Tucker Carlson Gives Trump "Huge Style Points" and Praises Him For Border and Crime Policies

FACTS

Big things are happening behind the scenes folks! Just as I keep telling you, we’re in the very beginning of everything, the calm before the storm. Just small little drips and drabs so far, but there is a ton happening behind the scenes that you don’t know about — but you soon will! Here is John Solomon to explain what he just learned: TRANSCRIPT: We’ve got some big news to get to tonight on a story we’ve been following since the middle of October. That is when House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan alleged that former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress and referred him to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. And today we’ve gotten reports that the DOJ is gearing up to issue multiple grand jury subpoenas relating to the DOJ’s investigation into Brennan. Chairman Jordan has already said on the record that Brennan allegedly made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact that were also contradicted by records established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from the CIA. The statements in question revolve around the infamous and discredited Steele dossier that helped kick off the Russia collusion hoax, which we now know was entirely unmerited. We’ll keep you updated as we get more details on the possible grand jury subpoenas. Backup here if needed: John Brennan is on deck “The DOJ is gearing up to issue multiple grand jury subpoenas relating to the DOJ’s investigation into Brennan… The statements in question revolve around the infamous and discredited Steele Dossier that helped kick off the Russian collusion hoax.”… pic.twitter.com/sQxItV5Hlv — TheStormHasArrived (@TheStormRedux) November 6, 2025 And don’t forget about this: John Solomon: Obama Cannot “Plead The 5th” To Get Out of This It seems like every single day it gets worse and worse for Barack Hussein Obama. Like Haman from the Bible, it seems as though all the traps he set for President Trump over the past decade are now going off on him! Just a few hours ago we had this: BREAKING: FBI Director Kash Patel Has Now Found “Thousands” Of Trump–Russia Collusion Hoax Documents In “Burn Bags” In A Secret Room And now comes John Solomon who tells us all the legal experts he's talked to believe that Obama will be granted Presidential Immunity but that is a two-edged sword... Because of that immunity, he will lose the right to "plead the 5th" and therefore cannot dodge any question. Watch here: HOLEE SHIZZLES‼A TRAP IS SET! ? Obama Can now be summoned before a Grand Jury, but he CANNOT Plead the 5th because he has immunity from Prosecution “He HAS TO TELL THE TRUTH… if he lies as a private citizen about what he did as President, he will not longer have that… pic.twitter.com/xvWDiW0qT7 — MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) July 30, 2025 TRANSCRIPT: Uh, I know President Trump has every right to be frustrated with him. I think President Trump's analysis last week was right. I think my immunity rule might protect him on the original charges. That's what most legal experts tell me — that that ruling is so sweeping it will protect Obama for what he did in office. However, Barack Obama can now be summoned before a grand jury. He cannot take the 5th Amendment because he has immunity from prosecution. He'll have to tell the truth. If he lies, as a private citizen, about what he did as president, he'll no longer have that immunity, and that is a trap that Obama is sitting, potentially facing. And I wanna say, the irony to that — because on January 5th, 2017, he presided over a meeting in the White House where the FBI had just cleared Mike Flynn of any wrongdoing, and they schemed in that meeting how they might be able to jam up Mike Flynn. And they came up with the idea, "We'll lure him into an interview, catch him in a lie, and then prosecute him that way." Barack Obama now is about to face a potential similar situation as the one he created unfairly for Mike Flynn. With all due respect to John Solomon's excellent reporting and all the legal experts he's talked to, I completely disagree with the first part of their conclusion. I do not believe the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential Immunity is so broad that it goes beyond "official acts".  