A Senate Republican plans to launch a hearing to put political violence from the left under the microscope.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., plans to announce an upcoming hearing, dubbed ‘Politically Violent Attacks: A Threat to Our Constitutional Order,’ to examine the origins of political violence and extremism that he argued stemmed largely from the Democratic side of the political spectrum.

Schmitt, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, plans to hold the hearing on Oct. 28 and will examine the cross section of the First Amendment and political violence, specifically in the wake of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

‘The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk shook the nation to its core, and it was the latest in a long list of examples of left-wing political violence,’ Schmitt said. ‘Many of these attacks come while Americans are exercising constitutionally protected core political speech.’

Kirk’s death prompted a brief moment of reprieve from the typically volatile back-and-forth on Capitol Hill, with many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for a toning down of political rhetoric.

However, as the government shutdown has continued, lawmakers are once again trading barbs as frustrations mount.

The recent ‘No Kings’ rallies across the country renewed discussions among congressional Republicans about political violence among the left, which followed a recent roundtable held at the White House where President Donald Trump hosted independent journalists to share their experiences covering Antifa, a radical left-wing group that Trump recently designated a domestic terrorist organization.

So far, the only confirmed witness for the hearing is conservative commentator and podcast host Michael Knowles, a friend of Kirk’s who recently headlined a Turning Point USA rally at the University of Minnesota.

Knowles himself is no stranger to protests turning violent. He hosted a speaking event focused on transgender ideology at the University of Pittsburgh in 2023 where protesters threw smoke bombs and a firework, which led to a police officer being injured.

During a recent speech at Harvard where he addressed the incident, Knowles said, ‘The left simply commits more violence.’

Knowles lauded Schmitt for holding the hearing in a statement to Fox News Digital, and said that it would serve as an important moment ‘to discuss how Congress can reassert order and hold to account the left-wing ideologues undermining our public square.’

‘This recent uptick in left-wing violence is the culmination of years — really decades — of consistent assaults on their opponents,’ he said. ‘A ‘free marketplace of ideas’ simply cannot exist when ideological bandits keep shooting up the marketplace.’ 

Schmitt referenced both Kirk’s assassination and the University of Pittsburgh incident, along with protests that sprang up around the country following the death of George Floyd.

‘The rise of political violence on the left is deeply disturbing and antithetical to American values, disturbs the free exercise of our constitutional rights and is a threat to our constitutional order,’ he said.

‘Yet, instead of calling out the obvious, the powers that be continue to deny the reality that political violence comes predominantly from one side of the aisle,’ he said. ‘As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, I look forward to getting the American people the answers they deserve about the realities of left-wing political violence.’   

Fox News Digital reached out to Knowles for comment but did not immediately hear back. 

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., told reporters on the 21st day of the government shutdown Tuesday that Democrats ‘ran on killing the filibuster, and now we love it.’

The Pennsylvania Democrat made the remark on Capitol Hill after being asked for his reaction to Republican senators proposing nuking the filibuster to force the government to reopen.

‘We ran on that. We ran on killing the filibuster, and now we love it,’ Fetterman said of Democrats.

‘I don’t want to hear any Democrat clutching their pearls about the filibuster. We all ran on it. I ran on that in my so, like, that’s, yeah,’ he added.

Fetterman also said it’s important to open the government so that Americans can get Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, known as SNAP, assistance, adding that, ‘America’s losing’ during the shutdown and that it’s time to ‘open it back up.’

House Republicans voted to pass the GOP’s government funding bill on Sept. 19, mostly along partisan lines.

It was a seven-week extension of fiscal year (FY) 2025 federal funding levels called a continuing resolution (CR), aimed at giving congressional negotiators more time to strike a longer-term deal on FY2026 spending.

But in the Senate, where at least several Democrats are needed to reach the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster, progress has stalled.

Senate Democrats have tanked the bill in the upper chamber 11 times since the House passed it.

Three members of the Senate Democratic caucus have been voting with Republicans, but under the current tally, at least five more are needed to hold a final vote on the bill.

