elias was later fined for “misleading” filings to the court in his advocacy for Democratic Party candidates.
The DOJ watchdog also said Steele’s alleged main source — Russian national Igor Danchenko — “contradicted the allegations of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’ in” Steele’s dossier. Danchenko was made an FBI CHS for years after 2016, up until his indictment by now-former special counsel John Durham.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Horowitz’s report noted that Steele’s FBI interview “highlighted discrepancies between Steele’s presentation of information in the election reporting and the views of his Primary Sub-source” — Danchenko — and “revealed bias against Trump.”
Stefan Halper was a Pentagon consultant and academic, and he, along with Steele, was used as a CHS by bureau agents to build the politicized Crossfire Hurricane case against Trump and his advisers during the end of the 2016 election and the beginning of Trump’s first term in office.
Wray repeatedly promised serious CHS reform inside the bureau
Horowitz wrote in a November 2019 report that “the FBI’s vetting process for CHSs, known as validation, did not comply with the Attorney General Guidelines.”
“We also found deficiencies in the FBl’s long-term CHS validation reports which are relied upon by FBI and Department of Justice officials in determining the continued use of a CHS,” the DOJ watchdog said. “Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs.”
Wray quickly spoke with the press after the release of the December 2019 report, with the Associated Presswriting that “Wray said the FBI would make changes to how it handles confidential informants.”
He also sent a letter to Horowitz that month where he assured the DOJ inspector general that the FBI was fixing its CHS process.
“We are making significant changes to how the FBI manages its Confidential Human Source Program. Many FBI investigations rely on human sources, but the investigative value derived from CHS-provided information rests in part on the CHS’s credibility, which demands rigorous assessment of the source,” the now-former FBI chief wrote. “The modifications we are making to how the FBI collects, documents, and shares information about CHSs will strengthen our assessment of the information these sources are providing.”
Wray also sent a letter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in January 2020, where he laid out further plans to reform the bureau’s handling of informants.
The now-former FBI director said that one “FISA-related Corrective Action I have directed will require that all information known at the time of a FISA request and bearing on the reliability of a CHS whose information is used to support the FISA application is captured as part of the FISA Request Form and verified by the CHS handler.”
Wray said that “in coordination with the FBI’s Directorate of Intelligence, the working group is developing a new CHS Questionnaire, which will be used as an addendum to the FISA Request Form, identifying the categories of source information (e.g., payment information, criminal history) that [the Office of Intelligence] should be informed of when preparing FISA applications that rely on CHS reporting. Completion of this Corrective Action will require consultation with external partners, finalization of the CHS Questionnaire, and the training of FBI personnel.”
Wray also insisted to the Senate in March 2021 that the FBI was fixing its CHS process.
“We accepted all of the findings and recommendations in the Inspector General’s report. I ordered, at the time, over 40 corrective actions to go above and beyond the recommendations of the inspector general’s report, and those have been implemented,” he said. “Those include everything from strengthening our procedures to ensure accuracy and completeness, to make sure the court gets all the information it’s supposed to, changes in our protocols for CHS, confidential human sources, training changes.”
Steele and Danchenko exemplified the politicized nature of FBI’s lawfare
The FBI used Steele’s discredited dossier to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants and renewals targeting Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and fired FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed to include the dossier’s baseless collusion allegations in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election meddling in the 2016 election.
During all this, the FBI concealed the extent of Steele’s anti-Trump biases from the FISA Court. Just the News revealed last year that a declassified House Intelligence report showed the Steele Dossier was directly cited in the highly classified version of the ICA on Russian meddling.
Horowitz wrote in 2019 that “the FBI was aware of the potential for political bias in the Steele election reporting from the outset of obtaining it.”
Ex-DOJ official Bruce Ohr, who served as a conduit between Steele and the FBI even after the former MI6 agent was cut off as a confidential human source, told the bureau by late November 2016 that Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. president.” The DOJ watchdog noted that during a 2017 interview with the FBI, Steele described Trump as his “main opponent” and that an FBI analyst said this was “clear bias.”
