Most Voters Back Impeaching Anti-Trump Judge Over ‘Arctic Frost’ Scandal

A majority of voters say they support impeaching James Boasberg, the federal judge linked to the Biden administration’s “Arctic Frost” investigation, which reportedly involved surveillance of Republican

According to a Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey, 67% of likely U.S. voters view “Arctic Frost” as a serious scandal, with 43% describing it as “very serious.”

Meanwhile, 26% of respondents said they do not consider the controversy serious, including 12% who said it is “not at all” serious, Just the News reported.

The survey comes amid a GOP-led effort to make Boasberg the first impeached judge since 2010. A total of 15 federal judges have been impeached by the House, but only eight were removed by the Senate.

Republican lawmakers in the House want to move against Boasberg after revelations that he and Judge Beryl Howell issued non-disclosure orders shielding nearly 200 subpoenas targeting Republican organizations, officials, and donors under former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by the Biden Justice Department.

Last week, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said he is drafting articles of impeachment against Boasberg. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) also signaled his intent to pursue impeachment. It is not yet clear whether Howell will also face similar action, The National Pulse

reported.

The outlet added that Smith issued 197 subpoenas affecting more than 430 Republican groups and individuals as part of what is being described as the “Arctic Frost” probe. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called the investigation a “fishing expedition” targeting the Republican political apparatus.

Among the subpoenas were requests for telecom companies to hand over cell data from about a dozen Republican lawmakers. The disclosure orders signed by Boasberg and Howell prevented the companies from notifying the affected members.

“Radical activist judge James Boasberg continues to weaponize his judicial authority and target his political opponents,” Gill said in a statement. “Judge Boasberg facilitated the egregious Arctic Frost scandal, where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel.”

Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama, serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. He has faced criticism in the past for rulings that affected Trump administration policies.

According to reports, the subpoenas targeted political vendors and financial institutions linked to Trump-aligned PACs, suggesting that Smith’s office sought to trace potential monetary connections between consulting firms, advisors, and nonprofits. The goal appeared to be establishing grounds for possible RICO charges if prosecutors had secured a conviction against Trump.

In March, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona introduced a resolution to remove Judge Boasberg from office under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution — an approach that would bypass impeachment and the two-thirds vote required in the Senate, JustTheNews

reported.

Biggs said federal judges “serve during good behavior” and argued that Congress has the authority to remove those who fail to meet that standard.

“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge. That unless impeached, a federal judge can serve until death,” Biggs told Just the News. “But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”

Boasberg had previously blocked President Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal immigrants alleged to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He ordered government planes en route to El Salvador carrying the alleged gang members to return to the United States.

Biggs said such actions exceeded judicial authority and interfered with presidential powers over foreign policy and national security.

“Maybe firing such a judge could be the answer,” Biggs said. “It would certainly be specific deterrence that would prevent that type of misconduct from such a judge. And it would provide general deterrence in that all other federal judges would think more about applying the law to the case rather than attempting to twist the law so that the judge can attack a political adversary.”

members of Congress.

Former Capitol Police Chief Delivers Devastating Public Rebuke to Pelosi Over January 6 Claims

A stunning public confrontation has erupted between two of the most prominent figures from the January 6 Capitol riot, revealing previously undisclosed details about the security failures that preceded one of the most traumatic days in American political history. The explosive exchange has reignited debates about accountability, leadership failures, and the complex web of decisions that left the nation’s Capitol vulnerable to attack, while simultaneously exposing the ongoing political battles that continue to shape how Americans understand that pivotal day.

The Catalyst: Trump’s DC Crackdown Sparks Old Wounds

The confrontation began when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a sharp attack on President Trump’s comprehensive federal law enforcement initiative in Washington D.C., which included seizing direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard for street patrols. Pelosi’s criticism went beyond the immediate policy implications to draw direct parallels with Trump’s actions during the January 6 Capitol riot.

“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi declared in a statement that immediately garnered national attention. “Now, he’s activating the D.C. Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration — just to name a few blunders.”

Pelosi’s statement represented more than routine political opposition; it was a deliberate attempt to frame Trump’s current law enforcement initiatives through the lens of his alleged failures during the Capitol riot. By invoking January 6, Pelosi sought to raise questions about Trump’s commitment to law enforcement and public safety, positioning herself as a defender of institutional security against presidential overreach.

The former Speaker’s decision to make this comparison proved to be a significant tactical error, as it provided an opening for someone with intimate knowledge of the January 6 security preparations to challenge her narrative directly and publicly.

