House Judiciary Says FBI’s ‘Arctic Frost’ Probe Potentially Targeted Over 150 Republicans

A joint police-military raid Tuesday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil targeting one of the country’s most notorious crime syndicates left at least 64 people dead, including four police officers, according to multiple reports. The State of Rio de Janeiro’s government said that the massive operation, dubbed Operação Contenção, Portuguese for “Operation Containment,” targeting criminal organization […]

Prominent conservative commentator Michael Knowles sounded off on the growing threat of political violence at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.  “The federal government must act now to stop the consistent and accelerated threat of leftist terrorism. For a legislator to deny the threat and neglect the remedy might once have been chalked up to ignorance. Today, it is nothing less than a complicity,” Knowles declared in his remarks before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. The title of the hearing was “Politically Violent Attacks: A Threat to Our Constitutional Order.” In addition to Knowles, it featured testimony from Chad Wolf of the America First Policy Institute and a former acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Daniel Hodges, a Washington, D.C., police officer; William Braniff, executive director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab in the School of Public Affairs at American University; and Kyle Shideler, director and senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism with the Center for Security Policy. Near the beginning of his opening statement, Knowles outlined his position on whether the political Left or Right was more responsible for the violence flaring in the United States. The following are four takeaways from his testimony. 1. Left ‘More Violent’ Than the Right “[L]est I be accused of partisan invective … no less an emblem of American liberalism than The Atlantic magazine published an article citing a recent study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, admitting that the Left is more violent today than the right,” Knowles said.   The political commentator then recounted his own brush with violent protesters that occurred in April 2023. The Daily Wire host had been invited to debate the issue of transgenderism at the University of Pittsburgh. Before the event, dozens of left-wing protesters, including some that had their faces covered, burned an effigy of the podcaster. 2. Encountering Violence, Up Close and Personal “[A]s the Pittsburgh [fire department] put out my burning effigy, an Antifa operative named Brian DiPippa, hiding behind his wife, Krystal, rolled two smoke bombs under police barricades,” Knowles said.  He then recounted how [Brian] DiPippa threw a firework at police officers, which resulted in several members of the police being burned and “life-altering injuries to a female officer.” He ultimately received five years in prison while his wife was sentenced to three years’ probation. Knowles expressed frustration at the sentencing. 3. Punishment Must Be Commensurate With Crime “I think we should all be able to agree that throwing an explosive at a group of people is no mere minor indiscretion. That is a very serious crime. That’s attempted murder, the kind of crime that merits life in prison,” Knowles said. 4) Backing Candidate Despite Violent Rhetoric Is Wrong Knowles later pointed out in the hearing that Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., had endorsed Democrat Virginia attorney general candidate Jay Jones, despite the fact that Jones had said in text messages that he hoped a former Virginia House speaker would get “two bullets to the head.” “You certainly cannot have law enforcement officers who would engage in this kind of violent rhetoric against half of their constituents. So long as anyone stands by an endorsement such as that, their words are meaningless. They are shedding crocodile tears on the topic of political violence,” he said. Reflecting on the gunshot slaying of a friend, conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, Knowles said, “There was no more gracious, generous, or charitable debater on college campuses than Charlie Kirk, and he always endeavored to hear out the other side … to give them the benefit of the doubt. And he was killed for it. He was killed for ideological reasons. And it has to be an inflection point.” The post Conservative Pundit Shares Close Encounter With ‘Politically Violent Attacks’ at Senate Panel Hearing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to place sanctions on Russia seems like it would have no difficulty at all passing the Senate—but it has languished for months without action. The inaction is not due to a lack of support, since Graham’s Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 has 84 co-sponsors in the Senate, making it immune to a Senate filibuster or a presidential veto. “There is bipartisan support… in the Senate to be much firmer and come down harder on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. And I think we should be taking that step,” Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., a co-sponsor, told reporters Monday. What’s more, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said he looks at the bill favorably as “a tool in the president’s tool chest that you can use against the Russians to get them to the table.” He is monitoring the