Ahead of the FBI raid at the Fulton County election headquarters, an agent detailed the probe’s focus on “deficiencies or defects” from the Georgia count in the 2020 election.  “Fulton County has admitted that it does not have scanned images of all the 528,777 ballots counted during the original count or the 527,925 ballots counted during the recount,” FBI special agent Hugh Raymond Evans said in a detailed affidavit in federal district court justifying the search warant.  “Fulton County has confirmed that during the Recount of votes, some ballots were scanned multiple times,” the affidavit continues.  “Ballot images made available in response to public record requests show ballots with unique markings duplicated within the ballot images.” Evans further noted that auditors hand counting the ballots reported inconsistencies, while the Georgia Performance Review Board reported that Georgia Secretary of State investigators confirmed inaccurate batch tallies from the audit.  “If these deficiencies were the result of intentional action, it would be a violation of federal law regardless of whether the failure to retain records or the deprivation of a fair tabulation of a vote was outcome determinative for any particular election or race,” the affidavit says.  FBI-FultonDownload “Seizure of the election records would corroborate the analysis that evinces that election records were destroyed and or the tabulation of votes included materially false votes, either through duplicated scanning of specific ballots, interjection of pristine ballots, or other methods described above,” Evans says in asking the court to grant the search warrant.  The FBI executed the warrant on Jan. 29. This came after a year-long clash between the State Election Board and Fulton County election officials regarding documents.  The affidavit notes that the FBI interviewed two members of the State Election Board, a Fulton County commissioner, a staffer with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office, and a cyber security analyst among others. The names were redacted.  The agent also noted the issues with 315,000 mail ballots that may not have been properly certified.  “During a December 9, 2025, meeting before the State Election Board, Fulton County stated that tabulator tapes accounting for 315,000 ballots were not properly signed,” the affidavit says. “The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger stated in the media he considered the unsigned tabulator tapes an administrative oversight.”  On Saturday, U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee ordered the court documents in the case to be unsealed by close of business Tuesday.  Fulton County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. argued the unsealed documents show “recycled theories and politically motivated claims.” “The unsealing of this affidavit confirms what many of us feared from the start: that this extraordinary FBI raid was rooted in recycled theories and politically motivated claims that have already been examined and rejected time and time again,” Arrington said in a statement. The post What the FBI Confirmed About Georgia 2020 Vote Counting Before the Raid appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The El Paso airport was closed temporarily and reopened on Wednesday morning due to a drone incursion from Mexican cartels. “Mexican cartel drones breached U.S. airspace,” a Trump administration official told The Daily Signal. “The Department of War took action to disable the drones. The [Federal Aviation Administration] and [Department of War] have determined there is no threat to commercial travel.” Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy confirmed in a post on X that the “threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region.” The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion. The threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region. The restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are resuming. https://t.co/xQA1cMy7l0— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) February 11, 2026 Early Wednesday morning, the El Paso International Airport in Texas announced that all flights would be grounded for 10 days due to an FAA flight restriction closing the airspace around the El Paso airport. Hours later, the airport announced that the travel restrictions had been lifted. “El Paso International Airport operations have reopened following the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to lift the temporary closure of the airspace over El Paso,” the airport wrote on its Facebook page. According to Reuters, the Pentagon and FAA were determining the risk of military counter measures to commercial aircraft, and that prompted the decision to shut down the airport. Mexico’s cartels began using drones in recent years to monitor Border Patrol activity, according to Customs and Border Protection. “We’re very concerned about, uh, the drone threat,” Interim Border Patrol Chief for the El Paso Sector Walter Slosar told The Daily Signal during an interview at the border in August. The cartels have also reportedly used drones to smuggle drugs into the U.S. Last week, officials from the border city of Chihuahua, Mexico, and the state of New Mexico met to discuss concerns over the cartels’ increased use of drones, according to Border Report. The New Mexico state legislature is currently considering a bill to place restrictions on drones. “We want people to be able to use drones,” New Mexico Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman says. “However, the idea that drones can be used to circle law enforcement to do things that are known to be criminal activity, the idea that you are going to use a drone, fly it over the border from Mexico, drop a package or guide traffickers so they not be detected, that’s a real problem.” The post El Paso Airport Reopens Following Border Cartel Drone Breach   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It happened exactly 11 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was visiting the State Department’s mission in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where the CIA also maintained a nearby Annex. On Jan. 15, 2014, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence published a detailed report on the terrorist attack made against these U.S. facilities on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. At 9:42 p.m.