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind and Daniel Scully contributed to this report.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said first lady Melania Trump could play a critical role in winning the White House’s support for congressional sanctions on Russia.

‘I think the first lady is our secret weapon,’ Blumenthal said Tuesday.

The remark comes as lawmakers weigh whether to advance a Russia sanctions bill that has been in the works for months. The measure enjoys wide bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, but its future remains uncertain as President Donald Trump recently signaled hesitations about putting his weight behind it.

The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 has 84 cosponsors in the Senate and 113 in the House of Representatives.

If passed, the sanctions package would grant the President of the United States enhanced powers to block energy sales, block visas, halt investment listings, impose tariffs of up to 500%, and more. Those measures are conditioned on the president’s determination that Russia isn’t engaging in good-faith efforts to end the war.

Blumenthal, a coauthor of the legislation alongside Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., believes the moment is ripe to advance the package — even as Trump last week told reporters that ‘it might not be perfect timing’ for new sanctions.

Blumenthal believes the first lady could change the president’s outlook.

‘She is obviously deeply disturbed about the kidnapping of children, which is emblematic of war criminality. I see the need to move our bill as a signal to prove that you can’t slow-walk us and mock us indefinitely,’ Blumenthal said.

Melania Trump announced earlier this month that she had engaged in direct communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin over efforts to reunite Ukrainian children that had been abducted amid the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Through those efforts, she helped secure the return of eight Ukrainian children. 

‘Putin understands only strength and force, military and economic. I’m very hopeful [Trump] will see the urgency of now,’ Blumenthal said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told audiences last week that he may bring the bill to a vote in the next 30 days but hinted that parts of the bill may need revision before its consideration. 

He did not lay out what areas of the bill need to be addressed.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently made it known she is no fan of President Donald Trump’s project to construct a ballroom at the White House in an appeal to voters, telling them that 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is their ‘house.’

‘It’s not his house,’ Clinton wrote on X Tuesday morning. ‘It’s your house. And he’s destroying it.’ 

The social media post included a screenshot of The Washington Post’s report, ‘White House begins demolishing East Wing Facade to build Trump’s ballroom,’ accompanied by a photo of a demolition crew. 

‘President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense,’ White House spokesman Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital when asked about Clinton’s post and other Democrats criticizing the ballroom construction. ‘These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People’s House.’ 

Trump announced Monday that construction had begun on the ballroom, following months of the president floating the planned project to modernize the White House. The project does not cost taxpayers and is privately funded, the White House reported. 

‘I am pleased to announce that ground has been broken on the White House grounds to build the new, big, beautiful White House Ballroom,’ Trump said on Truth Social. ‘Completely separate from the White House itself, the East Wing is being fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!’ 

‘For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc. I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!’ he continued. ‘The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly. This Ballroom will be happily used for Generations to come!’

The privately funded project will cost an estimated $200 million, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the media in July. The 90,000-square-foot ballroom will accommodate approximately 650 seated guests, according to the White House. 

‘The White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders in other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away from the main building’s entrance,’ Leavitt said back in July, adding the new ballroom will be ‘a much needed and exquisite addition.’

Other Democrats also have slammed the construction project, including New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim calling it ‘disgusting.’

‘I wanted to share this photo of my family standing by a historic part of the White House that was just torn down today by Trump,’ Kim posted to X on Monday. ‘We didn’t need a billionaire-funded ballroom to celebrate America. Disgusting what Trump is doing.’

‘Oh you’re trying to say the cost of living is skyrocketing? Donald Trump can’t hear you over the sound of bulldozers demolishing a wing of the White House to build a new grand ballroom,’ Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted to X on Monday. 

‘Republican math. Can afford: Trump ballroom, $40 Billion Argentina bailout, massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires Can’t afford: health care for Americans, SNAP for struggling Americans, tax relief for middle class families,’ Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta posted to X. 

