Blue Press Journal

Author: Staff Reporter

  • The Lasting Consequences of the January 6 Capitol Attack — And the Dangerous Impact of Pardoning Rioters

    Blue Press Journal

    On January 6, 2021, the United States witnessed an unprecedented assault on its democratic institutions. As lawmakers gathered to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, a violent mob stormed the Capitol — breaching security, assaulting law enforcement officers, and leaving millions of dollars in damage. The attack was not a spontaneous protest; it was the culmination of weeks of false claims about election fraud, amplified by Donald Trump. 

    Five years later, the events of that day remain a stark reminder of how fragile democracy can be when misinformation, political extremism, and disregard for the rule of law converge. The controversy deepened when Trump later issued full pardons to more than 1,500 individuals tied to the attack, including leaders of extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. 

    A Turning Point in American Political History

    The January 6 riot was more than just a violent disruption — it was a direct challenge to the constitutional process. It exposed vulnerabilities in Capitol security and revealed the extent to which partisan polarization could fuel political violence. 

    The bipartisan shock that followed quickly gave way to deep political division. While many Americans viewed the attack as an insurrection and an attack on democracy, others — influenced by disinformation — downplayed its severity or sought to reframe it as a legitimate protest. This divergence in perception has only intensified the nation’s political rift. 

    Pardons That Undermined Accountability

    The decision to grant pardons to those involved in the January 6 attack has raised serious concerns among legal experts, lawmakers, and the public. According to a Judiciary Committee report, at least 33 of the pardoned individuals have since been convicted of, arrested for, or charged with serious crimes — ranging from child sexual assault and kidnapping to homicide and illegal firearm possession. 

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who served on the January 6 Committee, criticized the pardons, stating: 

    “Trump likes to say he backs the blue. That’s absurd. He just pardoned the people who attacked the police.” 

    Such actions send a troubling message: political loyalty can outweigh accountability, even when crimes involve violence against law enforcement and direct threats to democratic governance. 

    The 2022 Final Report — Evidence of Intent

    The House Select Committee’s final report in 2022 concluded that Donald Trump “purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud” to aid his effort to overturn the election. This was not a matter of misunderstanding or miscommunication; it was a deliberate strategy that fueled anger and mobilized extremist groups. 

    Groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were accused of spearheading the attack, coordinating efforts to breach the Capitol, and encouraging violence. Pardoning their leaders not only absolved them of accountability but also emboldened similar movements across the country. 

    A Continuing Threat to Democracy

    The January 6 attack stands as one of the most dangerous threats to the rule of law in America since its founding. But the danger did not end when the rioters were cleared from the Capitol steps. By pardoning those responsible and minimizing their actions, a precedent was set — one that risks normalizing political violence. 

    Republican efforts to condone or rewrite the history of January 6 magnify the threat. It is essential to remember that democracy depends on the principle that every vote counts and that disagreements must be resolved through lawful and peaceful means. 

    Lessons Learned — And the Need for Vigilance

    The attack prompted a sweeping reassessment of security across Washington, yet physical barriers alone cannot safeguard democracy. Preventing future threats requires: 

    • Accountability — Ensuring that political violence is met with legal consequences. 
    • Truth — Countering misinformation with verified facts. 
    • Civic Education — Strengthening public understanding of democratic processes. 
    • Political Leadership — Rejecting rhetoric that undermines election legitimacy.

    January 6, 2021, will forever be remembered as the day democracy came under siege from within. The violence, the pardons that followed, and the ongoing attempts to distort the truth are a warning: democracy can only survive if citizens remain vigilant, informed, and committed to the rule of law. 

    The events of that day — and the decisions made afterward — underscore a sobering reality: when leaders excuse or reward political violence, they open the door to future attacks. If we are to preserve the integrity of our democratic system, we must confront these truths directly and ensure that such an assault on our institutions can never happen again.

  • Sen. Mark Kelly Defends His Honor: Legal Rights and the Fight Against Unjust Demotion

    Blue Press Journal – In a striking escalation, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has moved to demote Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) from his retired Navy rank following comments Kelly made in a November video encouraging service members to refuse unlawful orders. Kelly, a decorated Navy combat veteran who served more than 20 years and completed multiple deployments, has vowed to “fight this with everything I’ve got.” 

    This is more than a dispute between two men — it’s a test of constitutional principles and the rights of those who serve. 

    Constitutional Protections at Stake

    One of the most powerful legal shields available to Sen. Kelly is the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). This provision protects Members of Congress from being questioned in any other place for any speech or debate conducted in their legislative role. Courts have consistently interpreted this to safeguard lawmakers from retaliation for expressing political views related to their official duties. 

