Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Jan. 21 that he would support articles of impeachment against some federal judges after congressional Republicans floated the prospect last year.

During a press conference, a reporter asked Johnson about Senate Republicans suggesting that the House bring articles of impeachment against judges. Multiple Republicans have signaled they want to impeach two U.S. district judges, James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman.

“I’m for it,” Johnson said during the Wednesday news conference alongside other Republican House members. “Judge Boasberg is one who’s been mentioned.”

“Impeachment, as we have discussed all together many, many times, is an extreme measure. But extreme times call for extreme measures. And I think some of these judges have gotten so far outside the bounds of where they’re supposed to operate, it would not be, in my view, a bad thing for Congress to lay down the law, so to speak, and to make an example of some of these egregious abuses,” the House speaker said, without naming other judges.

He did not offer a timeline on when impeachment articles could be introduced.

“We’ll see where it goes,” he said.

The House requires a simple majority to impeach an official such as a judge, but the bar is raised much higher in the Senate. A two-thirds majority in the upper chamber is needed to convict and remove an official if and after a House impeachment passes.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) in March introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg following court decisions that barred Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan illegal immigrant gang members.

The lawmaker also moved to introduce articles to impeach Boasberg in November over a separate decision related to the Arctic Frost investigation.

In October, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced an impeachment resolution targeting Boardman for a sentencing decision that she made for a man accused of plotting to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The man, Nicholas Roske, was sentenced to 8 years in prison, while prosecutors had sought upwards of 30 years of imprisonment.

The text of the resolution states that Boardman should be impeached for handing down an “indefensibly light sentence” to Roske, who prosecutors had said had traveled to Kavanaugh’s home in June 2022 with a plan to kill the justice before he called the authorities on himself.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Commerce Committee, said in a Senate hearing earlier this month that he wants impeachment proceedings against Boardman and Boasberg, saying that “both … meet the standard for impeachment and for conviction and removal of office.”

Democrats in Congress say, however, that the impeachment efforts are misguided and pointless.

Among them is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who this week said in a statement that a call to impeach Boardman over the Roske sentencing “contradicts basic law and history.”

Whitehouse, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, said that in the case, “a notice of appeal has been filed regarding that sentencing, so it remains an active judicial proceeding, not a proper subject of partisan legislative pressure,” according to a Jan. 20 news release from his office.

Whitehouse characterized impeachment suggestions against Boasberg as part of an unjust “barrage of threats by the MAGA movement and the Trump administration” that “appear intended to intimidate” the judge.

President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday that his administration could distribute $2,000 direct payments to Americans – a “dividend” from tariff proceeds – without congressional authorization, citing the absence of a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his sweeping import duties.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump suggested that the surge in tariff revenue could fund the payouts while also reducing the national debt, which is approaching $38.5 trillion.

“We have so much money coming in from tariffs that we’ll be able to make a very substantial dividend to the people of our country,” the president said. “I believe we can do that without Congress.”

🚨 HOLY CRAP. President Trump says he’s going to give out the $2,000 tariff dividend check to middle class Americans WITHOUT Congress

This is HUGE for the midterms!

“$2K dividend and pay down debt. We’d set an income limit. We can make a payment to the people WITHOUT Congress!” pic.twitter.com/c7aUDVMcHq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 20, 2026

The proposal would largely benefit moderate-income households, potentially with eligibility caps based on income.

Tariff collections rose sharply in 2025 following the imposition of duties ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from major trading partners. An analysis conducted by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows gross federal revenue from tariffs reached approximately $288.5 billion—nearly triple the $98.3 billion recorded in 2024. Independent estimates have placed the 2025 figure in a range of roughly $260 billion to $300 billion.

In the meantime, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has adopted a more measured stance on Trump’s tariff “dividend.” In November, Bessent told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that enacting the payments would require new legislation from Congress. “We will see. We need legislation for that,” the Treasury secretary replied when questioned about the checks, adding that they “could go out” if passed by Congressional lawmakers.

Bessent said the intended beneficiaries could be “working families” and stressed that an income limit would apply, potentially focusing on households earning under $100,000 or similar moderate-income thresholds.