The ballroom construction follows Trump installing two massive 88-foot-tall American flags on either side of the White House this summer in a patriotic endeavor that did not cost U.S. taxpayers a cent, as well as an overhaul to the White House Rose Garden. 

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this article. 

The top congressional Democrats want a meeting with President Donald Trump as the government shutdown stretches on.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that both he and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., reached out to Trump on Tuesday to set up a confab with the president.

The top Senate Democrat said the duo ‘urged’ Trump to meet with them, and that they were open to setting up ‘an appointment with him any time, any place.’

‘Hakeem and I reached out to the president today and urged him to sit down and negotiate with us to resolve the healthcare crisis, address it and end the Trump shutdown,’ Schumer said. ‘He should sit — the things get worse every day for the American people. He should sit down with us, negotiate in a serious way before he goes away.’

Congressional Democrats, particularly Schumer and his Democratic caucus, have remained steadfast in their demands for an extension to expiring Obamacare subsidies. Though Senate Republicans have been open to holding a vote on the matter after the government reopens, Democrats want an ironclad guarantee that the subsidies will be extended well before their expiration at the end of this year.

Should Trump relent to their request, it would mark the first meeting among the trio since Schumer, Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met in the Oval Office a day before the shutdown began.

Lawmakers left that meeting with no agreement to avert the shutdown, which has now dragged on for 21 days.

Senate Democrats have also blocked Thune and Republicans’ attempts to reopen the government 11 times. Another vote on the House-passed continuing resolution, which would reopen the government until Nov. 21, is expected on Wednesday.

And like the many attempts before, that latest effort is expected to fail.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans met with Trump for lunch at the White House Tuesday afternoon.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Thune reiterated that Senate Republicans were united in their war of attrition strategy to continue putting the same bill on the floor again and again. He noted that Trump would likely agree to meet with Schumer and Jeffries, but only after Senate Democrats unlocked the votes needed to reopen the government.

‘We have negotiated. I don’t know what there is to negotiate. This is about opening up the government,’ Thune said. ‘We have offered them several off-ramps. Now, the Democrats want something that’s totally untenable. I mean, they want $1.5 trillion in new spending. They want free healthcare for people who are noncitizens in this country. That is just a flat nonstarter. It doesn’t pass the Senate. It won’t pass the House. It won’t be signed into law by the president.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Jeffries’ and the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back. 

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi Tuesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, referred former CIA Director John Brennan to the Justice Department for allegedly making false statements to Congress.

Jordan accused Brennan of lying in his 2023 Judiciary Committee testimony by denying that the CIA used the Steele dossier in prepping the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, and falsely claiming the CIA opposed including the dossier.

The Steele dossier was a series of reports detailing President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. It was compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele.

In Jordan’s letter, he alleged subsequent investigations ‘confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump’s purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier.’

In July 2025, the Trump administration declassified documents which appear to show Brennan approved the decision to include the dossier, despite objections from senior CIA officials.

During a transcribed interview on May 11, 2023, Brennan stated that ‘the CIA was not involved at all with the [Steele] dossier.’

Yet, according to the declassified documents, the decision to incorporate information from the dossier in the ICA ‘was jointly made by the Directors of CIA and FBI.’

‘Brennan’s assertion that the CIA was not ‘involved at all’ with the Steele dossier cannot be reconciled with the facts,’ Jordan wrote in the letter. ‘As the newly declassified documents show, a CIA officer drafted the annex containing a summary of the dossier; Brennan made the ultimate decision, along with then-FBI Director James Comey, to include information from the dossier in the ICA; and, as discussed further below, Brennan overruled senior CIA officers who objected to the inclusion of the dossier material.’

While past the five-year statute of limitations on criminal prosecution, Jordan also accused Brennan of providing false testimony during a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) hearing in 2017 — a move Jordan said ‘indicates a pattern of Brennan’s willingness to lie to Congress about the Steele dossier.’