Steven Sund’s Devastating Response: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s response to Pelosi was swift, comprehensive, and devastating in its specificity. Sund, who resigned in the immediate aftermath of January 6, used his unique position as the person responsible for Capitol security to systematically dismantle Pelosi’s characterization of events.

“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund began his statement, immediately establishing a tone of moral authority and calling into question Pelosi’s truthfulness. This opening salvo suggested that Sund viewed Pelosi’s comments not as mere political rhetoric, but as a fundamental misrepresentation of historical facts.

Sund’s statement revealed previously undisclosed details about his efforts to secure National Guard support in the days leading up to January 6. According to his account, on January 3, 2021—three full days before the riot—he formally requested National Guard assistance through proper channels. This timeline detail is crucial because it directly contradicts narratives that suggest security officials were caught off-guard by the potential for violence on January 6.

The former chief’s revelation that his January 3 request was “shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms” represents perhaps the most explosive element of his statement. This claim suggests that the security failures of January 6 were not the result of poor planning or inadequate intelligence, but rather of deliberate decisions by officials operating under Pelosi’s authority to reject enhanced security measures.

Legal Constraints and Administrative Roadblocks

Sund’s explanation of the legal framework governing National Guard deployment reveals the complex bureaucratic structure that may have contributed to the January 6 security failures. His citation of federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970) provides specific legal grounding for his claim that he was “prohibited from calling them in without specific approval.”

This legal constraint is significant because it suggests that even if Sund had possessed perfect intelligence about the coming violence, he would have been powerless to act without authorization from congressional leadership. The law’s requirement for specific approval creates a chain of accountability that leads directly to House and Senate leadership, including Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker.

Sund’s account of Pentagon involvement adds another layer of complexity to the pre-January 6 security preparations. His claim that “Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support” on January 3, but that he was “forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority,” suggests that federal military officials were prepared to provide assistance but were prevented from doing so by congressional restrictions.

This revelation, if accurate, fundamentally alters the narrative about January 6 preparations by suggesting that adequate security resources were available and offered, but were rejected due to legal and administrative constraints imposed by congressional leadership.

The Hour of Crisis: January 6 Decision-Making Under Fire

Sund’s description of his efforts to obtain National Guard support during the actual riot provides perhaps the most damaging allegations against Pelosi’s leadership. His claim that he “begged again for the Guard” when violence erupted, only to be “stalled for over an hour,” paints a picture of bureaucratic dysfunction at the moment of greatest crisis.

The specific detail that Pelosi’s Sergeant at Arms “denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval” suggests a leadership structure that was either unprepared for crisis decision-making or deliberately slow-walking security requests for political reasons.

Sund’s use of the phrase “70 agonizing minutes” is particularly powerful because it humanizes the abstract concept of bureaucratic delay by connecting it directly to the real-time violence and chaos that was unfolding at the Capitol. Every minute of delay represented additional risk to the lives of Members of Congress, staff, and law enforcement officers.

The former chief’s characterization of repeated denials during active violence raises fundamental questions about the priorities and decision-making processes of congressional leadership during the crisis. If Sund’s account is accurate, it suggests that even as the Capitol was under physical attack, administrative procedures took precedence over immediate security needs.

The Hypocrisy Accusation: Post-January 6 Security Theater

Perhaps the most politically damaging element of Sund’s statement is his direct accusation of hypocrisy against Pelosi regarding post-January 6 security measures. His observation that “when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops” draws a sharp contrast between Pelosi’s alleged reluctance to authorize security before January 6 and her enthusiasm for extensive security measures afterward.

This accusation is particularly powerful because it addresses one of the most visible and controversial aspects of the post-January 6 period: the transformation of the Capitol complex into what critics described as a militarized zone. The presence of thousands of National Guard troops, razor wire fencing, and multiple security checkpoints became symbols of how dramatically January 6 had changed the relationship between the American people and their government.

Sund’s framing suggests that these dramatic security measures represented not genuine security improvements, but political theater designed to reinforce a particular narrative about January 6 and its aftermath. By characterizing the post-riot security as something that “suited” Pelosi politically, Sund implies that her security decisions were driven by political calculations rather than genuine security assessments.

The Broader Context: DC Law Enforcement Under Federal Control

The Pelosi-Sund exchange occurred against the backdrop of Trump’s comprehensive federal takeover of Washington D.C. law enforcement, which has produced measurable changes in both crime statistics and immigration enforcement activities. According to CNN’s analysis of government data, the first week under federal control saw property crimes fall by approximately 19 percent and violent crime drop by 17 percent compared to the previous week.

