Monday, February 9, 2026

Trump Can End America’s Immigration Chaos — If Congress Is Forced to Act

Trump Can End America’s Immigration Chaos — If Congress Is Forced to Act

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Washington treats America’s immigration crisis as if new laws are required, even though the real problem has always been accountability. The truth is simple: we already have laws and a border. For decades, Washington refused to enforce them. President Trump is the first president in a generation to draw that line and enforce the law without blinking, restoring resolve to the Oval Office.

As the 2026 midterms approach, President Trump is in a position no modern president has held, a rare opportunity to permanently fix America’s decades-long immigration dysfunction. This moment did not arise from a policy workaround or legal maneuver. It is the direct result of the collapse of every escape hatch Congress relied on to avoid responsibility. The era of lawmakers outsourcing immigration reform to executive orders, activist courts, and bureaucratic non-enforcement is over.

The failure is clearest with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). After Congress refused to act, the Obama administration created the program by executive action in 2012, granting temporary deportation protection and work permits to certain individuals brought here as children. But DACA lacked congressional approval, permanent legal status, and meaningful enforcement mechanisms to ensure accountability. Democrats used it to justify broad non-enforcement. Republicans used it as an excuse to avoid legislating. Dreamers were left in permanent legal limbo, governed by court orders instead of law. That workaround is now collapsing as courts make clear that executive action is no substitute for statute, with the Fifth Circuit declaring DACA unlawful.

At the same time, a majority of Americans support permanent legal status for DACA recipients when tied to clean records and contribution — a clear signal that voters want Congress to do its job.

That reality gives President Trump leverage no modern president has ever had. He can credibly say what previous presidents avoided: this cannot be solved by executive orders, memos, or lawsuits anymore. Congress must do its job.

There is also an undeniable collapse of blue-state governance driven by the illegal immigration crisis. For years, Democrats hid behind sanctuary labels and moral slogans, insisting compassion is a policy substitute. This fiction collapsed when bills were due. Cities are now absorbing sharply increased costs across schools, hospitals, housing, and emergency services, forcing cuts to core public services to close widening budget gaps. New York City estimates taxpayers will pay over $10 billion over three fiscal years for the illegal immigration crisis. After spending billions on shelter, food, healthcare, and emergency services for illegal immigrants, the city imposed across-the-board cuts. It is clear that unlimited illegal immigration is unsustainable when even progressive mayors like then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams publicly warned that their cities could not absorb these costs without federal intervention. This strips Democrats of their favorite talking point, that enforcement is unnecessary or cruel. The truth is, disorder is expensive.

This is where the generational opportunity becomes clear. President Trump can force immigration reform back to Congress by refusing new executive workarounds and tying federal funding to legislative action.

The real divide in Washington is whether there is the political courage to fix the illegal immigration crisis created by the Biden administration. After flooding the border with tens of millions of illegals, Democrats are demanding amnesty. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently made that explicit, calling for the mass legalization of this population, locking failure into law.

Americans cannot support amnesty under any circumstances. Those who crossed the border illegally under the Biden administration face a clear choice under the Trump administration: voluntary departure or removal. Any other approach permanently destroys the credibility of our immigration system by rewarding lawbreakers and guaranteeing another surge of illegal immigration in the future.

There is a solution if Congress does its job by legislating. Lawmakers should grant DACA recipients’ permanent status, conditioned on proof of long-term residency, clean criminal records, full background checks, and education, work history, or military service. For anyone else who entered illegally under the Biden administration, the only relief should be departure. Immigration reform only works when Congress gets the sequence right and enforces the law.

We have seen Washington get it backward before. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, granting amnesty and legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while promising enforcement would follow. It never did. The message was unmistakable: get in, wait long enough, and legalization will come. Amnesty first, enforcement never, and American communities paid the price.

That history is why order matters now and why the filibuster cannot continue to shield lawmakers from accountability.