administration’s negotiations to see when could be the right time to bring it to the Senate floor. But with a bill that appears so easy to pass, why has there been no movement? What’s in the Bill? Graham’s legislation would require that the president make a determination every 90 days on whether Russia is still invading or planning to invade Ukraine. If the answer is yes, then harsh sanctions would kick in, including revoking visas and blocking transactions of Russian government-connected individuals. Additionally, Russia would be hit with “not less than” a 500% rate of duties on its imports into the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) But perhaps the most drastic measure is that any country that knowingly imports uranium, natural gas, or petroleum products from Russia would be hit with its own “not less than” 500% rate of duties on its exports to the United States. That would mean severe sanctions on large economies such as China and India, which import uranium and gas from Russia. The president would be able to waive those duties once for up to 180 days if he determines it is in the interest of national security. Throughout his second term, the highest tariff rate President Donald Trump has imposed on China has been 145% and the highest he has imposed on India has been 50%. The administration has since backed off of the 145% tariffs on China and is negotiating trade deals with both countries. Waiting for White House Signals? Many Senate Republicans say they’re waiting on the White House’s thumbs-up and also monitoring Trump’s negotiations in the conflict. “Who’s running foreign policy and who’s out there every day is [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio and the president,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., a supporter of the bill, told The Daily Signal. “We don’t want to get ahead of them. We’re ready to go. When they say, ‘go,’ we’ll go.” But that’s not to say there’s no impatience among some Senate Republicans to get moving on the sanctions. “I hope so,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told The Daily Signal when asked if he wanted the bill to move quickly. “I’m 100% behind [Graham] trying to get it done. I think it ups the ante. If the president wants to have it held in the House, that’s a decision I trust him to make. But it doesn’t make sense to me to not have either of the two chambers act on it.” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images) It remains unclear what the bill’s future would be in the House if it passed in the Senate. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., has a companion bill in the House that has 113 co-sponsors—57 Democrats and 56 Republicans. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., has expressed openness to the idea of advancing congressional sanctions.  Shortly before the most recent sanctions on natural gas companies implemented unilaterally by the executive branch, Johnson told reporters, “There is a big appetite among Republicans in the House and Senate … for tough sanctions on Russia” and that “Republicans in Congress are ready to provide support” for Trump’s negotiations “and any leverage that we can, including sanctions.” Not Everyone in Senate Wants It Despite the overwhelming number of Senate co-sponsors, the bill does have a handful of detractors in the Senate—including Republicans who say Trump can handle the Russia situation on his own. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for example, reacting to new, unilateral executive branch sanctions on Russian gas companies, told The Daily Signal that the Graham bill might not be necessary. “I’ll defer to the leader on that when he wants to bring it to the floor. The president has put new sanctions on Russia, so I’m not sure it’s needed at this point,” Hawley said. Similarly, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., says he does not want to step on the president’s toes as he negotiates through the Russia-Ukraine war. “My feeling is that we ought to give President Trump every opportunity to find peace, and that’s what he’s working on,” Schmitt told The Daily Signal. “So, if there is a time we need to move forward, I think all options are on the table, but my perspective has been that President Trump’s the guy who can deliver peace, and we ought to give him a chance to do it.” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., also told The Daily Signal that he was delegating the sanctions decision to the president. “I’ll let that [be] up to the administration in terms of how they want to handle it with their negotiations,” Johnson said. “It’s kind of up to the president to decide when he wants Congress to signal their support for sanctioning Russia.” Is Delay Due to Trade Deals? Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., is a supporter of tough sanctions on Russia to encourage the country to negotiate and is a cosponsor of Graham’s bill, but he doubts it will become law. Why? Because he does not think the Trump administration would support legislation that interferes with its trade negotiations with China. “I don’t think the president’s going to go with the Russian sanctions bill,” Kennedy told The Daily Signal. “I’ve offered an alternative to try to release $300 billion in seized [Russian] assets to Ukraine at a rate of $10 billion a month. I think that’s the best chance of getting the president on the board.” He explained, “I don’t believe the president is ever going to agree to the sanctions, and I say that because they’re busy hammering out a trade agreement with China right now, and that’s in a delicate balance, and once they get that done, I don’t think they’re going to want to do anything to upset China.” Kennedy added, “Is the President going to blow [the deal] up by supporting a sanction on the Chinese purchase of Russian oil? … I just don’t think that he will do that.