‘The HPSCI report and the CIA memorandum confirm not only that the Steele dossier was used as a basis for the ICA, but that Brennan insisted on its inclusion,’ Jordan wrote. ‘This stands in stark contrast with Brennan’s testimony to HPSCI that the dossier was not used in drafting the ICA. … Brennan’s testimony before the Committee on May 11, 2023, was a brazen attempt to knowingly and willfully testify falsely and fictitiously to material facts.’

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates

Former first son Hunter Biden is claiming that his father only pardoned him because Donald Trump reclaimed the presidency in November 2024 — and ‘would not have’ done so under ‘normal circumstances’ while the appeals process played out.

‘Donald Trump went and changed everything,’ Hunter said in an interview released Monday on journalist Tommy Christopher’s Substack platform.

‘And I don’t think that I need to make much of an argument about why it changed everything.’

The 55-year-old — who pleaded guilty last year to evading $1.4 million in back taxes to the IRS and was convicted on felony gun charges — declined to mention that he had apparently been present for discussions on pardons during Joe Biden’s final months in the White House.

‘I’ve said this before,’ Hunter went on.

‘My dad would not have pardoned me if President Trump had not won, and the reason that he would not have pardoned me is because I was certain that in a normal circumstance of the appeals [I would have won].’

The Biden scion added that Trump was planning a ‘revenge tour’ against his father, which would have made himself the ‘easiest target to just to intimidate and to not just impact me, but impact my entire family into, into silence in a way that at least he is not — it’s not as easy for him to do [with] me being pardoned.’

‘I realize how privileged I am,’ Hunter went on.

‘I realize how lucky I am; I realize that I got something that almost no one would have gotten.

‘But I’m incredibly grateful for it and I have to say that I don’t think that it requires me to make much of a detailed argument for why it was the right thing to do, at least from my dad, from his perspective.’

Ex-White House chief of staff Jeff Zients spilled last month that Hunter ‘was involved’ in clemency talks and even ‘attended a few meetings,’ a source with knowledge of the Biden official’s testimony to the House Oversight Committee told The Post.

A group of House Republicans is raising concerns about the potential effects of the U.S. importing Argentinian beef after President Donald Trump floated the idea earlier this week.

Rep. Julie Fedorchak, R-N.D., is leading seven other House GOP lawmakers in a letter to the president on Tuesday evening, warning the potential plan has rattled the multibillion-dollar American ranching industry.

‘America’s cattle producers are among the most resilient and hardworking in the nation,’ the Republicans wrote. ‘Collectively, the cattle industry supports thousands of jobs across our districts and contributes $112 billion to rural economies nationwide.’

‘In recent days, we have heard strong concerns from producers regarding reports that the U.S. may import beef from Argentina.’

The House Republicans acknowledged the ‘importance of strong trade relationships and diverse markets’ but added that beef producers in their districts ‘are seeking clarity on how this decision will be made, what safety and inspection standards will apply, and how this policy aligns with your administration’s commitment to strengthening American agriculture.’

Trump suggested Sunday that buying beef from Argentina could help lower prices for Americans at home, amid a wider promise to lower costs for U.S. citizens.

‘One of the things we’re thinking about doing is beef from Argentina,’ Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

He later elaborated in his conversation with reporters, ‘We would buy some beef from Argentina. If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.’

‘Our groceries are down, our energy prices are down. I think we’re going to have $2 gasoline pretty soon. We’re getting close and everything’s down. The one thing that’s kept up is beef,’ Trump said.

He added that it would not be ‘that much’ but argued it would help Argentina, a U.S. ally, as well.

But the House Republicans questioned whether imported beef would be held to the same food safety and animal health requirements as that of the U.S., which they called ‘the gold standard.’

‘Any import policy must hold foreign suppliers to those same rigorous standards. Introducing beef from countries with inconsistent safety or inspection records could undermine the confidence that U.S. ranchers have worked decades to earn,’ the lawmakers warned.

‘We respectfully request additional information on this matter and urge your administration to ensure that any future decisions are made with full transparency, sound science, and a firm commitment to the U.S. cattle industry. America’s producers can compete with anyone in the world. If given an opportunity, they will continue to respond quickly to the market demand for more quality American beef in our grocery stores.’