That's complete nonsense. We'll see who's right over time, your humble correspondent Noah or all the "legal experts"...but I think I'm winning this one. More here: UPDATE: President Obama Does NOT Have Immunity For RussiaGate — TWO Reasons! Yesterday, I brought you this report completely debunking the idea that Barack Hussein Obama could claim Presidential Immunity for his treasonous coup against President Trump. In case you missed it: No — Of Course Barack Obama Does NOT Have “Presidential Immunity” For RussiaGate In that report, I focused on the fact that Obama cannot legally claim Presidential Immunity for anything outside the scope of "Official Acts" of the Presidency. And certainly spying on a campaign, fabricating evidence, weaponizing the DOJ, and everything else he did is FAR outside the scope of "Official Acts". So any immunity claim fails on those grounds. And I think that's the clearest and easiest way to strike down ANY claim of Presidential Immunity surrounding RussiaGate/ObamaGate. But now Mike Davis adds a second angle that is also strong. Davis points out you don't get immunity for anything done after you leave office, which means anything from January 2017 until now is completely unprotected by immunity: ?BREAKING: Mike Davis explains that Obama does NOT have Presidential Immunity on Russia hoax. Says all co-conspirators remain within the statute of limitations and can be charged under an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Davis then goes scorched earth saying everyone involved… pic.twitter.com/UPWh75n2OA — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 21, 2025 BREAKING: Mike Davis explains that Obama does NOT have Presidential Immunity on Russia hoax. Says all co-conspirators remain within the statute of limitations and can be charged under an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Davis then goes scorched earth saying everyone involved should be terrified and that justice is coming: "Presidential immunity covers his actions while he's president, not when he's the former president. When he's participating in the coverup of this conspiracy, he doesn't have presidential immunity." "They say we are well beyond the statute of limitations, you're not. This is an ongoing criminal conspiracy. In order for the conspiracy to stop, you have to disavow it." "They are still covering up the conspiracy and perjuring themselves. We saw perjury by high ranking Obama officials. We are well within the statutes of limitations." "To these democrats, justice is coming. I'd be very scared. The Bureau of prisons will have plenty of space." So if anyone (including President Trump) tells you Obama will just claim Presidential Immunity, kindly show them this article. For more on why I think President Trump said that, read this: No -- Of Course Barack Obama Does NOT Have "Presidential Immunity" For RussiaGate There has been a lot swirling around online today about how even if Barack Obama did do everything Tulsi Gabbard has exposed, it won't matter because he has "Presidential Immunity". Like this: #BREAKING: President Trump says that Barack Obama has FULL IMMUNITY regarding the Russia hoax. pic.twitter.com/PoVZVMrs2z — SANTINO (@MichaelSCollura) July 25, 2025 And this: Trump says Obama has immunity for what he did in the Russia Hoax and he is likely right. I said this a few days ago and people didn't like it. pic.twitter.com/xVnw3pd3AE — Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) July 25, 2025 To be fair, President Trump himself said Obama likely has immunity as you can see in the clip above, so everyone parroting that is simply parroting President Trump. But it's a good thing you have me to set this all straight. SHORT ANSWER: that's complete nonsense! And I'll tell you why... Yes, it's true that the Supreme Court did grant President Trump wide-ranging Presidential Immunity in that landmark Supreme Court case last year, but that is not a blank check to do whatever you want. Even though that Supreme Court ruling was very broad based, it still has boundaries, and those boundaries are that it only applies to "Official Acts" of the office. In other words, you can't shoot someone while you're President and claim Presidential Immunity, it doesn't work like that. So why would President Trump say it? Because he's the absolute master at misdirection! He gets you complacent when you should be very worried, and he agitates you when you should be complacent. It's classic Sun Tzu "Art of War" 101. And that's exactly what I think he's doing here, classic misdirection to Obama and to the MSM, meanwhile he's about to spring the trap! It's basic Constitutional Law that you don't get immunity outside of "Official Acts" and spying on your opponent's campaign, weaponizing the DOJ to fabricate evidence that goes directly against the real intelligence that had, and trying to frame your political opponent for something you know they did not do is so far from "Official Acts" it's laughable. And no, we don't have to prove Obama's actions meet the definition of "Treason" in order for Presidential Immunity to apply.  Those are two separate issues and entirely mutually independent of each other. Whether he committed Treason (or a myriad of other crimes) is one issue. Whether he can claim Presidential Immunity is an entirely separate different issue. I always like to Fact-Check my own work, so I went to ChatGPT and ran all of this through the AI, and the AI confirmed EXACTLY what I just told you: What Did the Supreme Court Say About Presidential Immunity? The Court said a President has broad immunity for “official acts” done while in office. An official act means something the President is allowed to do as part of their job—like signing bills, appointing judges, or giving military orders. The Court also said a President does NOT have immunity for unofficial or private acts—things outside their job. Can