Bessent has also suggested the $2,000 benefit might not take the form of direct cash disbursements. In an interview with ABC News’s “This Week,” the Treasury secretary said while he had not yet finalized details with Trump, the “dividend could come in lots of forms,” such as through tax reductions already under consideration—including exemptions for tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits, among other deductions.

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, also said in December that any direct payments to Americans funded by tariff revenue would require a formal proposal to Congress and would ultimately hinge on lawmakers’ appropriations.

“I would expect that in the new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen,” Hassett told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

California Democrats face a pesky problem: their recent gerrymandering effort may have a racial discrimination problem. According to Ninth Circuit judge Kenneth Lee, the problem is District 13 and the public comments of the primary mapmaker, who declared his intention to create a Latino-dominated district.

Democrats are bullish about retaking the House of Representatives and making Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) the next Speaker after the midterm elections. Part of that optimism is the cushion of five seats created through further gerrymandering of California’s U.S. House districts.

According to one respected Ninth Circuit judge, however, California may have a slight problem: Its new congressional map may be based on racial discrimination.

Judge Kenneth Lee this week dissented from a decision upholding the districts, and his detailed dissent could lay the foundation for a serious challenge that goes all the way to the Supreme Court.

At issue is Congressional District 13, in the Central Valley, which Lee reveals was the result of openly racial criteria by the principal architect of the new districts.

Lee begins his dissent by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2006 decision, stating, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” When it comes to gerrymandering, it is all a sordid business of course — but this sordid business may be unconstitutional.

The court has accepted that gerrymandering is part of politics. Majority parties, like Democrats in California and Republicans in Texas, have openly redesigned districts, sometimes into absurd shapes, to achieve political ends.

One of the vehicles long used to help boost Democratic seats is the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits districts that discriminate against racial minorities. But this law has long been challenged as itself a statutory mandate for racial discrimination.

We are currently awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in barring any district that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

The result of the law has been decades of protracted litigation over the design of districts to effectively guarantee minority — overwhelmingly Democratic — representation in Congress. That is viewed by many as flying in the face of the guarantee of the 14th Amendment barring the use of race to discriminate between citizens. As Chief Justice Roberts famously wrote in 2007, “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Once again, partisan gerrymandering is constitutional. Indeed, last December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to keep its redrawn maps. In Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, the Supreme Court observed that “Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” In his concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch), called it “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

Judge Lee (a Trump appointee) is now saying that it was not that “pure and simple” with regard to at least California’s District 13.

He focused on the work of Paul Mitchell, whom he described as “a California redistricting expert paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, House Majority PAC, and the DCCC to draw a redistricting map for California.”

“Race-based interest groups,” Lee noted, “wanted certain racial outcomes out of the process. He happily delivered.”

Mitchell is quoted as openly embracing race as the critical element in his design, including publicly declaring that the “number one thing that I started thinking about” was creating a “Latino majority/minority district” in Los Angeles.

Judge Lee notes that the stated intent to create a Latino-controlled district ignores that this is already one of the most powerful and well-represented racial groups in California: “Latinos do not just make up the largest racial/ethnic group in the state … [but also hold] significant sway among California’s Democratic elected officials and leaders.”

Nevertheless, the plan was upheld by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton (an Obama appointee) and U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu (a Biden appointee). In fairness to the panel, there were respected key witnesses, including redistricting experts Dr. Bernard Grofman and Dr. Jonathan Rodden of the Hoover Institution, who rejected race as the key criterion. They helped create a record to support redistricting driven by political motives. The majority also stressed that there is a presumption of good faith in such plans.

This is where it gets particularly interesting. Lee notes that, while there is a presumption, it is not absolute. It became unsupportable, he argued, when Mitchell refused to answer questions about his motivations and assurances.

“Mitchell went to great lengths to avoid testifying under oath about how he drew the California map — even though he publicly talked about it to the press and interest groups before this lawsuit.”

In such a circumstance, Lee insists, the court should “take Mitchell’s statements at face value and conclude they reflect his true motivations behind the Proposition 50 map. We have nothing else to go on.”