This is the real governance test Washington has avoided for decades. Immigration will not be fixed until Congress is forced to act. This is Trump’s once-in-a-generation chance to end the cycle and make reform permanent.

https://townhall.com/columnists/mehek-cooke/2026/02/06/trump-can-end-americas-immigration-chaos-if-congress-is-forced-to-act-n2670774?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-kDdY5U46fc&_nlid=kDdY5U46fc&_nhids=ncxGeHYBUXokls

What the Media Won't Say About Minnesota: Trump Won

What the Media Won't Say About Minnesota: Trump Won

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Yesterday, Tom Homan announced a "drawdown" of 700 immigration-enforcement agents from Minnesota, part of the negotiations he conducted with Governor Tim Walz. The media reported this as a tacit retreat from Operation Metro Surge and a climbdown of aggressive immigration enforcement after the shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Homan had warned, though, that the Department of Homeland Security would continue its aggressive enforcement, and that the drawdown would only last if state and local officials cooperated with ICE and Border Patrol operations:

“Effective immediately, we will draw down 700 people,” Homan said Wednesday, adding that the remaining officers will stay to carry out immigration enforcement in the state. He added that about 2,000 officers will remain. ...

Homan said he wanted to turn down the temperature but would continue the unprecedented surge of federal officials in Minnesota until attacks on federal agents stop.

“We want to get back to the normal operational footprint here,” Homan said. “The more cooperation we get, the less rhetoric and hate we see, and the less attacks, means we can draw down even more quicker.”

Interestingly, albeit predictably, Minnesota officials didn't play along with the "Trump retreats" narrative. They continued talking tough about fighting immigration enforcement in the state, and pledged to keep fighting against ICE in courts:

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the drawdown was “a step in the right direction,” but added that “2,000 ICE officers still here is not de‑escalation.”

“My message to the White House has been consistent – Operation Metro Surge has been catastrophic for our businesses and residents. It needs to end immediately,” Frey told CNN in a statement.

Gov. Tim Walz echoed that sentiment on social media, calling for “a faster and larger drawdown of forces, state‑led investigations into the killings” of Pretti and Good, and “an end to this campaign of retribution.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison agreed with Walz’s assessment that the drawdown “would be a step in the right direction,” but added that he and his team are “still fighting to end this unlawful and unconstitutional surge.”

The tough talk turned out to be a show of impotence, however. The shootings definitely created a political crisis for Trump, especially the Pretti shooting and the initial responses of Homeland Security officials, including Secretary Kristi Noem. Trump recognized that quickly, however, and put Homan in direct charge of all operations in Minnesota to restore calm and confidence. That succeeded immediately, and all recent polling shows support for immigration enforcement remains strong, even if confidence in ICE has eroded with voters in the short term.

They support deporting them back to their countries of origin. And…a majority supports ICE enforcing federal immigration laws and removing those here illegally. The mainstream Democrat position to defund ICE is strongly opposed by most."

The most recent Harvard-Harris CAPS poll suggests that Trump's best issue is in responding to the Minneapolis protests. This survey was taken last week, in the two days after Homan's appointment:

It's literally the only position for Trump that gets a majority level of support. Trump got 51% in December for "fighting crime in America's cities," an issue on which he dropped four points this month while still getting the same rating on handling the protests. 

However, that's not where Trump has truly won the fight. The Free Press' Mene Ukueberuwa reports that Homan forced Walz and Frey to end its sanctuary policies in regard to cooperating on immigration detainers, which is why Homan drew down immigration enforcement levels to normal:

When White House border czar Tom Homan announced the withdrawal on Wednesday of 700 immigration agents from the Minneapolis area, news stories framed the pullout as nothing more than an admission of political defeat. The reports suggest that thousands of protesters, observers, and disruptors in the Minneapolis streets achieved an unconditional victory against an invasive federal force.

Yet the gears of Trump’s actual deportation policy are still turning behind the scenes of this political defeat. And if the new developments take hold, they could become one of the biggest policy victories of Trump’s term.

The key is that Democratic officials in the Minneapolis area are quietly letting jails work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “We currently have an unprecedented number of counties communicating with us now and allowing ICE to take custody of illegal aliens before they hit the streets,” Homan said at a press conference Wednesday morning, calling the new arrangement “unprecedented cooperation.”

These developments are making good on Homan’s strategy.