These statistics provide important context for understanding why Pelosi chose to attack Trump’s D.C. initiative through the lens of January 6. The apparent early success of federal law enforcement coordination in reducing crime rates could potentially undermine Democratic arguments about Trump’s fitness for office and his commitment to law and order.

The federal operation has also dramatically increased immigration enforcement activities, with approximately 300 arrests of individuals without legal status since August 7—more than ten times the typical weekly number. This enforcement surge aligns with broader Trump administration priorities and demonstrates the comprehensive nature of the federal takeover.

Federal agencies have embedded personnel with local police units, creating integrated teams that assist in arrests, searches, and warrant executions while patrolling the city in unmarked vehicles. This level of federal-local integration represents a significant departure from traditional policing models and provides a template that could be applied to other jurisdictions.

Congressional Leadership and Security Responsibilities

The Sund-Pelosi confrontation raises fundamental questions about the role of congressional leadership in Capitol security decisions and the accountability structures that govern such responsibilities. Under the current system, the Capitol Police operate under the authority of the Capitol Police Board, which includes the Sergeant at Arms of both the House and Senate.

This structure creates a complex chain of command that can lead to delays and confusion during crisis situations, as Sund’s account appears to demonstrate. The requirement for congressional leadership approval of National Guard deployment reflects the founders’ concerns about military forces being used against civilian government, but may create vulnerabilities during genuine security emergencies.

Sund’s revelations suggest that this system may have contributed directly to the security failures of January 6 by creating bureaucratic obstacles to rapid response during a developing crisis. His account implies that even when security professionals identified threats and requested appropriate resources, political considerations may have prevented adequate responses.

Political Implications and Historical Accountability

The public exchange between Sund and Pelosi has significant implications for ongoing political debates about January 6 and the broader questions of accountability for that day’s events. Sund’s detailed, specific allegations provide Republicans with powerful ammunition for their arguments that Democratic leadership bears significant responsibility for the security failures.

If Sund’s claims are substantiated, they could fundamentally alter public understanding of January 6 by shifting focus from Trump’s actions and rhetoric to congressional leadership’s security decisions. This shift could have profound implications for how Americans assign blame and accountability for the events of that day.

The timing of this confrontation, occurring as Trump implements comprehensive law enforcement reforms in Washington D.C., also provides a stark contrast between current federal security measures and the alleged security deficiencies that preceded January 6. This comparison could strengthen Trump’s political position by demonstrating decisive leadership in contrast to what Sund portrays as congressional indecision and obstruction.