That sets up an interesting scenario. If the Supreme Court rules against the use of race in districting under the Voting Rights Act, the opinion could have blowback on gerrymandering cases that rely on the same criterion. The Roberts court has drawn a bright line against the use of race to discriminate in various areas, including college admissions.

Moreover, the court (and particularly its three liberal justices) has stressed that one cannot ignore legislative comments on such intent. Just this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back on the claims of neutral intent of Idaho legislators in requiring student athletes to play on teams associated with their biological sex. Although the state argued that the record did not show anti-transgender intent, Sotomayor insisted that the record had to be considered and  “there’s certainly a lot of comments” that could be weighed on the question.

While the panel wrote an equally detailed case in favor of the districting as politically (not racially) motivated, there remains the glaring incongruity of sheltering the key figure and his public statements that embrace a race-based motivation for District 13. That could prompt some to send the plan back with the rapidly approaching midterm elections at stake.

The question is whether a court can simply ignore the stated intentions of the map-maker in determining the purpose of the map. At some point, Judge Lee suggests, an assumption of good faith becomes a willful blindness to racial discrimination.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” It will be released on Feb. 3 for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s congressional testimony on Thursday took an unexpected turn when a brawl nearly erupted. The showdown featured former Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone and conservative activist Ivan Raiklin.

The confrontation happened during a break in Smith’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. Video captured Fanone and Raiklin squaring off as former Capitol Police officers scrambled to pull Fanone back. 

“See how many people are restraining you, and look at me, totally in control over my mind and body,” Ranklin shouted to Fanone.

Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was also at the Capitol that day, jumped in to separate the two men while uniformed officers formed a barrier between them. Fanone, pointing directly at Raiklin, unleashed a barrage of accusations.

“This guy has threatened my family, threatened my children, threatened to rape my children, you sick bastard,” Fanone shouted.

🚨 JUST IN: CHAOS erupts during Jack Smith’s hearing as former J6 Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone goes off on Ivan Ranklin and an altercation breaks out

Things are getting TENSE. Fanone ended up leaving.

“This guy has threatened my family!” pic.twitter.com/igXBWz64sW

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 22, 2026

There was nearly a physical altercation during a break in the House Judiciary Committee’s Jack Smith hearing pic.twitter.com/LMhcxEQDdJ

— Nolan D. McCaskill (@NolanDMcCaskill) January 22, 2026

The chaos prompted additional U.S. Capitol Police to flood the hearing room to restore order, with several officers speaking directly to Raiklin. Shortly after the altercation, Raiklin exited the room, though it’s not clear from reports whether he was kicked out or left on his own accord.

Raiklin later posted a video to X and floated the idea of suing Fanone for defamation because of his accusations, which have gone viral on social media:

Who thinks I should sue Mr. Fanone for defamation? pic.twitter.com/ZyoctE0fR1

— Ivan Raiklin (@IvanRaiklin) January 22, 2026

But the fireworks didn’t end there. 

Later during the hearing, Fanone interrupted Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls as he spoke. Nehls had been arguing that Capitol Police leadership, not President Trump, deserved the blame for what unfolded on January 6.

“I would like to quickly address the police officers of January 6th. Mr. Don, Mr. Fanone, Mr. Gonell, Mr. Hodges. I’m a member of the new select committee to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day,” Rep. Nehls began. “ And I can tell you, gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the US Capitol leadership team.”

As Nehls continued to speak, Fanone fake-coughed into his hands and shouted, ”Go fuck yourself.” 

J6 disgrace Michael Fanone caughs and yells, “Go f*** yourself!” at Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) during the J6 committee hearing.

This is really who Democrats call their hero of J6? Someone who can’t even behave like an adult at a congressional hearing.

Sad!pic.twitter.com/PZVv4RL3FH

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) January 22, 2026

Smith testified before the committee to discuss his now-defunct investigations into Trump’s questioning of the results of the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents. 

Smith used his testimony to claim his investigation wasn’t biased, insisting that Trump “willfully broke the law — the very laws he took an oath to uphold.” He claimed his investigation adhered to Justice Department policy and denied any partisan motive, asserting he would have made the same decision no matter the defendant’s party. Republicans on the committee were unconvinced and challenged that claim head-on, arguing that Smith’s words and actions told a very different story.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Jan. 21 said he’s investigating incentives related to vaccinating children.