Ukueberuwa links to a CBS News interview with Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt, heretofore an enthusiastic supporter of sanctuary policies that preclude any cooperation with ICE. On Tuesday, Witt says she feels "scapegoated" by DHS. Now, she says she's open to "limited cooperation" with ICE on violent illegal aliens. That's at least a step in the right direction, and a partial repudiation of their previous position. Witt claims that Hennepin County has cooperated with ICE in the past, but the chief of St. Paul's police union scoffed at those claims last week, Mark Ross told the New York Post that orders against cooperation come from the very top:

“Since the Republican National Convention was held in St. Paul back in 2008, Minnesota law enforcement has undergone extensive training in mobile field force configurations and crowd management for major events. And because of that, I think we’re in the best position to deal with that,” Ross said.

“Unfortunately, our local politicians would not allow us to do that,” he added. ...

“Part of it is leadership, because the leadership in our cities doesn’t want us communicating with the federal folks. And that disconnect has created some problems for everybody, and we’re stuck in the middle of it, and public safety is everybody’s responsibility,” he said.

“We want to be out there. We want to be keeping people safe, and it’s been really tough. We really feel like we’re in the middle of this, obviously, not by choice,” Ross added.

As it turns out, these "sanctuary" policies are not terribly popular with the rank and file, nor with police leadership in other Minnesota counties, Ukueberuwa reports:

It’s likely that some of the officials softening their sanctuary policies are doing so only to hurry ICE out of Minnesota, and would gladly return to stonewalling the federal government once Homan has left. But it appears that most Minnesota sheriffs would prefer to keep up the cooperation. The state sheriffs’ association is pursuing an agreement that would let individual counties honor each ICE detention request without risking legal challenges from state authorities. Many of the sheriffs, whose staff bears the burden of actually catching and releasing each criminal migrant, can see the shortcomings of sanctuary policies that their political bosses dismiss.

In other words, Trump and Homan have broken the pretense of Minnesota's "sanctuary" pose by enforcing federal law directly. It turns out that the consequences for non-cooperation get ugly when the federal government has to perform those tasks rather than just have state and local authorities cooperate with them up front. And that's why violent ICE encounters almost all take place in so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions:

This is twice all violent confrontations in the remaining 3,134 counties COMBINED.

A violent confrontation in these 9 counties was 590 TIMES more likely than any of these other 3,134 counties.

590 times.

I plotted these 9 counties, and I found that all 9 counties are sanctuary jurisdictions run by Democrat politicians that resist immigration law enforcement.

These violent confrontations are RARE in states and cities where local officials cooperate with law enforcement.

Walz, Frey, Witt, and the Left tried to escalate violence in an effort to force the end of immigration enforcement. They have lost, and Trump has prevailed. The Protection Racket Media may not want to report it, but the data – and the sudden, if grudging, start of cooperation – tells the real story. 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2026/02/05/what-the-media-wont-say-about-minnesota-trump-won-n3811590

We Know Why Dems Are Freaking Out About This Election Integrity Stuff

We Know Why Dems Are Freaking Out About This Election Integrity Stuff

AP Photo/Matt Slocum

We'll hear a lot about voter ID laws, but the effort to pass them will largely depend on the Republicans. John Thune, bring the SAVE Act to a vote. I'm not concerned about the 60-vote requirement or the Democratic Senate leaders' posturing—let them be forced to endorse something that enjoys 70-80% public support. Even black voters back voter ID laws, which undermines the false narrative of Jim Crow 2.0. Let them overreach, because they probably will. Currently, the Democratic leadership's strategy and judgment are truly poor.

The debate concerning election integrity has persisted over time; however, the core arguments and underlying motives remain unchanged. The objective is to ensure secure elections in which only American citizens can vote, whereas some allege that Democrats seek to perpetuate electoral misconduct. Additionally, with President Trump removing illegal immigrants from the country, desperation appears to be emerging.  

For generations, Democrats have stayed relevant by permitting illegal immigrants into the country, housing them in Democratic strongholds, recruiting similar ethnic groups for elections, and using the census to redraw congressional districts. This is why they strongly support amnesty, prefer an open border, and oppose any efforts to reduce immigration.  

