BLUE PRESS JOURNAL (DC) – In yet another display of misinformation, President Donald Trump has revived a long-debunked conspiracy theory — that Americans protesting his policies are “paid” to do so. Speaking today to a group of Republicans at the Kennedy Center, Trump claimed that thousands who demonstrated against his administration’s recent military action in Venezuela were compensated for their activism.
“They will pay people, most of these people are paid,” Trump falsely asserted, pointing to the quality of protesters’ signs as supposed evidence. The comments came after widespread demonstrations erupted across the country, including a thousand-strong march in New York City where citizens chanted, “No more coups, no more wars, Venezuela’s not yours!”
Trump’s remarks not only dismiss the genuine outrage many Americans feel over reckless foreign interventions, but also insult the civic spirit behind peaceful protest. Suggesting that dissent can only exist if someone funds it reflects a profound misunderstanding — or rejection — of democratic values.
Critics argue that by repeating baseless claims, Trump seeks to delegitimize public opposition and distract from the real issues surrounding U.S. involvement abroad. Instead of addressing concerns about military overreach, he fixates on the “beautiful” printed signs, joking that he’d like their creator to work for his campaign.
Americans not only have the right but also the imperative to unleash their dissent against actions done in their name. To dismiss protests as mere “paid” efforts is to blatantly attack that right and tear away the very fabric of trust needed for genuine democratic dialogue. In a landscape saturated with misinformation that distorts political discourse, it’s crucial for citizens to be fiercely vigilant, armed with facts, and bold enough to challenge power head-on.
Blue Press Journal: President Trump’s vision for Venezuela’s oil faces a labyrinth of geopolitical, economic, and operational challenges. We examine why extracting the country’s vast reserves may not be a boon for U.S. interests.
Trump out of step with reality
President Donald Trump’s recent assurances about U.S. oil companies seizing control of Venezuela’s underutilized oil reserves sound ambitious—and possibly out of step with reality. While Venezuela boasts the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the path to unlocking them under Trump’s plan is riddled with economic, technical, and political hurdles that even the most powerful corporations may struggle to navigate.
Venezuela’s Oil Legacy and Its Rocky Decline
Venezuela’s oil industry was once a global powerhouse, producing over 3 million barrels per day in the late 1990s. However, the nationalization of oil infrastructure under Hugo Chávez in the mid-1990s marked the beginning of a steep decline. By 2018, production had plummeted to just 1.3 million barrels per day, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Decades of mismanagement, lack of foreign investment, and U.S. sanctions have further crippled the struggling sector, which now produces less than 7% of the United States’ own output (21.7 million barrels daily in 2023).
While the reserves remain vast, the ability to extract and refine them has eroded. Infrastructure decay, from aging pipelines to dilapidated drilling rigs, has turned Venezuela’s oil fields into a patchwork of unreliable assets. Even if U.S. firms could access these reserves, they would face the monumental task of rebuilding an industry that has fallen into disrepair.
The Market Realities: A Global Oil Oversupply and Volatility
Trump’s plan assumes that increased Venezuelan oil production would benefit U.S. companies, but global market conditions tell a different story. In 2025—amid Trump’s renewed push—global oil prices dropped by 20%, the steepest decline since 2020. Analysts attribute this to an oversupplied market, with increased output from U.S. shale producers, OPEC+, and alternative energy transitions.
James Stockman, a leading energy economist, notes, “Right now the oil market’s somewhat oversupplied. That’s hurting American companies. The last thing they want is for a massive oil reserve to suddenly be opened up.” A surge in Venezuelan oil could oversaturate an already struggling market, further depressing prices and eroding profit margins for U.S. firms. At a time when energy companies are grappling with tariffs and market volatility, the prospect of pouring billions into a risky, long-term project in Venezuela is unappealing.
Operational Challenges: Heavy Oil and Infrastructure Collapse
Even if U.S. companies were willing to invest, Venezuela’s oil is not a quick win. The country’s reserves are predominantly extra-heavy crude, which requires extensive and costly upgradation to transform it into lighter, transportable oil. This process—a multi-billion-dollar undertaking—demands not only capital but also stable political and economic conditions Venezuela has not seen in decades.
Moreover, the infrastructure required to extract and process this oil is in critical disrepair. Decades of neglect have left Venezuela’s oil fields reliant on outdated equipment, while key refineries like the 520,000-barrel-per-day Amuay facility have largely fallen into obscurity. Rebuilding this infrastructure could take a decade or more, with no guarantee of returns in a market that may shift toward renewable energy by then.
Political Quagmire: Who Controls Venezuela?
The very foundation of Trump’s plan hinges on U.S. recognition of Venezuela’s new leadership, but political instability remains a wildcard. Following the contentious capture of President Nicolás Maduro, ally-turned-claimant Juan Guaidó (or another figure, as per the context) was sworn in as an interim leader. Yet, U.S. officials, including Senator Marco Rubio, have quickly backtracked, calling Guaidó’s legitimacy into question and advocating for “real elections” instead.
This inconsistency raises critical concerns for foreign investors. Venezuela’s oil contracts are often shrouded in legal ambiguity, and a lack of clear governance could deter companies wary of entanglement in a political showdown. “Legitimacy for their system of government will come about through a period of transition and real elections, which they have not had,” Rubio stated on This Week, underscoring the uncertain footing on which any U.S. oil venture would stand.
A Cautionary Tale: Why Trump’s Plan Fails the Feasibility Test
While Trump’s rhetoric echoes the 2003 Iraq invasion—where oil was a central motive—the economic landscape is worlds apart. In 2003, oil prices were rising, and technical advancements made extraction more viable. Today, declining prices, aging infrastructure, and geopolitical uncertainty form a far more complex web.
For U.S. oil companies, the risks outweigh potential rewards. The required investment would run into tens of billions, with returns stretching over decades in a market that may not justify the expenditure. Additionally, the environmental and moral implications of reviving a resource-extraction economy in a country ravaged by sanctions and authoritarianism could invite corporate reputational damage.
President Trump’s grand vision for Venezuela’s oil is less about economics and more of a political stunt. The harsh truth of a stagnant market, decaying infrastructure, and erratic leadership proves that tapping into Venezuela’s immense reserves will likely remain an elusive fantasy for U.S. companies. Forget quick profits; the real blow may come in the form of wasted investments. The takeaway for investors is stark: even the richest resources can’t be unleashed merely through lofty ambitions—they require the right timing, genuine stability, and a market primed for opportunity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blue Press Journal 