Alex Jones calls for Trump impeachment over Iran war
Source: Washington Examiner · Bias: Center Right
Summary
Conservative podcaster Alex Jones called for President Donald Trump‘s impeachment over the war in Iran and looming threat of a draft for the war. “This is a war. They’re getting the draft ready,” Jones said in a clip of his live show posted to X. “If this isn’t a war, nothing’s a war. I mean, […]
Alex Jones calls for Trump impeachment over Iran war
Center Right
Conservative podcaster Alex Jones called for President Donald Trump‘s impeachment over the war in Iran and looming threat of a draft for the war. “This is a war. They’re getting the draft ready,” Jones said in a clip of his live show posted to X. “If this isn’t a war, nothing’s a war. I mean, […]
With just 97 days until the midterm elections of 2026, Democrats are fired up, while Republicans are in the doldrums. That means Democrats have a good chance of retaking control of the House. It’s even possible (although less likely) that Dems will retake the Senate. One of the biggest uncertainties is what (if any) tactics Trump and his lapdogs will use to reduce the odds of a Democratic victory, especially in the House, where 435 seats are up for reelection. I’ve spent the last several days talking with election experts and political advisers. When I spoke with them last year, they were most worried about gerrymandering, restrictions on mail-in voting, voter IDs, and the demise of what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. They’re still worried about many of these things (Trump just filed with the Supreme Court an emergency request to allow his executive order that restricts voting by mail, after a federal appeals court blocked key parts of it over the weekend). But now, with 97 days to go, they’re most worried about the elections process. I’ve summarized their concerns below. It’s possible that Trump will do nothing to interfere in the elections, of course. It’s also possible that he’ll do everything the experts fear he might do. Please weigh in with your thoughts about what he’s most likely to do. 1. He’ll do nothing other than claim the elections are rigged. By this view, Trump will continue to sow doubts about the reliability and security of elections, especially in predominantly Democratic cities and states, but he won’t do more. Experts who hold this view tell me Trump doesn’t really care all that much about the midterm elections. His real goal is to continue to generate doubts about the 2020 election, so that when the history of that election is written, questions arise about whether Biden legitimately won. 2. He’ll deploy federal agents at voting places. Some experts I talked with believe Trump will try to suppress voting by deploying federal immigration agents or federalized National Guard in or around polling places in predominantly Democratic communities during early voting or on Election Day. Or he’ll deploy federal agents in official attire to hover near voters, questioning them about their citizenship and asking about voter fraud. It’s a federal crime for anyone — including federal, state, and local officials — to “intimidate, threaten, [or] coerce … any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of [that] other person to vote or to vote as he may choose.” Most states also prohibit voter intimidation. Additionally, federal law explicitly prohibits the presence of armed federal agents at the polls.But proving intimidation is difficult. Besides, by the time any lawsuit alleging intimidation were filed, voting would be long over. 3. He’ll try to stop state certifications.Alternatively, election experts tell me that Trump will stop states with predominantly Democratic voters or large Democratic cities from certifying the results in House races. (Election rules about certification vary by state, but most require election officials to certify by late November or early December.)In recent years, Trump has persuaded some local officials to use false claims of fraud or of noncitizens voting as justification to decline to certify election results. Since 2020, more than 30 local officials in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have refused to certify election results, usually in hopes of forestalling Democratic victories.Experts tell me that if there are similar delays and refusals after November 3, Democrats will go to court to force local officials to certify results. They’ll probably win these cases, as they have in the past. But such litigation is inevitably accompanied by delays and uncertainty that could give Trump and Republicans time to whip up public support for recounts, audits, or similar tactics we saw after the 2020 election.4. He’ll try to prevent the House clerk from assembling the roll of new members to be sworn in January 3, 2027. A final scenario that’s been described to me is that Trump will prevent the House clerk from assembling the roll of new members to be sworn in. Normally, on January 3, the clerk simply goes to the House chamber with the roll of newly elected representatives. Although the people on that roll are not yet official members of Congress, they elect a new speaker of the House. The winner of the race for speaker then swears in the rest of the members of the House, and they then begin conducting legislative business.But some experts predict that Trump will declare that the election is full of fraud and demand that Speaker Mike Johnson fire the current nonpartisan House clerk. Johnson could substitute a toady who produces a roll of new House members — one that includes Republicans in races that Democrats believe they won. What can Democrats then do?
President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy are set to announce renovation plans for Washington Dulles International Airport at 3 p.m. on Wednesday. The sweeping reconstruction plans are set to include new terminals and the elimination of the “people movers,” which are shuttles used to move travelers between terminals. HOUSE REPUBLICANS ‘IN THE STRONGEST […]
We speak to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, about Israel’s continued impunity from international law. Despite an International Criminal Court warrant out for his arrest, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently visited the White House to meet with President Donald Trump. While the United States is not a member state to the ICC, “It doesn’t mean that they have to extend protection to a fugitive from international law,” says Albanese, who joins widespread international calls for Netanyahu’s arrest. “The United States is actively contributing to make the international criminal law architecture that it has been building, from the Nuremberg trials up until now, crumble on our head.”
Albanese also comments on settler- and soldier-led “pogroms” in the occupied West Bank and calls out the complicity of the governments of Greece, Italy and France, which, despite being party to the ICC, authorized Netanyahu’s travel through their airspaces. “It looks small in the context of a genocide, but every action matters, as every crime matters and will be accounted for,” she says.