They know what lies ahead: the 2030 census could end the Democrats’ reported advantage in the Electoral College. The blue wall will be rendered irrelevant, as a new red wall could emerge in Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. That development, plus new laws to ensure voter integrity would ceertainly kneecap Democrats in elections (via Decision Desk): 

These shifts in electoral votes would take away the Democrats’ most common path to victory in recent years: the fabled “Blue Wall” battleground states across the Frost Belt. Democrats have long had a path to 270 electoral votes if they carried blue-leaning states and the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump narrowly carried all of those states in 2024, but had Harris won them (on top of the states she did carry), she would have garnered exactly the 270 electoral votes needed to win. However, the projected electoral vote change would have made it so that Harris only reached 258 electoral votes. 

As a result, Pennsylvania, which Trump carried by 1.7 percentage points, would no longer have been the “tipping-point” state in the 2024 election. That is, if you lined up all the states (and congressional district-level results in Maine and Nebraska) from most Republican to most Democratic by margin, Pennsylvania delivered the 270th electoral vote to whomever won it. Yet these apportionment projections would move the tipping-point state farther to the right, making Georgia (Trump +2.1) the decisive state based on the 2024 results. 

In a way, these trends only make it more necessary for Democrats to compete in the states that they narrowly won in 2020. With the Blue Wall’s reduced clout, Democrats would likely have to more consistently win Arizona and Georgia to get to 270, or also flip North Carolina, which has often been a “close, but no cigar” state for Democrats. But given the shifts in recent elections, the necessity of competing in those places is not really a huge change for Democrats. After all, Democrats lost the Blue Wall states in 2016 and 2024, and Trump’s margin of victory in Georgia and North Carolina in the latter was not that different from his edge in Pennsylvania. 

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans are in line to gain significant ground in red-leaning places like Texas and Florida, as well as make small gains in solidly red states like Idaho and Utah. This contrasts with the sizable projected Democratic losses in California and New York, two of that party’s largest safe states. As long as the GOP retains the upper hand in Texas and Florida, they will not need to carry quite as many highly-competitive states as Democrats to win presidential races. In 2024, Democrats had to win three of the seven main swing states — the three in the Blue Wall — to reach 270. Under these projections, Republicans would only need the three competitive but light-red states that we could call their Red Wall — the Sun Belt trio of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina — to reach 270. (Nevada was the other state among the core seven swing states in 2020-24.) 

However, while these projections could be deleterious for Democrats, we should not overstate how determinative they will be in future presidential elections. Even though our political situation is quite polarized, we can expect shifts in the party coalitions and changes in the electorate to alter the political status quo as we know it. So, while the GOP stands to gain among the states it carried in 2024 and has tended to win in recent years, hypothetical Democratic gains in Sun Belt states could quickly alter the political calculus. For instance, if Texas became consistently competitive, the GOP would risk the loss of the bedrock of the party’s Electoral College foundation. 

And with Democrats cultishly devoted to woke authoritarian politics, it’s likely they’ll continue to lose ground with normal voters, until the blue-haired freaks, white wine-guzzling lunatic lefty women, and a bunch of gays are all that’s left for Democrats to cobble together a national messaging campaign.  

That’s for sure a coalition destined to lose every election known to man.

Sunday, February 8, 2026

No, Chris Murphy, Voter ID Doesn't Lead to 'Stolen' Elections

No, Chris Murphy, Voter ID Doesn't Lead to 'Stolen' Elections

AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

Democracy, at its core, is "majority rules." That means if you get 50 percent-plus-one of the vote, you get your way. Now, thankfully, America isn't a democracy. We're a constitutional republic, where the rights of the minority don't get trampled by the will of the majority. 

Democrats, of course, hate this. That's evidenced by their attacks on the Electoral College and the Senate, which pop up ever so often when it seems like they're going to lose an election. That behavior makes it clear that, in a pure democracy, Democrats would absolutely steamroll the rest of us.

But I am a big proponent of making the Democrats adhere to their own rules, rules they're happy to force on the rest of us but exempt themselves from, and that applies to their supposed love of democracy, too.

Yesterday, CNN reported that the vast majority of voters, including Black voters, support voter ID. The numbers are telling: 85 percent of White voters, 82 percent of Latino voters, and 76 percent of Black voters support it. A whopping 71 percent of Democrats support it. But not the Democrats in D.C., it seems.