In addition to Fedorchak, the letter is also signed by Reps. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn., Troy Downing, R-Mont., Gabe Evans, R-Colo., Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., and Republican Study Committee Chair August Pfluger, R-Texas.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told Fox News Digital in response, ‘The Trump administration remains committed to addressing the needs and concerns of American cattle producers and safeguarding their interests at home and abroad. That’s why the administration has secured billions in new export opportunities for American agricultural products in our historic trade deals with the UK, Japan, the EU, and others.’

‘It’s also why the administration is focused on reversing a prolonged decrease in the supply of live cattle by growing American cattle herds with robust action to deliver disaster relief to cattle country, support new ranchers, and reduce risk for cattle producers,’ Desai said.

Trump’s proposal has stirred some anxiety among some Republicans whose constituencies depend on cattle ranching.

Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., posted on X Tuesday, ‘If the goal is addressing beef prices at the grocery store, this isn’t the way.’

‘The U.S. has safe, reliable beef, and it is the one bright spot in our struggling ag economy. Nebraska’s ranchers cannot afford to have the rug pulled out from under them when they’re just getting ahead or simply breaking even,’ Fischer wrote.

Meanwhile, Fox News Digital was told that Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., also raised significant concerns about what importing beef from Argentina could do to the U.S. cattle ranching industry during a call with fellow House Republicans on Tuesday.

But some Republican responses were more muted. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters that Trump ‘definitely identified a problem’ regarding a shortage of cattle in the U.S. He added, ‘I understand what he’s trying to get done. I think there’s more ways to implement it.’

Fedorchak herself told Fox News Digital, ‘We’ve all received a number of questions and calls from our constituents over the last few days, so we are asking for clarity on the administration’s long-term plans. Our farmers and ranchers stand ready to deliver on the president’s America-First agenda. North Dakotans take great pride in producing the safest, highest-quality beef in the world — and we should be building on that success.’

Colombia’s former defense minister Juan Carlos Pinzón warned that the once-close U.S.–Colombia alliance has ‘collapsed’ under President Gustavo Petro, accusing the leftist leader of aligning with Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and turning Colombia into a ‘narco-state.’

Pinzón, who is weighing a presidential run, told Fox News Digital he could ‘repair U.S.-Colombian relations in a week’ and urged international oversight of Colombia’s May elections amid what he called growing cartel influence and political corruption.

‘Petro has made himself an ally to [Venezuelan dictator Nicolás] Maduro’s regime, a narco-state, and a regime that is held mainly by the Cartel de los Soles,’ Pinzón said. ‘He has justified the existence of drug trafficking in Colombia … he has aligned himself with the idea of something that he calls ‘Total Peace,’ which implies that he’s providing benefits to drug traffickers and terrorist organizations and in general terms to organized crime.’

Relations between Washington and Bogotá — historically one of the closest U.S. security partnerships in Latin America — have deteriorated sharply under Petro, who has sought warmer ties with Caracas while distancing Colombia from the U.S. and Western allies.

During his tenure as defense minister from 2011 to 2015 under President Juan Manuel Santos, Pinzón oversaw some of Colombia’s most aggressive operations against the FARC and other armed groups, helping drive coca production and kidnappings to historic lows. As ambassador to Washington from 2015 to 2017, he helped secure Colombia’s designation as a major non-NATO ally, expanding intelligence sharing and military training programs with the U.S. — partnerships he now says have been ‘dismantled’ under Petro.

Under Petro’s ‘Total Peace’ policy, the Colombian government negotiates directly with armed criminal groups in an effort to end decades of internal conflict and integrate fighters into civilian life. Critics, including Pinzón, say the initiative has legitimized cartels and weakened the country’s security forces.

‘Homicide has gone up, terrorist actions have gone up, kidnappings have gone up, and the killing of police officers and military is increasing,’ he said. ‘All this is very bad for my country. And this is why I’m so committed to fight this, to confront this.’