a President Claim Immunity for Crimes Like Murder? No.If a President shot someone in the street, that’s not part of their job.That’s a crime, not an official duty. Immunity doesn’t cover that. So the short answer: Presidential Immunity only applies to official acts, not personal crimes or things outside the job. How Do Courts Decide What’s “Official”? They look at the nature of the act, not the President’s motive. If the act is something only the President can do under the Constitution or law, it might be considered “official.” But if the act is just political dirty tricks, campaign work, or personal gain, that’s not official. Your Hypothetical: President Spies, Frames a Rival, Orders DOJ to Fake Reports Spying on a rival’s campaign and creating fake evidence is not a lawful duty of the President. The President cannot order DOJ to break the law or make up reports. That’s abusing power for personal or political reasons. Even if it doesn’t count as “treason,” it’s still illegal and outside legitimate presidential duties. Could the President claim immunity? They might try, arguing “I was directing the DOJ—part of my job.” But the courts would likely say: You crossed the line. Making DOJ do fake investigations is not an official function. It’s a crime and an abuse of power. Therefore, immunity would not apply. Bottom Line Official acts = broad protection. Personal crimes, political sabotage, or corrupt acts = no immunity. In your scenario, the President almost certainly would not be immune, because the actions are criminal and outside the lawful duties of the office.

Three months ago, a man was arrested for throwing a Subway Sandwich at federal law enforcement officers. In case you missed it, those details here: UPDATE: D.C. Man Arrested For Throwing Sandwich at Federal Agents Worked for the DOJ Today a jury rendered what I consider to be a completely ridiculous verdict, but that's our system and the ruling is final. NOT GUILTY. Sandwich thrower found NOT GUILTY of assault Sean Dunn became a symbol of resistance when he threw a sub sandwich at a federal law enforcement agent in Washington, DC Despite the footage, a court found him not guilty Dunn was however fired from his Department of Justice job pic.twitter.com/Boqn21WbeF — RT (@RT_com) November 6, 2025 So if you want to assault (allegedly!) federal law enforcement officers by throwing an object at them, that's apparently legal now. Unreal. Judge Jeanine Pirro gave a statement that I think is spot on -- from the AP: A former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a federal agent during President Donald Trump’s law enforcement surge in Washington was found not guilty of assault on Thursday in the latest legal rebuke of the federal intervention. A viral video of the sandwich tossing made Sean Charles Dunn a symbol of resistance to Trump’s deployment of federal agents to combat crime in the nation’s capital. His misdemeanor acquittal is another setback for prosecutors, who have faced a backlash for their aggressive charging tactics during the law enforcement surge. The Justice Department had initially sought a felony assault indictment against Dunn, but in a highly unusual move, the grand jury declined to sign off on the felony charge. The office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro then charged Dunn with a misdemeanor. There was no dispute over whether Dunn threw the sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent on the night of Aug. 10. But his lawyers argued it was a “harmless gesture” during an act of protest protected by the First Amendment. Prosecutors said Dunn, 37, knew he did not have a right to throw the sandwich at the agent. Dunn shouted “fascists” and “racists” and chanted “shame” toward the group of agents who were in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night.” “Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police. After the foreperson read the verdict, Dunn hugged his lawyers. Later, he said, “I’m relieved and I’m looking forward to moving on with my life.” Court officers escorted the 12 jurors out of the building. A group of reporters followed. Several jurors, including the foreperson, declined to be interviewed. Pirro, a former Fox News host appointed by Trump to be the top federal prosecutor for Washington, said in a statement: “As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function. However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor.’” Spot on Judge!  Exactly right. I thought this was also a very good analysis: Two things can be true at the same time: 1. It is objectively hilarious that a guy threw a sandwich at a federal officer. 2. Prosecuting said sandwich-thrower was the correct decision, and he should have been convicted. Throwing a sandwich clearly crosses a line. While one… pic.twitter.com/iKi53nNRCY — Christina M. Goodlander (@cmgoodlander) November 6, 2025 Two things can be true at the same time: 1. It is objectively hilarious that a guy threw a sandwich at a federal officer. 