    If Kelly’s statements were made in connection with his role as a sitting senator — particularly on matters of military legality and oversight — they fall squarely within the zone of protected legislative speech. 

    First Amendment and Military Law

    Moreover, as a retired officer, Kelly retains his constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment, so long as his statements do not disclose classified information or directly violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. His comments — urging adherence to lawful orders — actually reinforce military law, which requires service members to disobey unlawful commands. This principle is enshrined in the Law of Armed Conflict and precedents from the Nuremberg Trials, reaffirming that following illegal orders is itself unlawful. 

    Why This Fight Matters

    Attempting to reduce Kelly’s retirement grade for protected speech sets a dangerous precedent. It risks sending a chilling message to active and retired service members: speak out on matters of legality and you may face personal retaliation. 

    Sen. Mark Kelly has spent his career defending the Constitution — first in uniform, now in the Senate. In standing up to this action, he’s not only defending his own honor, but also the rights and principles every American service member swears to protect.

  • Sen. Chris Murphy Accuses Trump Officials of Misleading Congress Over Venezuela Operation

    Blue Press Journal – In a sharp rebuke of Trump administration officials, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of deceiving both Congress and the American public regarding the U.S. military’s recent actions in Venezuela. The senator’s remarks come in response to U.S.-led operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—an event that has sparked serious debate about the scope of executive authority in foreign interventions. 

    According to Murphy, administration officials “literally lied to our face” before the Venezuelan operation, insisting that the mission was a limited counternarcotics effort and not an attempt at regime change. “They aren’t being straight with the American people,” Murphy stated, emphasizing the absence of any formal briefing for Congress to clarify the operation’s objectives or strategy moving forward. 

    Questions Over War Powers and Executive Authority

    Murphy’s criticism also reignites discussion about the War Powers Act of 1973, a law designed to ensure that Congress maintains oversight over the deployment of U.S. armed forces. Under the Act, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing military forces to action and withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the use of force. 

    By bypassing this process, Murphy argues, the administration has undermined constitutional checks and balances. “Even if there are dictators around the world, that does not give any president unilateral power to invade another nation,” he said, cautioning that such actions erode the legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. 

    The Broader Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

    The controversy underscores a recurring tension between the executive branch and Congress over control of military operations abroad. Critics contend that the lack of transparency not only damages America’s global credibility but also risks dragging the nation into unwarranted conflicts. 

  • Why Venezuela is No Panama: U.S. Intervention Risks

    Blue Press Journal – When American policymakers reflect on the past century of interventions in Latin America, one case remains prominent in Washington’s historical narrative: Operation Just Cause, the 1989 invasion of Panama. It exemplified what many would categorize as a “successful” U.S. intervention—swift, decisive, and ostensibly judicious. Within a span of less than two weeks, the United States effectively removed General Manuel Noriega, established a compliant government led by Guillermo Endara, and largely withdrew its military presence. There was no protracted insurgency, nor any humiliating deadlock. For numerous officials in Washington, this operation represented an uncommon occasion where military force achieved the precise objectives sought by the White House.

    But Venezuela is not Panama, and any attempt to treat it as such risks a catastrophic misreading of history and geography alike.

    A Different Battlefield

    When George H.W. Bush ordered troops into Panama, the United States already had a military footprint deeply embedded in the country. The U.S. Southern Command was headquartered there. More than 10,000 American troops were stationed on the ground, with full logistical networks, airfields, and intelligence infrastructure ready to act. The operation didn’t need to project power across oceans—it was already in place. American forces quickly dismantled the Panama Defense Forces, captured Noriega, and oversaw a relatively orderly transfer of power.

    None of these conditions exist in Venezuela.

    Today, U.S. forces sit offshore—aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, impressive symbols of U.S. power, but still distant from the realities of governing a nation of nearly 28 million people. A lightning strike might remove a head of state, but it cannot occupy, stabilize, or rebuild a country with deep institutional and social fissures. The challenge is not the operation itself—it’s “the day after.”

    The Problem of What Comes Next

    In Panama, the United States could install Endara because Panama’s political elite were, by and large, aligned with Washington’s interests. The country had long functioned under U.S. influence, its economy tied to the Canal Zone, its military modest and dependent.

    Venezuela, however, has evolved under an entirely different model. The Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB)remain cohesive and loyal to the state, not fractured and demoralized like Noriega’s forces were in 1989. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López has already called for “massive deployment” to resist foreign troops, and Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has vowed that the government “will not yield.” Even if Nicolás Maduro is removed, the apparatus that sustains his regime will not vanish overnight. 