FBI analyst Brian Auten, who interviewed Steele’s alleged main source, Russian lawyer Igor Danchenko, in early 2017 and was there when the Justice Department set up a partial immunity agreement with Danchenko, was among the FBI employees who interviewed Steele in Rome in early October 2016 as the FBI sought more details on the dossier. Auten revealed in court that the FBI had offered Steele an incentive of up to $1 million if he could prove the allegations of collusion in his dossier and if the evidence led to prosecutions, but Auten said the former MI6 agent was unable to corroborate any of his dossier claims.
FBI notes of a January 2017 interview with Danchenko showed he told the bureau he “did not know the origins” of some Steele claims and “did not recall” other dossier information. Nevertheless, Danchenko was put on the FBI’s payroll as a confidential human source from March 2017 to October 2020 before he was charged in November 2021 with five counts of making false statements to the bureau. The FBI agent assigned to be the handler for Danchenko testified that he sought to have the bureau pay Danchenko more than $500,000.
Danchenko was found not guilty at trial.
FBI failed to scrutinize Steele until after dossier deployed
Just the News also revealed in 2025 that declassified records released last year also included a “Human Source Validation Report” (HSVR) by the FBI’s Validation Management Unit (VMU) related to Steele.
The VMU assessed in 2017 that the bureau had only “medium confidence” that Steele had contributed to the FBI’s criminal program, in part because “Steele’s reporting has been minimally corroborated.” The unit said that, despite Steele working for the bureau for years, including on the high-profile Trump-Russia collusion investigation, “this is the first HSVR completed on Steele.”
The FBI unit said that, in addition to baseless collusion claims, Steele had provided the bureau with information on a bribery scandal related to FIFA and Russia, a cyberattack from China, and “Weapons of Mass Destruction issues.”
The VMU also claimed that “during Steele’s operation, VMU found no issues regarding his or her reliability” and that “VMU did not locate any information to suggest Steele fabricated information during the operation.”
Yet declassified footnotes from Horowitz’s report showed that “a 2015 report concerning oligarchs written by the FBI’s Transnational Organized Crime Intelligence Unit (TOCIU) noted that from January through May 2015, ten Eurasian oligarchs sought meetings with the FBI, and five of these had their intermediaries contact Steele.” The TOCIU report “noted that Steele’s contact with five Russian oligarchs in a short period of time was unusual and recommended that a validation review be completed on Steele because of this activity,” Horowitz said.
According to Horowitz, the FBI’s Validation Management Unit “did not perform such an assessment on Steele until early 2017” — well after the bureau had deployed the dossier in the FISA court and in the 2017 intelligence community assessment on alleged Russian meddling in the election.
The Horowitz report’s declassified footnotes also said that some of the Steele dossier’s claims about now-former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen were “part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.” The footnote also added that a U.S. intelligence community report concluded that the Steele dossier’s baseless and salacious claims about Trump at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow were the result of Russian intelligence who “infiltrate[d] a source into the network” managed by Steele.
Steele and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence, worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in 2016, allegedly helping recover millions of dollars the Russian oligarch claimed Paul Manafort had stolen from him. Steele sought help in this anti-Trump research effort from Fusion GPS, the founders of the company wrote, and Fusion GPS hired Steele soon after.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2020 report assessed that “the Russian government coordinates with and directs Deripaska on many of his influence operations.” The report found “multiple links between Steele and Deripaska” and “indications that Deripaska had early knowledge of Steele’s work” and said Steele’s relationship with Deripaska “provid[ed] a potential direct channel for Russian influence on the dossier.”
Being an FBI informant was lucrative for Russiagate figure Stefan Halper
Just the News also reported last year that declassified documents show that Stefan Halper, a key FBI informant in the widely-debunked Russia collusion case, was paid nearly $1.2 million over three decades and was motivated in part by “monetary compensation” — and that he continued snitching for the bureau even after agents concluded he told them an inaccurate story about future Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
FBI agents ultimately deemed Halper’s accounts to be “not plausible” and “not accurate”, but the bureau proceeded to investigate Flynn, kept paying Halper and continued to vouch for his veracity as a confidential human source codenamed “Mitch,” the memos show. A March 2017 memo showed the FBI’s Validation Management Unit (VMU) wrote that it “assesses it is likely HALPER is suitable for continued operation, based on his or her authenticity, reliability, and control.”