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) Nevertheless, Kennedy made clear that he is a supporter of sanctions. “I will vote for the sanctions bill in a heartbeat, but I don’t think Sen. Thune wants to move the bill until the executive branch is comfortable, and I don’t believe the executive branch will ever be comfortable.” Under Kennedy’s alternative proposal to hand Russian money to Ukraine, “You give that money to Ukraine at $10 billion a month, and just say, ‘Buy whatever missiles you want. If the president won’t sell you Tomahawks, they’re not the only missiles God ever made. Go buy other missiles and take out every weapons production plant and every oil refinery in Russia.’ That will bring them to be tamed because it will stop his cash flow, and that involves no American money. It doesn’t interfere with any trade deals.” Kennedy added that he had presented his proposal to the White House. “I’ve talked to the president about this. He seemed OK with it, but he didn’t categorically say ‘yes,’” Kennedy told The Daily Signal. White House Wants Flexibility When it comes to negotiating an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, it appears the White House wants maximum flexibility, while remaining open to legislation that assists it in its goals. A White House official told The Daily Signal in a statement, “The White House is working with Congress to ensure introduced bills advance the president’s foreign policy objectives and authorities. The Constitution vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations. Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy.” The post What’s the Holdup on Russia Sanctions? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is working “at turbo speed” to deport criminal illegal aliens after MSNBC ran a commentary piece outlining the challenges of hiring new immigration enforcement agents.  “Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we are working at turbo speed on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary, told The Daily Signal.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement has “received more than 175,000 applications from Americans who want to join U.S. ICE to help arrest and remove the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from America’s streets,” she said.   McLaughlin’s statement follows an MSNBC opinion column from Fordham Law School professor John Pfaff. In the op-ed, Pfaff asserts that ICE has “lowered” its hiring standards, but is still struggling to meet its goal of hiring 10,000 new agents before the end of 2025.   In August, DHS announced it would “waive age limits” for ICE applicants, but added that recruits still would be required to undergo “medical screening, drug screening, and complete a physical fitness test.”  While ICE has extended “tentative offers” to 18,000 individuals, according to DHS, Pfaff asserts that many applicants are “not up to the task” physically of being a field agent.   The assistant secretary says ICE is maintaining its fitness standards while continuing to hire more agents, adding that candidates “must meet the Physical Ability Assessment standards as a condition of employment.”  “We are moving fitness checks earlier in the training sequence to improve efficiency and accountability—not to lower standards,” she added.  The majority of new ICE hires “are experienced law enforcement officers who have already successfully completed a law enforcement academy,” McLaughlin told The Daily Signal. “This population is expected to account for greater than 85% of new hires. Prior-service hires follow streamlined validation, but remain subject to medical, fitness, and background requirements.”  Still, Pfaff argues ICE has only made around “1,000 successful hires, just 10% of the goal.”   In response, McLaughlin says ICE is “deploying new officers on a rolling basis and will continue onboarding through December to hire 10,000 deportation officers.”   Funding to hire the new agents is included in Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law in July. DHS continues to conduct an aggressive recruitment campaign as it seeks to arrest and remove illegal aliens—specifically, those with a criminal history—who are living in the U.S.   The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has resulted in a 1,000% increase in attacks against immigration enforcement officials, according to DHS.   The post DHS Disputes MSNBC Writer’s Claim ICE Lowered Hiring Standards appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Dike Holding Back Democrat Discontent on Schumer Shutdown Is Cracking

Nearly Naked Trucker Quizzed on Ability to Read Basic Traffic Signs, Fails

Mad Max: Truck Drivers Sound Alarm About Shocking Number of Non-English Speaking Truckers

Oh My: Look What Bill de Blasio Just Said About His Ally Mamdani’s Plans ‘Not Adding Up’

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) holds a narrow lead over New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s gubernatorial race, according to a new poll reported by The Hill.