Bill Gates Withdraws Massive Donations For Democrats After Meeting With Trump

Bill Gates Withdraws Massive Donations For Democrats After Meeting With Trump In a move that has stunned both political and philanthropic circles, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has rescinded an enormous grant that had been allocated to political groups supporting far-left causes and Democratic candidates.This dramatic shift came just one day after a private meeting between Gates and former President Donald Trump at the White House. The decision, which affects millions of dollars in donations, signals a major change in Gates’ philanthropic strategy, one that could reshape his foundation’s political involvement moving forward.The meeting between Gates and Trump on Tuesday afternoon, which has not been widely publicized, reportedly focused on global health initiatives, particularly efforts to combat AIDS and malaria.Sources familiar with the discussion revealed that Gates used the opportunity to press Trump on the importance of maintaining U.S. financial support for health programs that tackle infectious diseases worldwide. However, the meeting’s aftermath has had far-reaching consequences beyond just global health discussions.By Wednesday morning, the Gates Foundation had decided to pull $77 million in support from Arabella Advisors, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm known for funneling significant donations into liberal political causes.Arabella has been a key player in managing funds from Gates’ charitable organization, directing them toward a variety of left-wing groups focused on issues such as transgender rights, environmental activism, and gender pay equity.The sudden change in strategy, confirmed by multiple sources within the Gates Foundation, is expected to have a ripple effect on many of the groups that had been beneficiaries of these funds. Gates’ decision to sever ties with Arabella Advisors has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. The Gates Foundation, one of the most influential and well-funded philanthropic organizations in the world, has long been associated with progressive causes, with much of its funding directed to issues like global health, poverty alleviation, and education reform.However, recent reports suggest that Gates is becoming increasingly wary of the political implications of his donations, especially as the political climate in the United States becomes more polarized.A memo issued by the Gates Foundation on June 24 explained that the decision to sever ties with Arabella was part of a broader strategic shift within the organization.The memo indicated that the foundation was moving toward a model where its teams would work more directly with programmatic partners, cutting out intermediaries like Arabella Advisors.According to the memo, this new approach would allow the foundation to build deeper, more lasting relationships with the organizations and communities it supports, while also ensuring that its resources are being used as efficiently as possible.“As we look ahead, this is a chance to build deeper, more durable relationships with those partners – and to reinforce the kind of legacy we want to leave behind,” the memo read.The memo did not specifically mention the political groups or causes that would be affected by the decision, but sources within the Gates Foundation have confirmed that the severing of ties with Arabella will impact a wide range of liberal political organizations that have received support over the years.The decision has been described by Gates’ spokesperson as a “business decision” that reflects the foundation’s ongoing commitment to strategic assessments and partnerships.The foundation’s leadership has emphasized that this move is part of a regular reevaluation of its charitable activities and is not a reaction to any specific political pressures.However, the timing of the decision has raised questions about whether Gates is responding to concerns from conservative circles, particularly as former President Trump has voiced concerns about the role of nonprofit organizations in political activities.Trump has been an outspoken critic of what he perceives as the increasing politicization of charitable organizations, particularly those that support left-wing causes.He has accused these organizations of using charitable funds to advance political agendas that he believes are detrimental to the interests of the American people.In this context, Gates’ decision to distance his foundation from Arabella Advisors could be seen as an attempt to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Trump has levied against other nonprofit organizations.The Gates Foundation’s focus on global health initiatives has also come under fire from some quarters. Critics argue that the foundation’s efforts to combat global health issues are often misaligned with the priorities of the U.S. government, particularly in the area of international aid.The U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, for example, has raised concerns about the foundation’s focus on foreign spending, suggesting that some of its programs may not align with U.S. foreign policy objectives.Gates, for his part, has defended his foundation’s work in global health, arguing that the U.S. must remain a leader in international efforts to combat diseases like AIDS and malaria.In his meeting with Trump, Gates reportedly emphasized the importance of U.S. funding for global health programs, particularly in underserved regions where diseases like malaria continue to pose a significant threat to public health.Gates has also expressed concern about the potential consequences of reducing U.S. contributions to global health programs, warning that doing so could undermine efforts to combat infectious diseases and harm the global reputation of the U.S.The Gates Foundation’s recent pledge of $2.5 billion by 2030 to address underserved areas of global health for women further underscores the organization’s commitment to international health initiatives.However, the foundation’s growing focus on these issues may have led to tension with U.S. policymakers, particularly as the Trump administration sought to cut funding for global health programs.Gates’ decision to pull funding from Arabella Advisors could be an attempt to reposition his foundation’s activities in a way that is more aligned with the current political climate in the U.S.The financial implications of Gates’ decision are significant. Over the past 16 years, the Gates Foundation has committed over $450 million to Arabella Advisors and its affiliated political organizations.Many of these funds have been directed toward far-left causes, including transgender rights, environmental activism, and gender pay equity. The decision to unwind these commitments could have a major impact on the groups that have relied on this funding, potentially forcing them to seek alternative sources of financial support.While the Gates Foundation’s decision to sever ties with Arabella Advisors is likely to send shockwaves through the nonprofit and political worlds, it is not the first time that Gates has faced criticism for his philanthropic activities.In recent years, the foundation has come under scrutiny for its close ties to large corporations and its role in shaping public policy. Some critics argue that the foundation’s focus on global health and education reform is too narrow and does not address the underlying issues of inequality and injustice in the U.S.Others have raised concerns about the foundation’s influence in political circles, particularly in the area of education policy.Despite these criticisms, Gates remains one of the most influential philanthropists in the world, with his foundation continuing to fund a wide range of initiatives aimed at improving global health, reducing poverty, and promoting education.However, his recent decision to pull funding from Arabella Advisors suggests that he is becoming increasingly cautious about the political implications of his donations.Whether this shift in strategy represents a permanent change in Gates’ approach to philanthropy or simply a response to the current political climate remains to be seen.For now, the Gates Foundation will likely continue to focus on its core mission of improving global health and addressing the needs of underserved communities.However, the recent changes in its funding strategy are a reminder of the growing influence of politics in the world of philanthropy and the complex decisions that donors must make when navigating the intersection of charity and politics.As Gates and his foundation move forward, it remains to be seen how their evolving approach will shape the future of philanthropy and the political landscape.