The VMU’s review from May 2013 to March 2017 recommended that the FBI continue using Halper as a source despite FBI agents working the Flynn case determining that he had provided them incorrect information. Nonetheless, the bureau unit also contended that “during the period of review, VMU found no derogatory issues regarding MITCH’s reliability” despite later admitting that “VMU notes there is no corroboration concerning MITCH’s reporting. Due to the singular nature of his or her access, VMU was unable to locate corroboration concerning MITCH’s reporting.”
That memo made no mention in its unredacted portions of the concerns about the account Halper gave about Flynn and Lokhova, which were confirmed in a memo from William Barnett, the FBI agent who handled the retired Flynn’s case in 2016 and 2017.
Patel: “A stunning abuse of bureau authorities”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has continued to push for more answers related to the presence of FBI confidential informants during the Capitol riot.
It is likely that the revelations by Just the News related to the FBI’s use of paid “Sedition Hunter” informants to provide assistance in identifying January 6-related suspects will lead to further scrutiny of the bureau’s CHS program.
“The American people deserve the truth about how the FBI was weaponized against them. Paying openly anti-Trump activists to identify Americans using questionable technology is a stunning abuse of bureau authorities and a clear violation of longstanding informant rules,” Patel said in a statement to Just the News on Tuesday.
“Under my leadership, the FBI will fully disclose these actions to Congress and ensure the bureau never again serves partisan or political ends instead of the Constitution,” the FBI chief added.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a courtroom moment that underscores President Donald Trump’s unyielding commitment to holding the deep state accountable, former FBI Director James Comey entered a not guilty plea Wednesday to federal charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The 64-year-old Comey, once a symbol of bureaucratic overreach in the eyes of conservatives, now faces a January trial that could finally deliver the justice many on the right have demanded since his role in the Russia hoax unraveled America’s trust in its premier law enforcement agency.
Comey’s arraignment before U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff in federal court here marked the first high-profile reckoning in what Trump has vowed will be a broader purge of Washington insiders who weaponized government against him. Towering at 6-foot-8, Comey stood stoically beside his legal team, nodding along as his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, formally entered the plea. The hearing, devoid of cameras per court rules, lasted mere minutes, but its implications ripple far beyond the marble halls of Alexandria—potentially restoring faith in a Justice Department long hijacked by partisan actors.
Trump, fresh off his triumphant 2024 victory, has made no secret of his pursuit of Comey. In a fiery Truth Social post last month, the president labeled the ex-director a “dirty cop” and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite charges against “perceived adversaries” like Comey before the statute of limitations expired. “These were corrupt, radical Left Democrats… They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they’ve done is terrible,” Trump declared in a video shared by his campaign’s War Room account, framing the indictment as a necessary corrective to years of abuse. For conservatives, this isn’t retribution—it’s restitution, a long-overdue dismantling of the swamp that targeted Trump from day one.
The two-count indictment, unsealed last month, stems from Comey’s September 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he was grilled by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over alleged leaks tied to the FBI’s investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails and potential Russian ties to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Cruz zeroed in on discrepancies between Comey’s 2017 sworn statements—where he denied ever authorizing an FBI subordinate to serve as an anonymous media source—and accounts from his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe, about a pre-election leak to The Wall Street Journal on the Clinton probe.
“One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth?” Cruz pressed, to which Comey replied, “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized.” Prosecutors now allege this was a bald-faced lie: Comey “then and there knew” he had greenlit an unidentified “Person 3″—widely reported to be Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman—to anonymously brief reporters on sensitive FBI matters, including a memo detailing Comey’s interactions with then-President-elect Trump.
Richman, who has confirmed receiving such a memo from Comey in 2017, was subpoenaed earlier this year, but leaks from the prosecution reveal mounting cracks in the case. ABC News reported that Richman told investigators Comey explicitly instructed him not to speak to the media on multiple occasions, potentially rendering the star witness “problematic” for the government. A prior probe found “insufficient evidence” of wrongdoing, yet charges proceeded under intense White House pressure—just days before the five-year statute ran out.
