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. 

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.

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.’

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.

Hunter Biden was furious with former President Barack Obama for leading then-President Joe Biden offstage with a guiding hand at a June 2024 fundraiser, according to a new book from ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.

An excerpt from the book, obtained by Axios, details how the younger Biden believed Obama had disrespected and embarrassed the president.

‘I almost jumped up on the stage and said, ‘Don’t ever f–king do that to the president of the United States again — ever,” Hunter told Karl in an interview.

‘The younger Biden insisted his dad was simply taking some time to acknowledge the crowd. ‘I knew that that was going to be a meme,’ Hunter recalled. ‘That really, really, really, really pissed me off,” the book reads.

The incident was one of many that contributed to criticism that Biden was too old to hold office, an opinion held by the vast majority of voters, according to polls from the time.

The clip was just one of many in the latter months of Biden’s presidency that showed an ally, aide or family member stepping in to seemingly direct or guide Biden off a stage or during an event.

The Obama incident came just days after Biden had to be redirected by another world leader during a G7 event in Italy. The former president was arrayed with other world leaders as he appeared to wander a few steps away from the group.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni then walked over to the president, touched his right arm and redirected him back to the group of world leaders.

The White House at the time dismissed the clip for having an ‘artificially narrow frame’ that only made it seem as though Biden was walking away from the crowd.

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report.