    The Trump Administration faced this reality as early as 2019, when it backed opposition figure Juan Guaidó. Washington assumed that diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and a show of resolve would fracture the regime. It didn’t. The military held firm. The same dynamic is likely to repeat if the U.S. attempts to enforce regime change by force.

    Geopolitics Beyond Caracas

    There’s also the matter of global reaction. Panama’s invasion occurred at the tail end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and China was not yet a global power. The world’s geopolitical center of gravity allowed the U.S. to act with relative impunity.

    Venezuela, by contrast, is a strategic partner to China, which has invested billions in its oil sector, infrastructure, and digital networks. Beijing will not view an American intervention as a regional policing operation—it will see it as a direct challenge to its influence. Russia, too, has military advisers and energy interests in Venezuela. The consequences of unilateral U.S. action ripple far beyond the Caribbean.

    Regionally, the response has been equally fraught. Mexico’s government has condemned the operation, warning that any foreign military action “seriously jeopardizes regional stability.” Other Latin American nations, still wary of U.S. interventionism, are divided or outright hostile. The vision of a hemispheric coalition supporting American leadership has not materialized.

    Legitimacy and the Law

    The Trump Administration’s refusal to clarify whether it sought congressional authorization speaks volumes. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent unilateral executive military adventures, yet Washington has seen a steady erosion of those constraints. Declaring victory from the podium is easy; governing a fractured post-conflict society is not. 

    And here lies the uncomfortable truth: whatever one thinks of Maduro’s legitimacy—and few would argue he won the July 2024 election fairly—toppling an autocrat is not the same as creating a democracy. Without a credible plan for governance, reconstruction, and reconciliation, military action risks deepening chaos rather than resolving it.

    The Mirage of “Just Cause 2.0”

    Every generation of U.S. policymakers seems to search for its own “Just Cause”—the operation that proves American power can still reshape the world for the better. But history rarely repeats so neatly. Panama was small, strategically contained, and already under Washington’s thumb. Venezuela is large, complex, and enmeshed in global rivalries that make any intervention far more perilous.

    If history offers any lesson, it is this: a quick victory on the battlefield can mask a long defeat in the years that follow. Without legitimacy, without local support, and without a plan for the day after, even the most “successful” operation risks becoming another cautionary tale.

    In the end, the question is not whether Maduro deserves to stay—by most accounts, he does not—but whether the United States, acting alone and without a clear mandate, can deliver something better. Panama’s ghost still haunts Washington, whispering promises of easy triumph. But Venezuela, in all its complexity and resistance, is poised to remind America that history is a poor template for wishful thinking.

  • Trump’s Unilateral Invasion of Venezuela Is a Constitutional Crisis

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – Two months ago, Donald Trump’s own Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, said something that now sounds almost prophetic. In an interview with Vanity Fair, she made it plain: if the president “were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then [we’d need] Congress.” 

    She was right — and now, Trump has done exactly what she warned against. 

    Overnight, the former president ordered U.S. forces into Venezuela, capturing its embattled leader, Nicolás Maduro, without so much as a phone call to Congress. No debate. No authorization. No transparency. Just a unilateral act of war. 

    By the reasoning of his own chief of staff — and by the plain text of the Constitution — this was illegal. Trump broke the law. He violated the Constitution. And, in doing so, he upended one of the most fundamental checks on presidential power in American history. 

    This morning, standing beside Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump confirmed what many had already suspected: the operation was not merely about so-called “narco-terrorism.” It was also about oil. “We’re securing resources that rightfully belong to the free world,” he said. In other words, the U.S. military was sent into a sovereign nation, at least in part, for profit and political theater. 

    Democrats Call It “Lawless and Dangerous”

    Democrats on Capitol Hill were quick to condemn the move. Senator Elizabeth Warren called it “a lawless and dangerous abuse of power.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “This is exactly why Congress — not one man — has the power to declare war. The framers of our Constitution saw this kind of executive overreach coming.” 

    Even Democratic moderates voiced alarm. Senator Chris Murphy warned, “If we let this stand, we’re saying any president can unilaterally start a war anywhere in the world. That’s not democracy — that’s monarchy.” 

    To Democrats, this isn’t just another Trump stunt; it’s a full-blown constitutional crisis. 

    Why This Is Unconstitutional — in Plain English

    Here’s the simple version: the Constitution divides the power to make war between Congress and the President. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. The President, under Article II, can direct the military only after Congress gives authorization — or in response to a direct attack on the United States. 