Paxton’s office said in a statement that the probe will cover pediatricians, insurers, vaccine companies, and other entities “engaged in deceptive or unlawful conduct by failing to disclose financial incentives connected to their administration of childhood vaccines.”

It noted that some pediatricians kick out families that refuse to adhere to a vaccine schedule and that doctors can receive bonuses for vaccinating.

An Epoch Times investigation found that insurers have offered bonuses as high as $400 per child as an incentive to vaccinate patients.

Paxton is issuing civil investigative demands for information to companies, including UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer.

“I will ensure that Big Pharma and Big Insurance don’t bribe medical providers to pressure parents to jab their kids with vaccines they feel aren’t safe or necessary,” Paxton said in a statement.

He said that Texans “deserve to have full faith in the recommendations of their medical providers—particularly when it involves the health of their children” and that “any provider or entity whose medical guidance is fueled by financial incentives from an insurance company, Big Pharma, or otherwise will be exposed.”

Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for more information.

UnitedHealthcare had said in a document, which was taken down after The Epoch Times’ story was published, that doctors were eligible for bonuses for patients who received vaccines against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and human papillomavirus.

The Epoch Times reached out to UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer for comment, but they did not respond by publication time.

Studies have found that vaccinations can be profitable, including a 2020 paper. Some doctors have said in surveys that they can lose money on vaccines due to certain factors, such as low reimbursements.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which partners with vaccine manufacturers, has said that pediatricians do not profit from vaccines and are motivated to vaccinate because, the group says, vaccines are safe and effective.

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit that opposes vaccine mandates, said that the group was “very excited” about Paxton’s investigation.

Children’s Health Defense this week sued the American Academy of Pediatrics, accusing the organization of violating federal law by promoting the vaccine schedule as proven safe. The academy did not respond to a request for comment.

In its complaint, Children’s Health Defense mentioned how insurers offer bonuses for pediatricians whose patients receive certain vaccines, and pointed to a 2024 report from the academy that stated that “under value-based care models, pediatricians may receive a significant part of their payments based on performance metrics, one of which is completion of childhood and adolescent immunizations.”

Paxton’s previous investigations have included a probe into Pfizer for allegedly misrepresenting the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine and toothpaste manufacturers for promoting the use of too much toothpaste.

His case against Pfizer was dismissed in 2024. The toothpaste probe led to companies agreeing to redesign boxes for toothpaste containing fluoride.

In the wake of the massive Somali-fraud scandal out of Minnesota and other states, President Donald Trump wants to denaturalize American immigrants convicted of crimes and deport them, but the current legal framework and federal bureaucracy make such sweeping denaturalization efforts difficult to achieve quickly. 

“I would do it in a heartbeat if they were dishonest,” Trump told the New York Times earlier this month. “I think that many of the people that came in from Somalia, they hate our country.”

Existing federal law provides limited pathways for revoking the citizenship of naturalized citizens. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act the government can denaturalize individuals who obtained citizenship through fraud, misrepresentation, or the concealment of material facts during the naturalization process. The law does not allow automatic revocation based solely on crimes committed after naturalization. Current denaturalization proceedings require civil lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice in federal court or criminal prosecutions for naturalization fraud, both demanding individualized evidence, extensive litigation, and meeting high burdens of proof. Civil cases require “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence,” while criminal prosecutions demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has proposed a solution to this problem. He’s introduced the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act in the Senate to expand federal denaturalization authority. The legislation creates a 10-year window after naturalization during which citizens who commit specified crimes could face citizenship revocation and deportation. Among those offenses are welfare fraud exceeding $10,000, aggravated felonies, espionage, and joining terrorist organizations, a category the bill explicitly extends to gangs and drug cartels. The measure also lowers the threshold for federal authorities to begin denaturalization proceedings by broadening the legal grounds beyond fraud committed during the citizenship application process.