Pinzón, who previously served as both defense minister and ambassador to Washington, is positioning himself as a pro-U.S. alternative ahead of Colombia’s 2026 presidential race. ‘I might announce a decision in the coming weeks,’ he said. ‘That’s something that I’m really considering.’

He also called for international election monitoring, warning that criminal networks could interfere in the vote. ‘If I were to ask something to the world today and to the international community — to the U.S., to the European Union, and even to countries in Asia — it’s that they make sure Colombian elections are not tainted by drug trafficking, illegal mining or terrorist hands,’ Pinzón said.

After a recent spat where Petro accused the U.S. of killing a Colombian fisherman in one of its seven Caribbean strikes targeting drug traffickers, Trump announced he would cut off all counter-narcotics aid to Colombia and hike tariffs on the nation. 

Pinzón urged Washington not to punish ordinary Colombians for Petro’s policies.

‘It’s not regular Colombians who are doing this,’ he said. ‘Most of us completely disagree with what is going on under Petro. We don’t want to see tariffs that can affect jobs and businesses in Colombia.’

While he praised Trump’s stance against narco-trafficking and corruption, Pinzón said he hopes the U.S. will avoid cutting counternarcotics aid, which he described as vital to Colombia’s military and police forces on the front lines of the drug war. ‘Our military and police are the real fighters against drugs,’ he said. ‘They continue to sacrifice, they continue to confront terrorism and drug trafficking. If that support disappears, it’s the criminals who are going to benefit.’

Instead, Pinzón said Washington should focus on targeted financial sanctions—such as those imposed by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)—to hit specific traffickers, corrupt officials and their enablers rather than imposing measures that ‘hurt regular Colombians.’ ‘We would prefer OFAC-style sanctions on the people committing crimes,’ he said, ‘not policies that punish those who oppose Petro’s agenda.’

Looking ahead to potential ties with Washington, Pinzón said he could quickly rebuild the partnership through renewed security and intelligence cooperation, technology exchange, and educational programs.

‘I will just come to the U.S., speak openly and clearly with President Trump and the U.S. leadership, and speak on the need of creating a security agreement again on intelligence, on air mobility, on technology, on combating drug trade, but also on critical minerals and education,’ he said. ‘We want more Colombians to come to U.S. schools and enhance their capabilities and come back to Colombia to create knowledge, wealth and prosperity. We’re going to be again the closest ally of the United States strategically in the region.’

If Colombia continues on its current course, Pinzón warned, it could destabilize the entire hemisphere. ‘Colombia is a stabilizer at the end,’ he said. ‘If Colombia fails, the whole region will fail.’

Asked if he would seek U.S. backing, Pinzón said he values bipartisan support. ‘Everybody knows that I will have a very good relationship with the United States, certainly with the current administration, with President Trump,’ he said.

Pinzón also accused Petro of ‘abandoning’ Colombian citizens during a diplomatic spat with Washington after refusing deportation flights from the U.S. because the migrants were shackled. He said he would cooperate on deportations and be open to broader agreements if asked.

‘When Afghanistan fell, we offered the U.S. even to take care of some of the Afghanis if necessary,’ Pinzón said. ‘When you have a strong relationship as the one we used to have between Colombia and the U.S., and we will have if I can get to the presidency, what we’re going to see is a lot of good coordination and a lot of good things for both the people of Colombia and the people of the United States.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the Colombian Embassy for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

For nearly a decade, conservatives have argued President Donald Trump and his allies have been targeted by federal law enforcement agencies. The media and so-called intel experts tried to convince us that Hunter Biden’s laptop was fake news and the Steele Dossier was God’s honest truth. Why? Because of deep political bias against Trump. Rather than sweep these injustices under the rug, I want to set the record straight.  

In September, former FBI Director James Comey, known for misusing his power against the president, was indicted for lying to Congress. I’ve been arguing for five years that Comey’s actions should be examined carefully, including the possibility of criminal misconduct. 