–as recorded by a surveillance camera–“armed attackers advanced toward the U.S. compound,” and “a local police vehicle” that had been stationed outside the compound pulled away. Some of these attackers climbed over the mission’s gate and then opened it. “Over the course of the entire attack on the Mission facility,” said the committee’s report, “at least 60 different attackers entered the U.S. compound and can be seen on the surveillance video recovered from the Mission facility.” What did they do there? “Ambassador Chris Stevens was in the residence of the Main Building (‘Building C’), along with a Diplomatic Security agent, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith,” said the report. “The three of them proceeded to the ‘safe area’ in the building.” Then, diplomatic security agents “contacted CIA personnel at the Annex to ask for assistance.” But within three minutes of entering this State Department property, the terrorists had begun to destroy it. “After entering the Mission facility, the attackers used diesel fuel to set fire to the barracks/guard house of the Libyan 17th February Brigade militia, which served as a security force provided by the host nation for the Mission compound, and then proceeded towards the main buildings of the compound.” This is when they started killing Americans. “The attackers used diesel fuel to set the Main Building ablaze where Ambassador Stevens was secured in the ‘safe area,'” said the Intelligence Committee’s report. “Thick smoke rapidly filled the entire structure. The attacks moved unimpeded throughout the compound, entering and exiting buildings at will.” “A DS agent began leading the Ambassador and Sean Smith toward the emergency escape window to escape the smoke,” said the report. “Nearing unconsciousness himself, the agent opened the emergency escape window and crawled out. He then realized he had become separated from the Ambassador and Sean Smith in the smoke, so he reentered and searched the building multiple times.” He eventually “climbed a ladder to the roof where he radioed other DS agents for assistance.” Twenty-one minutes after this attack had started a “CIA security team” headed from the CIA Annex to the State Department’s mission. Seven minutes after that they “made their way onto the compound in the face of enemy fire.'” At 10:30 p.m. that night, additional DS agents arrived at the building where Stevens and Smith had taken refuge. There they found Smith, who had already died. The CIA security team, helped by the Libyan militia that worked at the compound, went looking for the missing ambassador. “During this time, State and CIA personnel re-entered the burning compound numerous times in an attempt to locate Ambassador Stevens, but to no avail,” said the report. They then drove in “armored vehicles” to the CIA Annex, taking Smith’s body with them. When they got there, they were again attacked by the terrorists with “sporadic small arms fire” and “rocket-propelled grenades.” Meanwhile, some Libyans did discover Stevens at the State Department mission and brought him to a hospital. “Despite attempts to revive him,” said the committee report, “Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation.” And this terrorist attack was not yet over. At 5:15 a.m., according to the report, the terrorists started firing at the Annex again. Security officers “Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy from the roof of the Annex,” it said. More than 13 years have passed since this evil attack. But now justice may be served on one of its alleged perpetrators. On Feb. 6, Attorney General Pam Bondi held a press conference with FBI Director Kash Patel and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. “We lost four American lives that day, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, with the State Department, and two CIA contractors, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods,” Bondi said of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi. “We have never forgotten those heroes, and we have never stopped seeking justice for that crime against our nation.” “Today, I’m proud to announce that the FBI has arrested one of the key participants behind the Benghazi attack,” said Bondi. “Zubayar Al-Bakoush landed at Andrews Air Force Base at 3 a.m. this morning. He is in our custody. He was greeted by Director Patel and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.” “Al-Bakoush will now face American justice on American soil,” said Bondi. “We will prosecute this alleged terrorist to the fullest extent of the law. He will face charges related to murder, terrorism, arson, among others. Let this case serve as a reminder. If you commit a crime against the American people anywhere in this world, President Trump’s Justice Department will find you. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen. “You can run, but you cannot hide,” she said. Two others have already been convicted for their involvement in the Benghazi attack. “The Department of Justice previously charged and convicted two leaders in the Benghazi attack on federal terrorism charges and other offenses,” said a Justice Department press release about the Al-Bakoush indictment. “Ahmed Abu Khatallah, aka Ahmed Mukatallah was sentenced in June 2018 to 22 years in prison and resentenced in September 2024 to 28 years in prison. Mustafa al-Imam was sentenced in January 2020 to nearly 20 years.” Hopefully Al-Bakoush will not be the last alleged participant in the Benghazi terrorist attack to be brought to the United States to stand trial. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trump’s DOJ Seeks Justice for Victims of Benghazi appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Defecting Republicans tanked a leadership-backed measure on Tuesday night that would have blocked future attempts to restrict President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. The vote’s failure means House members can still advance legislation reining in Trump’s ability to declare national emergencies, his preferred legal method of imposing tariffs. The rule vote Tuesday was an attempt to revive an effective prohibition on anti-tariff measures which expired at the end of January. Specifically, the rule contained a provision to block members from advancing resolutions for “terminating a national emergency declared by the President” until July. Trump has declared national emergencies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal justification for imposing tariffs. The Supreme Court is currently ruling on the legality of this use of a 1977 law. The House voted 217-214 to reject the rule, with three Republicans defecting. Republican Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Kevin Kiley of California, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky sided with all Democrats in rejecting the rule. Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., did not vote. “I don’t like putting the important work of the House on pause, but Congress needs to be able to debate on tariffs,” wrote Bacon on X after the vote. “Article I of the Constitution places authority over taxes and tariffs with Congress for a reason, but for too long, we have handed that authority to the executive branch. It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility.” I don’t like putting the important work of the House on pause, but Congress needs to be able to debate on tariffs. Tariffs have been a “net negative” for the economy and are a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying. Article I of the…— Rep. Don Bacon ?????????? (@RepDonBacon) February 11, 2026 Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is leading privileged House resolutions which would restrain the president’s tariff authority. The National Emergencies Act lays out a process for Congress to terminate presidentially declared emergencies through privileged resolutions. Democrat House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., advised Democrats to vote against the rule to support Meek’s measures, which were set to “ripen” for a floor vote on Wednesday. Due to the rejection of the rule, on Wednesday the House will vote on a resolution from Meeks terminating Trump’s national emergency declaration for drugs coming from Canada. If signed by the president, it would remove his ability to impose tariffs on Canada through IEEPA. However, without a veto-proof majority backing it, Trump could veto the resolution. Republican Grumblings Kiley, a moderate from a swing district, told reporters Tuesday morning that he intended to vote down the rule. “It doesn’t really make sense to put something on the floor that’s not going to pass,” Kiley said.  He continued, “my main issue here is this isn’t the purpose of a rule. A rule is meant to bring a bill to the floor, set the parameters for debate. It’s not meant to smuggle in unrelated provisions that expand the power of leadership at the expense of our members. So that’s the reason I oppose it.” Republicans currently have a 218-214 majority in the House, meaning they can only afford one Republican defection on party-line votes if all Democrats unite in opposition. Kiley was not the only Republican with qualms about the rule. Bacon, Massie, and Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana had expressed misgivings about the arrangement. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, a hardline fiscal conservative who sits on the rules committee, was among the Republicans who voted to approve the rule on Monday. “The Supreme Court’s going to rule [on tariffs] this summer, and so I have no problem with us giving some time here to sort that out getting through the summer, but we’ll see what happens today,” he told The Daily Signal. “Some people are raising questions, so we’ll see.” Leadership Jockeying The Daily Signal asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., on Tuesday morning to explain the rationale behind the rules committee’s decision. The rules committee is known as the “speaker’s committee” and its membership is hand-picked by Johnson. Q: The rule today would block anti-tariff votes in the future. What's the reasoning for that?MIKE JOHNSON: The president's trade policies have been a great benefit to the country. It's undisputed. I think the sentiment is we allow a bit more runway for this to be worked out. pic.twitter.com/nvgX7EFvWO— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 10, 2026 “We talked about it frankly in our conference [meeting] this morning, and the rationale for this, for just extending this for a little bit longer to July, is to allow the Supreme Court to rule on the pending case,” Johnson told The Daily Signal.  Johnson continued, “I think the sentiment is that we allow a little bit more runway for this to be worked out between the executive branch and the judicial branch… so I expect the rule to pass.” But around noon on Tuesday, leadership pushed back the vote on the rule to 8:30 PM, seven hours later than previously scheduled—possibly to buy time to rally support. House rules committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., questioned by reporters Tuesday morning about “grumblings” over the rule, had reaffirmed her intention to advance it. “Grumbling from our group? Are you kidding?” she said, sarcastically. “It will be on the floor.” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters after the leadership press conference that some Republicans might still need convincing in order for the rule to pass. “We’ve been talking to a number of members that have questions about pieces of that rule that we’re going to work through, but we’re moving forward,” said Scalise.  The post House GOP Members Revolt Against Trump’s Tariffs appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A grand jury has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to indict several Democrats over a video where they told members of the U.S. military and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., praised the grand jury’s decision, calling it a “score” for the “Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law.” The Department of Justice had opened an investigation into the 90-second video that featured Slotkin; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo. In the video, released in November, the lawmakers speak directly to the U.S. intelligence community and members of the military. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers state as they each say different parts of a sentence. “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly says personally. “You must refuse illegal orders,” says Deluzio. I find this type of broad & unclear language to our service members to be a nod & wink to commit sedition. Without clear specifics on what orders they’re telling our service members to ignore, this is absolutely illegal & will cause real harm to our country. I call on… pic.twitter.com/BiO6G9XyBb— Wendy Rogers (@WendyRogersAZ) November 19, 2025 Trump called the video “really bad and dangerous to our country.” “Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???,” the president wrote on Truth Social in November. Slotkin said that Trump had directed the attempted indictment. “Today, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro attempted to persuade a grand jury to indict me. This was in response to me organizing a 90-second video that simply quoted the law,” Slotkin wrote on X. “Pirro did this at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested, and hanged for sedition.” “Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed,” the senator continued. “Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good.” Today, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro attempted to persuade a Grand Jury to indict me. This was in response to me organizing a 90-second video that simply quoted the law. Pirro did this at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested,…— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) February 11, 2026 Slotkin called the jury’s Tuesday decision an “embarrassing day for the administration,” adding it was also “another sad day for our country.” “Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies,” Slotkin said. “It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love.” The post Slotkin Declares Victory Over Trump Admin Attempt to Indict Lawmakers    appeared first on The Daily Signal.