    Trump did neither. Venezuela did not attack the U.S., and Congress never approved military action. 

    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral decision-making. It says the president can send U.S. forces into combat only if (1) Congress has declared war, (2) Congress has given specific authorization, or (3) the U.S. is under imminent threat. Even then, the law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours and withdraw troops after 60 days if Congress does not approve the action. 

    Trump ignored all of that. He didn’t consult Congress. He didn’t meet the conditions. He simply acted — as though the law didn’t apply to him. 

    The Bigger Danger

    By discarding both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Trump has done more than violate the law — he’s set a precedent that could haunt America for decades. If the U.S. can invade a sovereign nation for oil or political gain, what moral ground do we have to criticize China for threatening Taiwan, or Russia for pushing deeper into Eastern Europe? 

    As one Democratic strategist put it, “We can’t claim to defend democracy abroad when we’re dismantling it at home.” 

    Even critics of Nicolás Maduro — and there are many — understand this. Maduro’s regime has been accused of corruption, election-rigging, and brutality. But the fact that he’s an illegitimate ruler doesn’t give the American president a blank check to break our own laws. 

    The Verdict

    Trump’s invasion of Venezuela is not just a foreign policy blunder — it’s a direct assault on the American system of government. The framers designed a balance of powers precisely to stop one person from dragging the country into war for personal or political reasons. 

    By disregarding the delicate balance of power, Trump has done far more than merely deploy troops overseas; he has fundamentally destabilized the very pillars of American democracy. The actions of Congress and the courts in curbing his authority will not only shape the outcome of this military operation but could ultimately redefine the trajectory of presidential power in the United States for generations to come.

  • A Dangerous Precedent: The U.S. Strike on Venezuela and the Capture of Nicolás Maduro

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL (DC) – In an extraordinary and deeply troubling escalation, the United States launched a series of strikes on Venezuela last night, culminating in the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro. According to administration statements, Maduro was flown out of the country in what U.S. officials described as a “decisive operation.” But behind the dramatic headlines lies a disturbing question about legality, precedent, and the moral cost of such unilateral actions.

    The Trump administration’s decision to forcibly remove a sitting foreign leader without congressional authorization or clear international mandate marks one of the most audacious U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades. Not since the 1989 invasion of Panama — which ended with the seizure of Manuel Noriega — has Washington so overtly used military force to change a government in the Western Hemisphere. Then, as now, the justification was murky and the fallout unpredictable.

    The legal authority for this attack remains unclear. Reports indicate that neither the Armed Services Committees nor the broader Congress were notified in advance, an omission that starkly violates the principles of civilian oversight of the military. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent presidents from waging undeclared wars, and yet it seems to have been ignored once again.

    Beyond legalities, the moral and geopolitical implications are staggering. By unilaterally abducting a sitting president, the U.S. risks reigniting a long and painful history of interventionism in Latin America — a history that has often bred instability, resentment, and violence rather than democracy. The Venezuelan government has already called the attack an “imperialist assault,” urging citizens into the streets. Civilian and military casualties have been reported, deepening the country’s suffering at a moment when its economy and institutions are already fragile.

    President Trump’s comment that the U.S. will be “very much involved” in Venezuela’s future only compounds the concern. What does “involvement” mean in this context — occupation, trusteeship, regime installation? Whatever the answer, the precedent is perilous. If the world’s leading democracy can seize foreign leaders at will, the international order built on sovereignty and law begins to crack.

    Democrats rip Trump administration for ‘illegal’ strikes on Venezuela

  • What Is a Cognitive Test—and Why Does Donald Trump Keep Taking Them?

    Blue Press Journal – When President Donald Trump boasts about “acing” a cognitive exam for the third straight time, it raises more questions than it answers. Cognitive tests are not intelligence contests; they’re simple screening tools doctors use to evaluate memory, attention, and problem-solving skills—often in patients showing signs of cognitive decline. So why does Trump keep taking them, and why does he feel the need to advertise the results?

    A standard cognitive test, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), might ask someone to identify animals from pictures, recall five words after a few minutes, or draw a clock showing a certain time. Scoring well doesn’t prove genius—it simply indicates that basic cognitive functions are intact. Most adults without impairment would easily “ace” it. That’s why medical experts find Trump’s repeated emphasis on his performance puzzling, even concerning.

    Trump’s latest Truth Social post, insisting that anyone running for high office should undergo a “strong, meaningful” cognitive exam, feels less like a policy suggestion and more like projection. If he’s indeed taken the test three times, it suggests that either his doctors or his team are monitoring potential issues—or that he wants to preempt speculation about his health by loudly proclaiming his mental sharpness. The bruises spotted on his hands and his occasional slurred speech have only fueled public curiosity.