In analyzing the prosecution of Comey, it’s important to review the facts that led to this moment. In July 2016, Comey’s FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, a counterintelligence operation centered around whether Trump was colluding with Russia during his campaign. The genesis for this theory largely stemmed from the Steele Dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, who we now know was hired on behalf of the Clinton campaign.  

Within a month of opening Crossfire Hurricane, Comey attended a meeting at the White House where then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden and other high-ranking officials on credible intelligence suggesting then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign may have been behind the narrative that Trump was colluding with the Russians. A few weeks later, Comey also received a memo from the intelligence community supporting the idea that the Clinton campaign signed off on an effort to link Trump to Russia. 

Fast-forward to January 2017, the Russian subsource who provided the information for the Steele Dossier told the FBI that the information in the dossier was unreliable and nothing but hearsay. Despite this interview, Comey and others continued to apply for warrants against Carter Page, an official adviser to the Trump campaign. 

One would think that alarm bells would go off in the FBI when the man primarily responsible for creating the document used to get a warrant in the FISA court had recanted the authenticity of the document. Apparently, this bombshell revelation in the bureau’s most high-profile investigation sat in the bowels of the FBI and never made it to Comey. I find that hard to believe. 

At that time, the FBI clearly possessed exculpatory information exonerating Trump. Despite the fact that the DOJ and FBI have a duty to share exculpatory information and evidence that might undercut the reliability of a warrant application with the FISA court, they never did. 

In 2020, Comey testified during a hearing I called as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was never informed of the dossier’s lack of credibility and that the intelligence reports indicating the Clinton campaign was behind the Russia narrative did not ‘ring any bells.’ I had a hard time then — as I do now — believing that the former FBI director was telling the truth. 

The other matter to consider is the Biden Justice Department’s persecution of Trump. Three days after he announced he would seek the White House in 2024, the Biden DOJ appointed Jack Smith as special counsel.  

Within nine months of launching his campaign, Trump was indicted on 91 criminal counts across four separate jurisdictions — two of which were started by Smith. It is my firm belief that if Trump had decided not to seek the presidency in 2024, none of this would have happened. Many Americans agree with me that these indictments were politically motivated and that Smith was not a fair arbiter of the law.  

It has been the DOJ’s long-standing policy to not charge political candidates before Election Day to avoid the appearance of impropriety. However, Smith obliterated this policy. Within a month before the 2024 election, Smith was allowed to publicly release a brief containing his own version of the evidence against Trump, and he was even allowed to release an unredacted version two weeks before the election.  

Smith not only went after Trump but also his allies in Congress. During their investigation, agents working for Smith obtained records from the phone calls I — as well as eight of my colleagues — made between Jan. 4-7, 2021. At that time, I was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These actions are an egregious violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers and should concern every American, regardless of their politics.  

 I’ve been arguing for five years that Comey’s actions should be examined carefully, including the possibility of criminal misconduct. 

The common theme between Comey and Smith is that they cut corners and ignored procedures in their pursuit of Trump. Comey disregarded evidence exonerating Trump during Crossfire Hurricane, and Smith released damaging information about him just weeks before the 2024 election. These misguided investigations resulted in numerous indictments, flooded the media with negative stories about Trump and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.  

Fortunately, the American people saw through these examples of weaponization by the DOJ and FBI, but Comey, Smith and others still inflicted great damage on our country. Their misconduct eroded trust in our institutions and threatened the Constitution’s fundamental principle of equal justice under law. 

These abuses by Comey and Smith come along with numerous other examples of Democratic administrations targeting conservatives, including the RNC, parents attending school board meetings, Americans going to church, the America First Policy Institute, among others. When you hear Republicans say the law has been weaponized against President Trump and his supporters, at least have some understanding of why we feel that way. To suggest otherwise defies reality and common sense. 

I will join my Republican colleagues and fellow Americans in refusing to be intimidated. We will keep pushing to hold accountable those who were responsible for outrageous abuses of power in an effort to destroy all things Trump.