The bill even includes a fallback provision that automatically reduces the revocation window from ten years to five years if courts strike down the longer period as unconstitutional.

“American citizenship is a privilege, and anyone hoping to be a part of our great nation must demonstrate a sincere attachment to our Constitution, upstanding moral character, and a commitment to the happiness and good order of the United States,” Schmitt said in a statement. “The rampant fraud uncovered in Minnesota must be a wakeup call. People who commit felony fraud, serious felonies, or join terrorist organizations like drug cartels shortly after taking their citizenship oaths fail to uphold the basic standards of citizenship. They must be denaturalized because they have proven they never met the requirements for the great honor of American citizenship in the first place. We must protect and restore the institution of American citizenship. No more talk. It’s time for action.”

The White House publicly endorsed the legislation.

“The Somali fraud scandal is one of the greatest financial scandals in American history,” said Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor. “All Somali refugees, or any other immigrants, who have committed fraud against the United States must be immediately denaturalized and deported. We applaud Senator Schmitt for his leadership.”

Schmitt believes the Somali-based fraud is just the “tip of the iceberg” of what will soon be uncovered. 

“There’s also a bunch of money that went out the door at the end of the Biden administration that had nothing to do with COVID, but it was under the auspices of these COVID funds. I think you’re gonna see another wave of fraud,” he told Fox News’s Harris Faulkner earlier this week. “So, I think that’s probably at the heart of why Tim Walz’s demise here … is headline news.”

He also called Tim Walz the poster child for “not only how out of touch the Democrats are, but how corrupt they are when they actually govern.”

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) just filed legislation REVOKING the citizenship of legal migrants who commit fraud and serious felonies, including the Somalis in Minnesota

GET IT PASSED! 🔥

The SCAM Act applies to serious crimes after being naturalized: “It’s evidence… pic.twitter.com/IvTiCuhfml

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 19, 2026

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Those in charge of narrative control are suffering from the delusion that they’re making sense. Everything is under control until it isn’t.

The name of the game in controlling the populace is narrative control, the current term for setting the context, priorities and agenda so the populace complies without being aware they’ve been bamboozled into accepting a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

The easiest way to control the narrative is to establish the false choice of an either-or binary: Us versus Them. This is easy because it bypasses our rational mind by tapping our hard-wired instinct to divide humanity into members of our group and Outsiders / Strangers who are potential threats until proven otherwise.

As a general rule, our values, opinions and fealties stretch along a spectrum. We may have loyalties to values that are typically categorized as “conservative” or “liberal” and find no conflict between them.

To control the narrative, all nuance and variability must be crushed into an all-or-nothing litmus test: if you disagree with even one of the narrowly defined litmus test standards for inclusion in the “conservative” or “liberal” group–as defined by those seeking to control the populace by controlling the narrative–then you are cast out as “an X in name only.”

The “other group” is vilified as servants of the Devil. Reading the diatribes mailed out to “loyalists” of the two political parties (seeking donations, of course–proving your loyalty is always about money) is a master class in parody that isn’t recognized as parody: “they” are seeking to pollute our precious bodily fluids under the malefic cover of deceptively attractive PR.

That all Us and Them binaries are false choices must never be exposed lest the rational mind awaken to the manipulation of a completely fabricated either-or narrative. This fabrication is the foundation of wartime propaganda, of course, as there are no limits on what must be done to rid the Earth of the enemy of all that is good and just.

This works just as well in politics and culture wars: rally the troops by enforcing litmus-test inclusion standards that serve the purposes of those in charge of the narrative factory while providing an identity and the benefits of membership to those who declare their fealty to the litmus test checklist.

Skeptics are targeted as backward heretics. If you question the current definition of “Progress”–Progress is whatever makes me more money–then you’re instantly tarred as a hopeless Luddite.

Once the consequences extend to money, income and security, fear kicks in. Standing up for sacred values is a good thing until it might cost us our jobs: when things get serious, we have to lie.

This enforcement of false-choice narratives pushes us into Ultra-Processed Life: everything is self-serving artifice, but pointing this out brings trouble, so we go along with the charade. There’s no meaning in the narrative other than enforcing compliance to what’s on the agenda of options, which are all false-choice binaries: would you choose to be a Good Person or a Bad Person? Hmm, that’s not much of a choice, is it?