Senator Chris Murphy went on MS Now to say that voter ID is what's used to steal elections, calling such measures "terrible."

"The SAVE Act, in and of itself, is a terrible piece of legislation," Murphy said. "I do think the president is going to put the screws to John Thune and his allies in the Senate, because his options to steal the election are going to continue to narrow. And so he's likely to want a piece of legislation that may not be constitutional but at least tests the question to the Supreme Court of whether there are circumstances where he can come in and take over a state election."

"Steal" elections. What an odd thing to say. 

Remember when questioning the outcome of an election was a high crime and an attack on democracy?

But what happened to "defending democracy"? Why do the Democrats insist on listening to the will of the majority only when it goes their way?

Well, because they're hypocrites, of course. And because they've tacitly admitted countless times that they can only win when our electoral system is vulnerable to fraud and rife with insecurities.

Anyone who cared about democracy, as the Democrats claim to do, would support robust voter ID laws and security measures to make sure the voices of the majority are heard loud and clear. But for Democrats, they believe democracy only works when they win.

Look at Prop. 8, for example. The democratically passed legislation was offensive to Democrats, so they went to court to overturn the will of the people. Or remember 2024, when President Trump won the popular vote, too. When a Democrat does that, even if he loses the Electoral College, Democrats whine about how we need to respect the majority. When a Republican wins, they spend his term obstructing his agenda in court.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-curtis/2026/02/04/chris-murphy-voter-id-to-steal-elections-n2670655?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-tsxCv2dtSx&_nlid=tsxCv2dtSx&_nhids=nc78Pu6ZIqb6ls

The Knives Are Out for Tulsi Gabbard As She Closes in on 2020 Election Fraud

The Knives Are Out for Tulsi Gabbard As She Closes in on 2020 Election Fraud

AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is onto something. And the right people are terrified.

As my colleague Bob Hoge reported, after Gabbard appeared on the scene at the operation to secure the multi-year crime scene that is the Fulton County, Georgia, Election Hub and Operation Center (see FBI Raids Fulton County Election Hub Days After Trump Vows Prosecutions for 2020 Election - Here We Go – RedState and 700 Boxes of Ballots Seized After FBI Executes Fulton County Warrant, Dems Try to Develop ‘Legal Plan’ – RedState), she was the subject of thinly sourced, scurrilous "leak" to The Wall Street Journal that seemed to have the sole purpose as sidelining her with a faux scandal; see Tulsi Gabbard Comes Out Full Throttle Against 'False and Slanderous Accusations' From Dems and Media – RedState.

To recap, the Wall Street Journal ran an "exclusive" on Monday that seemed to claim Gabbard had done something. However, a fair reading of the article doesn't make it very clear what she did or didn't do.

U.S. intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a whistleblower complaint that is so highly classified it has sparked months of wrangling over how to share it with Congress, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the matter.

The filing of the complaint has prompted a continuing, behind-the-scenes struggle about how to assess and handle it, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint. Gabbard’s office rejects that characterization, contending it is navigating a unique set of circumstances and working to resolve the issue.

Thirteen, that is 13, paragraphs into the article, we find this gem.

Gabbard answered written questions about the allegations from the inspector general’s office, a senior official at the spy agency said. That prompted the acting inspector general at the time, Tamara Johnson, to determine the allegations specifically about Gabbard weren’t credible [my italics—streiff], the official said. Johnson remains employed at the agency, which didn’t make her available for an interview.

As it turned out, there was no delay in producing the "security guidance" from DNI Gabbard on how to handle the report. The whistleblower's complaint is with the Congressional Intelligence Committees for review, and Gabbard produced the receipts.

As that "scandal" was getting a helping push from the media, the "Why was she even there?" narrative was launched by The Washington Post.

There are “only two explanations” for why Gabbard was in Fulton County on Wednesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia) said at the hearing.

One is that she believes there’s a “legitimate foreign intelligence nexus,” he said, in which case Gabbard “violated her legal obligation to keep the intelligence committees fully and currently informed,” or she is attempting to insert the intelligence community into what Warner called “a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.’’

The New York Times went for the capillaries with a story that President Trump had congratulated the agents who had participated in the Fulton County operation.