    Critics argue that Trump’s obsession with “acing” a basic screening betrays insecurity rather than strength. Instead of reassuring voters, it highlights how defensive he becomes over any hint of vulnerability. After all, a healthy, confident leader doesn’t need to brag about remembering five words or drawing a clock correctly.

  • Rising Health Care Costs: Who’s Really to Blame – Republican’s


    Blue Press Journal – Health care costs in the United States are climbing at an alarming rate — and millions of Americans are feeling the financial strain. According to DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the responsibility lies squarely with House Republicans. 

    DelBene points out that instead of addressing spiking health care costs with meaningful solutions, House Republicans prioritized massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Even more concerning, they blocked a floor vote that could have preserved vital health care tax credits, that expired on January 1, 2026. 

    For families already struggling with medical bills, the expiration of these credits could mean higher premiums, reduced access to care, and increased economic hardship. As the deadline approaches, the debate over who benefits from policy decisions — and who pays the price — is intensifying. 

    The American public is wide awake and watching! The pivotal question is whether voters will rise up in 2026 to hand control over to Democrats who steadfastly champion the interests of everyday Americans, not the wealthy elite of billionaires and millionaires.

  • Jack Smith’s Testimony and the Truth Trump Never Wanted Revealed

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – The latest revelations from former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee offer a sobering reminder of how far Donald Trump and his allies were willing to go to hold onto power after losing the 2020 election. While the session was held behind closed doors, reports of what was said inside make clear why some Republican lawmakers, including Committee Chair Jim Jordan, had no interest in making the testimony public.

    Smith’s investigation—now dismissed—had sought to determine the extent of Trump’s direct involvement in efforts to overturn the election and his mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House. What’s emerging from this new account is not just a picture of political hardball, but of a deliberate campaign built on lies that even Trump’s closest associates didn’t believe.

    One of the most striking details involves Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and architect of his post-election legal strategy. Smith’s inquiry reveals Giuliani admitted he didn’t believe the conspiracy theories he promoted—and neither did Donald Trump. This confession undermines the “Stop the Steal” narrative: it was not based on genuine grievance, but a calculated deception to inflame supporters and delegitimize a lawful election.

    If Trump and Giuliani both knew their claims were false, then the entire post-election chaos—from the flood of lawsuits to the violence of January 6th—was built on a conscious lie. This undermines any argument that Trump was simply misled or acting out of misguided conviction. It paints a portrait of a leader willing to endanger democracy itself for personal gain.

    The Republicans who sought to limit public access to Smith’s testimony likely understood how damaging such revelations could be. A clear-eyed look at the evidence doesn’t just implicate Trump; it also raises uncomfortable questions about those in Congress who continue to defend him, even as the factual record grows darker.

    Trump’s defenders often dismiss these investigations as partisan witch hunts, but Smith’s work reveals a graver truth: a former president, aware of his loss, attempted to weaponize the government and his followers to maintain power. This behavior is not that of a patriot—it’s someone who views democracy as expendable.

    As more details come to light, the question is no longer whether Trump believed his own lies. It’s whether the country is prepared to hold him accountable for them.

  • Trump’s Aspirin Folly: When Ego Trumps Expertise

    Blue Press Journal – President Trump’s recent revelation that he’s doubling down on aspirin therapy to “thin” his blood has once again exposed a confusing blend of self-diagnosis and bedside intuition—and it drew swift rebuttal from experts. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the 79-year-old commander in chief explained, “I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart. I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense?” 

    Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a respected cardiologist who treated former Vice President Dick Cheney, didn’t mince words when asked about Trump’s unconventional regimen on CNN’s The Lead. “That actually makes no sense,” Reiner declared. “When we use anticoagulant medications to prevent clotting, they don’t ‘thin’ the blood like changing gumbo to chicken soup. They simply reduce the chance of clot formation.” In other words, the president’s catchy metaphor has no basis in medical reality.

    Beyond the semantics, Trump’s high-dose aspirin use carries risks. The American Heart Association warns that people over 70 using aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke may face more harm than benefit due to increased bleeding risk. Self-medicating at that age is a gamble with serious consequences.

    Trump, who has dismissed health concerns, favors his instincts over medical advice. At a time when cardiovascular vigilance is crucial, his cavalier attitude and reliance on pseudo-medical explanations highlight a troubling trend: expertise is overlooked when it conflicts with his gut feelings or media soundbites.