The irony here is that those controlling the narratives see our compliance as “winning,” unaware that their control mechanisms have hollowed out the culture, politics and the economy, reducing everything to either-or binaries that are intrinsically false.

Falsities generate false signals, which lead to Model Collapse. Those in charge of narrative control are suffering from the delusion that they’re making sense. Everything is under control until it isn’t.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free) Check out my updated Books and Films. Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Jack Smith’s testimony before Congress did more than expose weaknesses in his own case against President Trump. It also laid bare just how partisan the entire January 6th investigation had become—and how willing Democrats were to elevate sensational claims they knew could never survive real scrutiny.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan zeroed in on one of the January 6th Committee’s most infamous moments: the prime-time hearing on June 28, 2022, built almost entirely around the committee’s star witness, Cassidy Hutchinson. 

Jordan reminded Smith that Hutchinson was “their star witness” in what he described as a “staged and choreographed hearing” produced by a former ABC News president.

She was the only witness that night, and her testimony delivered a Hollywood-ready storyline.

Among Hutchinson’s claims was the outlandish assertion that President Trump “lunged across the back seat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried to drive the car to the Capitol.”

Jordan pressed Smith directly. “I just want to know, you think she was lying?”

Smith’s response immediately deflated the J6 committee’s narrative.

“My recollection of her testimony about that is that it was secondhand,” Smith said, explaining that she “said she’d heard that from somebody.”

Jordan then walked Smith through the basic facts the January 6th Committee chose to ignore. Tony Ornato, the White House deputy chief of staff for operations, denied the incident ever happened. So did Bobby Engel, the Secret Service agent who was actually in the car when Hutchinson claimed the incident occurred. Both men said they first heard the story when Hutchinson told it on national television.

Jordan asked the obvious question: “Did you ever confirm her testimony about this particular incident?”

Smith danced around it before conceding the truth.

After Jordan cut him off and demanded a clear answer, Smith admitted, “We interviewed … another firsthand witness, uh, who was in the car, uh, who did not confirm, uh, that that had happened.”

That admission alone undercut one of the January 6th Committee’s most viral claims. It also raised a larger issue about prosecutorial judgment. Jordan reminded Smith of his own sworn deposition testimony, where Smith had acknowledged serious credibility problems with Hutchinson. Smith had told the committee at the time, “My recollection with Ms. Hutchinson was a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand… hearsay.”

Jordan went further, quoting Smith’s own words about how a competent defense attorney would handle Hutchinson. Smith had said, “If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do is seek to preclude her testimony because it was hearsay.”

Smith confirmed that statement under oath. “Yes, that’s correct, sir.”

The exchange became even more revealing when Jordan asked whether Smith still planned to put Hutchinson on the witness stand at trial. Smith refused to rule it out, saying only that prosecutors had “a large choice of witnesses.”

Jordan then cited reporting from Washington Post journalists Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis, whose book detailed internal doubts within Smith’s own team. According to the book, “Jack Smith had wondered whether some of Hutchinson’s claims might be relied upon at trial.” It continued, “Ultimately, however, Trump administration officials uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath. Prosecutors on your team told Smith they wouldn’t want to use Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed.”

In short, Democrats built a prime-time spectacle around Hutchinson and cited her hundreds of times, while Smith admitted her claims were hearsay, unverified by firsthand witnesses, and too unreliable for his own prosecutors to use at trial.

🚨Jim Jordan confronts Jack Smith about Cassidy Hutchinson’s repeatedly discredited testimony about Trump on Jan. 6:

“You didn’t rule out using her, putting her on the witness stand, when everybody knows she wasn’t telling the truth. That says it ALL.

That’s the degree the… pic.twitter.com/iKGyFshNXm

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) January 22, 2026

The message was unmistakable.

Democrats were willing to put an unreliable witness with unsubstantiated allegations front and center to push the narrative they wanted to sell to the American public.

At the same time, the special counsel tasked with bringing criminal charges could not even vouch for the star witness or her allegations.