By any measure, the F.B.I.’s search of an election center in Fulton County, Ga., last week was extraordinary. Agents seized truckloads of 2020 ballots, as President Trump harnessed the levers of government to not only buttress his false claims of widespread voter fraud, but also to try to build a criminal case against those he believes wronged him.

What happened the next day was in some ways even more unusual, The New York Times has learned.

Behind closed doors, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, met with some of the same F.B.I. agents, members of the bureau’s field office in Atlanta, which is conducting the election inquiry, three people with knowledge of the meeting said. They could not say why Ms. Gabbard, who also appeared on site at the search, was there, but her continued presence has raised eyebrows given that her role overseeing the nation’s intelligence agencies does not include on-site involvement in criminal investigative work.

What occurred during the meeting was even further outside the bounds of normal law enforcement procedure. Ms. Gabbard used her cellphone to call Mr. Trump, who did not initially pick up but called back shortly after, the people said.

The coordinated campaign across the nation's three most prestigious print outlets to discredit DNI Gabbard and her investigation into what is increasingly looking like a totally fraudulent 2020 election is eerily similar to how the Deep State worked to sandbag President Trump during his first term.

On August 12, 2019, an anonymous intelligence community whistleblower, now known to be Eric Ciaramella (see Whistleblower's Attorneys Make a Desperate and Pathetic Attempt to Silence the Free Press and a Free People – RedState), filed a formal complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. The complaint alleged that Trump abused his office by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. election. The foreign interference, of course, was President Trump allegedly asking Ukrainian President Zelensky for information on the Biden administration's and Hunter Biden's dealings with Ukraine and its energy company, Burisma.

By mid-September 2019, media reports, particularly in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, based on anonymous sources, began to emerge, revealing the outlines of the whistleblower complaint and details that Trump pressured Zelensky during the July call to investigate the Bidens.

Keep in mind that all of this was done in a "hall of mirrors," so to speak, where rumors and leaks and interpretations of those rumors and leaks became the cause for the nothingburger that was Trump's impeachment trial. That said, the impeachment served the purpose of freezing U. S. diplomacy and hamstringing President Trump for a crucial period of time as the demented Joe Biden was prepped to be the Democrat nominee for president.

While none of the hits on Gabbard, up until this point, are enough to force her resignation, I do think The New York Times gives us some insight into the long game the Deep State is pursuing. First, there is evidence out there, lurking in the backrooms of Fulton County, GA, and some other jurisdictions where large numbers of Biden ballots mysteriously appeared after the polls closed. The problem is how to prevent them from ever being subjected to public scrutiny.

By speaking directly with the investigators, Mr. Trump may have provided significant ammunition to any future defense should the investigation yield criminal charges.

His conversation with the agents would probably become part of an effort to have the case dismissed as a vindictive prosecution. Alternatively, if such a case went to trial, defense lawyers would presumably try to elicit testimony from the F.B.I. agents who spoke to the president in the early stages of the investigation, or possibly from Mr. Trump himself.

The search itself raises serious questions. It is unclear what evidence was presented to a federal magistrate judge to establish probable cause for a search warrant for the ballots and other materials, which are now more than five years old.

But multiple prior investigations — including one at the end of Mr. Trump’s first term by the same F.B.I. office and federal prosecutors working at the time for the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Atlanta — found no evidence to support his false claims of significant voter fraud.

The very fact that someone is pulling out all the stops to discredit the investigation into election integrity in 2020, and presumably since, is a sign that something very criminal and dangerous happened. It is also a sign that those behind that election, even if they aren't trying to pull the same trick again in 2026 and beyond, are terrified of what would happen if their machinations came to light.

If our elections are corrupt, that calls into question every action of the government and breaks the bond between "We the People" and the Founders that was created in 1787. It is not difficult to believe that hostile foreign actors are involved, as well as our own self-hating elites. The fact that Gabbard was on the ground for the FBI, serving a search warrant, points to a significant intelligence problem alongside the raw criminality. The reaction indicates there is more of this to come.

https://redstate.com/streiff/2026/02/03/the-knives-are-out-for-tulsi-gabbard-as-she-closes-in-on-2020-election-fraud-n2198796?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-99F7reQGUu&_nlid=99F7reQGUu&_nhids=ncb4mIazsYljls