President Donald Trump appeared to endorse a theory that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett – whom he nominated in 2020 – is "clearly terrified of the left," sharing a prominent right-wing figure's post about her voting record on social media Wednesday.Conservative podcaster Tim Pool wrote that "Amy Coney Barrett is clearly terrified of the left" in response to a viral post on X highlighting her voting record and a supposed drop-off in her alignment with the bench's other conservative justices. Trump shared Pool’s post on his social media platform Truth Social without additional commentary.The apparent slight represents the latest example of Trump’s growing hostility toward the Supreme Court, including toward justices he nominated. While the Supreme Court has handed Trump an unprecedented amount of judicial victories, it's also handed down several notable defeats to his agenda, rejecting his bid to appeal a civil defamation case and ruling against most of his so-called reciprocal tariffs.The viral post Pool was responding to was authored by an anonymous right-wing account known as 'Roscoe Smith IV,' which claimed that Barrett’s rate of voting with the “conservative position” in “non-unanimous cases” fell from 81% “into the 50-60% range” following the court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson.The claim, however, was found inaccurate by X’s automatic fact-checking service known as “community notes,” which flagged publicly available data suggesting Barrett has voted alongside conservative justices at rates higher than the viral post suggested.
President Donald Trump's campaign to invalidate former President Joe Biden's pardons gave Anthony Fauci the ammunition to stonewall Senate Republicans at a Wednesday hearing, according to a pro-Trump former prosecutor.Bill Shipley, who represented dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, made the case on X.Fauci, 85, the former top government health official, had been forced by Republicans to appear before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which subpoenaed him over the pandemic response and COVID-19's origins, Politico reported.He repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right and did not answer a single question.As the hearing continued, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the committee chairman, made his frustration clear."It's against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress," Paul warned Fauci. "There will be repercussions for your refusal to testify."After Paul's threat, Fauci's attorney David Schertler tried to interject. But Paul had Capitol Police remove him from the hearing room, Politico noted.Schertler released a statement shortly after his removal."It was outrageous for Sen. Paul to exclude his counsel for counsel making a legitimate legal point," Schertler said. "It proves the baseless and vindictive nature of this proceeding and Rand Paul's personal vendetta against Dr. Fauci."Shipley argued that Trump's quest to void Biden's pardons had undermined the efforts of Senate Republicans."The threats to challenge his pardon — legally baseless IMO — give him cover to assert the Fifth since he can claim there is a potential that he might lose the benefit of the pardon and his testimony might then incriminate him," Shipley wrote on X.In December 2025, President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that all documents signed by Biden's autopen — a machine that replicates a signature — were "null, void, and of no further force or effect," explicitly including pardons.In March 2025, Trump had already targeted pardon recipients directly. "Anyone receiving 'Pardons,' 'Commutations,' or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect," Trump wrote.Republicans have argued that the Biden pardon actually stripped Fauci of the right to remain silent — because a pardon eliminates the threat of prosecution that the Fifth Amendment is designed to guard against, Politico reported. Fauci could, however, be prosecuted for any crimes he was accused of after the pardon was issued.Shipley argued Congress could fix the problem by writing Fauci a formal grant of immunity — a legal guarantee that his testimony cannot be used against him — using the exact language of Biden's pardon. If Fauci then refused to testify, he would face contempt charges, Shipley said.Fauci said in his opening statement he was convinced that Paul's goal was to entrap him, citing Paul's "obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution," Politico reported.
Preservationists are moving to block President Donald Trump's plan to test a controversial paint on the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, warning the project could cause irreparable damage to the historic landmark, according to a new report.In an emergency injunction request set to be filed Thursday, the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners argues that the administration's plan to paint four small test panels on the building's Gilded Age façade is being carried out without proper expert oversight, reported CNN."The testing concerns us because no one outside the White House knows who is conducting the testing or what protocols they're following, and qualified preservation experts have had no chance to weigh in," said Greg Werkheiser, the firm's founding partner.Trump has long criticized the EEOB's gray granite exterior, calling it "ugly" and a "really bad color," and has pushed to coat the building — either fully or partially — in white to better match the White House.His preferred solution is a mineral silicate paint he has privately refers to as "magic paint," which the administration claims will strengthen the stone and prevent water intrusion – but those claims are disputed by experts.In March, the plaintiffs presented findings from 25 unnamed specialists in historic restoration and silicate paint, who concluded the material doesn't chemically bond with granite, would cause permanent damage during the priming process, and would not actually strengthen or protect the stone as claimed. Preservationists also warn the paint could trap moisture inside the granite, accelerating deterioration rather than preventing it.Adding to the controversy, the administration has shifted oversight of the project away from the General Services Administration — which normally holds statutory authority over the 1888 building — to the White House's own Office of the Administration. Critics say this move could allow the project to sidestep the review process Congress mandated to protect historic federal properties.The administration maintains the panel testing doesn't commit it to full-scale painting and says it's still working through required environmental and historical reviews with two other federal bodies, the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission — both of which have been staffed with Trump allies and would need to approve any final plan.Beyond the paint test, the administration also plans a broader facade assessment, including extracting up to ten two-inch stone samples from deteriorating sections of the building for lab analysis. It remains unclear how quickly U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee overseeing the case, will rule on the injunction request once filed.