In trying to defend his investigation, Jack Smith instead confirmed that the January 6th investigation was more about pushing a narrative than getting the facts.

President Trump has his own views, as always…

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times,

Record sales made the first year of the second Trump administration a profitable one for the nation’s $92 billion firearms industry, but the potential for federal regulatory rollbacks in his second year could provide manufacturers and retailers with long-term assurances they need to thrive.

That is why state lawmakers need to act fast, South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden said, calling on Republicans in state capitols nationwide to “seize the opportunity we see right now with Trump” in the White House to adopt bills that protect gun owners’ rights.

“We were just playing defense” for years, said Rhoden, one of seven Republican governors to participate in a Jan. 21 Governors’ Forum on the firearms industry during the second day of the Jan. 20–23 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show at the Venetian Expo and Caesars Forum in Las Vegas.

“We’ve taken the lead in South Dakota” by adopting a bill that bans “coding firearms,” he said. “We have an opportunity, and we need to retake advantage of it” right now before the midterms to “move the needle” on such issues as deregulating suppressors and interstate firearms commerce, he added.

The Trump administration has not been as aggressive in addressing firearms reform as it has in other realms, but White House Counsel David Warrington said that’s about the change.

He noted Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche is at the annual show, which is projected to draw more than 55,000 industry executives and sales staff from all 50 states and more than 126 countries to tour 2,800 vendors offering wares on “13.9 miles of aisles” sprawled across 19 acres on The Strip.

Among changes expected to be forwarded by the administration in 2026 include proposals to ease private gun sales, ship firearms interstate via mail, export firearms overseas, trim fees for licensed retailers, and simplify the 4473 Form required when purchasing a firearm, including requiring applicants list their biological sex at birth.

President Donald Trump recognizes gun owners are among his most ardent supporters, Warrington said, adding the president checks with him and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment group, to ensure gun owners’ rights are secure and to ask about initiatives to further strengthen them.

“He tells me, ‘The people that stuck with me through the toughest and hardest times are the same people who believe in the Second Amendment,’” Warrington said.

Industry In Demand

There are more than 10,000 U.S. companies that manufacture, distribute, and sell firearms, ammunition, and hunting equipment. They directly employ nearly 151,000 people and generate an additional 232,327 supplier/ancillary jobs, earning more than $26 billion in wages while contributing $91.65 billion in activity to the nation’s economy in 2024, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) documents in its Firearm and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report for 2025.

That’s nearly a 400 percent increases compared to the $19.1 billion it generated in 2008, the foundation notes, adding the industry’s average $68,300 annual salary is above median workforce ranges, and that the industry and its employees paid nearly $11 billion in local and state taxes, and $941.8 million in excise taxes paid to Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund in 2024.

The industry is boosted by millions of new gun owners over the last five years who have undergone review on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although the number of background checks—an indicator, but not verified documentation, of a sale—declined by 4 percent in to 14.6 million in 2025 from 15.38 million in 2004, the foundation documents.

The foundation, whose 9,000 members include manufacturers, distributors, retailers, shooting ranges, and publishers, is the nation’s largest gun owners’ rights lobbying presence in Washington. According to Open Secrets, it spent $5.5 million on DC lobbying in 2025 and nearly $7 million in 2024. During those same two years, the National Rifle Association spent $2.2 million and $4.9 million, respectively, on federal lobbying.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks with firearms industry representatives on Jan. 21, 2026, after participating in a Governors’ Forum at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, where 60,000 people are expected to view and purchase outdoors and law enforcement gear from more than 2,800 companies during the three-day annual trade show. John Haughey/Epoch Times

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said her state has targeted firearms manufacturers because they produce quality products and pay employees well with benefits. She offered advice to companies unhappy with the regulatory environment they are now in, such as those in leading firearms manufacturer states like California.

“First thing, operate in a red state. One of the reasons is blue states make so many regulations,“ she said, adding that manufacturers are ”looking for a new place to go” where development codes are manageable, energy is available, and the industry is appreciated.

“Arkansas is a red state. It is the best red state,” Sanders said, noting it is third in the nation in per capita industry impact.