Each felony carries up to five years in prison, a stark reminder that no one is above the law—not even the man who once wielded the FBI like a political cudgel. Comey’s history speaks volumes: His last-minute Clinton email disclosure arguably handed Trump the 2016 win, only for him to pivot to the debunked Russia collusion narrative, leaking memos to trigger Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. Trump fired him in May 2017, calling him a “real nut job,” and Comey has since morphed into a shrill Trump critic, penning books and posting cryptic social media barbs—like the infamous “86 47” tweet Republicans decried as a veiled assassination call, for which he later apologized.
The hearing unfolded with procedural efficiency, but not without tension. Fitzgerald, the esteemed Enron prosecutor who called representing Comey “the honor of my life,” pushed for a “speedy trial” while securing a Jan. 5, 2026, date—outside the speedy trial clock at both sides’ request, citing the case’s “complexity” involving classified materials. Judge Nachmanoff, a Bush appointee, expressed skepticism—”This does not appear to me to be a complex case”—but relented, ordering the DOJ to expedite security clearances for the defense. “There should be no reason this case gets off course because of some classified information,” he warned.
Comey, fidgeting occasionally with hands clasped under his chin, shared the room with family: daughter Maurene, a fired Southern District of New York prosecutor now suing over her dismissal (tied, she claims, to her father’s feud with Trump), and son-in-law Troy A. Edwards Jr., who quit his national security post post-indictment. No detention was sought; Comey walked free on his own recognizance.
Behind the scenes, the prosecution’s origins reek of the very politicization Comey once decried. Erik Siebert, the career U.S. attorney who deemed evidence insufficient, resigned under White House fire. Trump installed Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney with zero prosecutorial experience, who signed the indictment solo—unusual, per legal experts—until two North Carolina DOJ lawyers jumped on Tuesday. A grand jury nixed a third charge, and reports suggest Halligan ignored internal memos urging against indictment.
The defense isn’t pulling punches. Fitzgerald signaled motions by Oct. 20 alleging “vindictive prosecution” at Trump’s behest, challenging Halligan’s appointment, grand jury abuse, and “outrageous government conduct.” Oral arguments are slated for Nov. 19 and Dec. 9. “Comey could become the poster child for selective prosecution,” a former Eastern District prosecutor told Politico, unwittingly bolstering the right’s narrative that the case is ironclad despite left-wing bleating.
Hours after indictment, Comey posted a video defiantly proclaiming innocence: “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system… I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial.” Conservatives see through the theater—Comey’s “confidence” mirrors the arrogance that fueled his downfall.
This saga is the opening salvo in Trump’s retribution era, with probes underway against New York AG Letitia James, ex-advisor John Bolton, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). On the right, it’s vindication: The man who orchestrated the Russia witch hunt now faces the music, potentially paving the way for Mueller’s full exposure. Democrats cry “authoritarianism,” but as Trump allies like Cruz note, it’s poetic justice—Comey leaked to kneecap a president; now truth leaks back.
Markets, ever attuned to political stability, reacted bullishly. The Dow climbed 1.2% Wednesday, buoyed by signals of a DOJ purge that could end regulatory overreach stifling growth. Political betting sites like PredictIt saw odds of a Comey conviction surge to 68%, reflecting investor bets on Trump’s mandate restoring institutional trust—and unleashing an economic boom unburdened by deep-state sabotage. Bond yields dipped slightly, as fears of politicized prosecutions eased amid vows of due process.
From a conservative vantage, Comey’s plea is just another chapter in the tall tale of a self-righteous bureaucrat who fancied himself above reproach. His leaks didn’t just undermine Trump; they eroded public faith in the FBI, fueling years of chaos. Trump’s pressure? Not meddling—it’s leadership, demanding the impartiality Comey never delivered. As the January trial looms—expected to wrap in two to three days—the nation watches not for drama, but deliverance. The deep state crumbles, one indictment at a time, and with it, the shadows that dimmed America’s promise. Comey may tower physically, but his legacy shrinks daily.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