2. Prosecuting said sandwich-thrower was the correct decision, and he should have been convicted. Throwing a sandwich clearly crosses a line. While one could argue that it's mostly harmless, it is gross. It results in a substance making contact with another person. In this case, the substance happened to be relatively harmless (mustard and onions). But if we're OK with throwing a mustard grenade, what stops us from being OK with throwing, for instance, a water balloon full of urine? Or blood? Or feces? Why not throw a punch, or a more damaging form of violence? At what point do we say "stop"? Yes, some of this stuff is funny, but it's a primrose path to barbarism. Keep the protesting (which is our right as Americans) to an appropriate time, place, and manner. Very well said. Where does it stop? Is a 6" Subway sandwich ok, but not a footlong? Is a footlong Subway sandwich ok but only if it's not double meat? Is a double meet Subway sandwich ok but not a water balloon filled with urine? Where does it end? I'm going to end with something that almost made me throw up in my mouth -- a little vomit came up, but I pushed it back down -- but you have to see the nauseating, sanctimonious, self-righteous speech this guy gave after being acquitted. It starts off like he just won an Oscar and he's thanking everyone he's ever met in his whole life, and then it goes to sickening levels of sanctimony. Watch here if you can tolerate it: A statement from the DC sandwich man Sean Dunn who was just acquitted. pic.twitter.com/NISXF67CfJ — Philip Wang (@Philipywang) November 6, 2025 VOMIT.

I guess Democrats have simply resorted to outright lying now? The ship has long since sailed on them being able to win an argument on the merits and they have nothing in their platform that anyone supports, so now it’s just outright lies? That’s what it looked like today as multiple Democrat members of Congress seemingly all received the same Talking Points instructions and then all made the same factually-incorrect posts. There was this one: Just so we are clear: ICE went into a day care center—a private business—without a judicial warrant, and unlawfully kidnapped a worker in front of parents and children. Our taxpayer dollars are being used to violate our rights, terrorize our communities, and traumatize… https://t.co/ISuf3JmkBE — Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (@repdeliaramirez) November 5, 2025 And this one: Today, ICE kidnapped a teacher inside a daycare, in front of little children and parents. This is not making us safer. This brutality needs to stop! https://t.co/vXMkxG3IbS — Congressman Chuy García (@RepChuyGarcia) November 5, 2025 Then there is this: Illinois Democrat Mike Quigly lies through his teeth saying ICE is raiding daycare centers and dragged this US Citizen woman out See that car in the photo with the door open?—— Officers attempted to conduct a targeted traffic stop of this female illegal alien. Officers… pic.twitter.com/wXQ03VWob5 — MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) November 6, 2025 Probably even more that I missed, but those are three. Heck, even ABC News posted this: The ICE arrest of a daycare teacher in front of her students is drawing outrage in Chicago. What You Need to Know is streaming exclusively on @DisneyPlus. https://t.co/uNlwJlmuOh pic.twitter.com/oNB34832IQ — ABC News (@ABC) November 7, 2025 The only problem? DHS itself posted to X to set the record straight — saying all of these posts are “deliberately misrepresenting the facts”. Take a look: Congressman, you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. ICE law enforcement did NOT target a daycare and were only at this location because the female illegal alien fled inside. Here is the real story: Officers attempted to conduct a targeted traffic stop of this female… https://t.co/a5BdcbhnwC — Homeland Security (@DHSgov) November 5, 2025 Congressman, you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. ICE law enforcement did NOT target a daycare and were only at this location because the female illegal alien fled inside. Here is the real story: Officers attempted to conduct a targeted traffic stop of this female illegal alien from Colombia. Officers attempted to pull over this vehicle, which was registered to a female illegal alien, with sirens and emergency lights, but the male driver refused to pull the vehicle over. Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle. They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare—recklessly endangering the children inside. The illegal alien female was arrested inside a vestibule, not in the school. Upon arrest, she lied about her identity. The vehicle is registered to in her name, though she claims that she didn’t know the man who was driving her car and just picked him up from a bus stop. Facts including criminality and information on the male assailant are forthcoming and we will update the public with more information as soon as it becomes available. That is not even CLOSE to what these people claimed! So sick of all the lies! Please share this Article to get the TRUTH out there! Thank you.

A federal jury has found the man who threw a Subway sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent not guilty of assault.