“The only reason we aren’t number one is so many people in Arkansas are buying these products and keeping them in-state.”

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte said the state’s economic development agency receives “three to six” calls a week from firearms manufacturers about relocating to Montana. He recently heard about a company having issues with Colorado regulations and “cold-called them,” he said. “I have a simple pitch: ‘Come back to America,’” which the state has turned into a marketing video.

The biggest obstacle to the industry’s growth, the governors agreed, is the availability of a workforce with skills in needed crafts such as CMC (Computerized Machining Center) operators, welders, and gunsmiths, with all touting state programs that link companies with high school and community college vocational education programs.

Deutsche Bank is looking at U.S. autos heading into the new year with a growing sense of separation between winners and laggards. In a new 2026 outlook note, Edison Yu and his team argue that while global auto demand remains uneven and suppliers face a tougher volume backdrop, U.S. automakers are entering the year with clearer earnings momentum, helped by better mix, lower EV losses, and a renewed ability to lean into their most profitable internal-combustion vehicles.

At a high level, the bank is cautious on global production growth despite more optimistic industry forecasts. Deutsche Bank sees downside risks tied mainly to China, where changes to government trade-in subsidies are expected to hit lower-priced vehicles hardest. While North America and Europe may improve modestly, the team does not believe those regions can fully offset a potential slowdown in China. As a result, suppliers are likely to guide conservatively for 2026, particularly in the first half of the year, even though fourth-quarter results should generally meet or exceed expectations.

In contrast, the setup for U.S. automakers looks more favorable. Deutsche Bank expects both GM and Ford to deliver solid fourth-quarter results and to grow EBIT by roughly $1–2 billion year over year in 2026. The key driver is not higher unit volumes, but a shift in mix. With regulatory pressure easing, automakers no longer need to restrict production of high-margin trucks and SUVs to meet fleet-wide emissions targets. That flexibility allows them to stock dealerships with more profitable trims, improving margins even if overall sales volumes remain flat or modestly lower.

The pullback from aggressive EV expansion is another important theme. Both Ford and GM have taken multi-billion-dollar write-downs tied to EV programs and battery investments. Deutsche Bank views these moves as painful but necessary resets that reduce future losses, depreciation, and overhead. By clearing out what the bank refers to as “stranded assets,” both companies enter 2026 with a cleaner cost base and a much easier earnings comparison year over year.

For EV-focused companies, the conversation shifts away from near-term vehicle volumes and toward technology execution. Deutsche Bank expects muted underlying volume growth for Tesla and Rivian, with investor attention increasingly centered on autonomy, software, and what the team describes as “physical AI.” For Tesla, that means proving real-world progress in unsupervised full self-driving and robotaxi deployment before earning additional valuation credit. For Rivian, 2026 is framed as a critical year, with the R2 launch needing to demonstrate not just scale, but improving competitiveness in autonomy.

Suppliers face a more complicated picture. China stands out as the biggest wildcard, as revised subsidy rules disproportionately impact lower-priced vehicles and are expected to drive a year-over-year decline in passenger vehicle wholesales. While many global suppliers skew toward higher-end vehicles, which may help mix, Deutsche Bank still expects a net negative volume impact. BorgWarner is singled out as particularly exposed given its historical reliance on China for growth.

Another emerging risk is memory chips. The surge in AI data center demand has pulled wafer capacity away from automotive-grade DRAM, sending prices sharply higher. Deutsche Bank has not yet fully baked a DRAM-driven production hit into its forecasts, but flags it as a meaningful downside risk, especially for suppliers without strong inventory buffers or pricing protections. Some companies, like Aptiv, appear better insulated, while others may feel indirect pressure if vehicle production slows.

Stepping back, Deutsche Bank’s overarching message is that 2026 is shaping up to be less about selling more cars and more about selling the right ones, at the right margins, with tighter cost control. Automakers, particularly in the U.S., appear better positioned to navigate that environment than suppliers. ICE vehicles are once again doing the heavy lifting for profits, EV strategies are being reset to prioritize economics over ambition, and autonomy remains the long-term prize—but one that still requires proof.