‘Dangle Sweet Nothings’: Megyn Kelly Urges Trump To Focus On Pam Bondi Before Epstein ‘Hornet’s Nest’ Blows Up
‘I blame Pam Bondi’
War on cartels yields results as ‘El Chapo’ heir confesses to running violent drug empire
One of the sons of notorious drug lord “El Chapo” pleaded guilty in a U.S. federal court in Chicago to major drug charges and running the Sinaloa Cartel in his father’s absence.
Ovidio Guzman Lopez, 35, admitted to running part of the Sinaloa Cartel, coordinating massive drug shipments, including fentanyl, heroin and cocaine into the U.S. and using violence to protect cartel operations, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois.
His plea is part of a broader federal strategy, “Operation Take Back America,” aimed at dismantling transnational criminal organizations like the Sinaloa Cartel.
TRUMP ADMIN SANCTIONS EL CHAPO’S CHILDREN, VIOLENT FENTANYL-TRAFFICKING CARTEL ARM LOS CHAPITOS
“Today’s guilty plea is another major step toward holding the Sinaloa Cartel and its leaders accountable for their role in fueling the fentanyl epidemic that has plagued so many Americans,” U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said in a news release.
“We remain committed to dismantling the Cartel’s entire fentanyl infrastructure and ensuring that the Chapitos and their violent organization can no longer flood our communities with this poison.”
Guzman Lopez admitted in the plea agreement that he coordinated the transportation of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and other drugs and precursor chemicals from Mexico to the United States border, at times in shipments of hundreds or thousands of kilograms, according to federal officials. He used a network of couriers affiliated with the cartel to smuggle the drugs into the United States, using vehicles, rail cars, tunnels, aircraft and other means, the plea agreement states.
After the drugs were distributed throughout the United States, officials said, individuals working for Guzman Lopez used bulk cash transport, wire transfers, trade of goods and cryptocurrency to launder the illicit proceeds and ensure that the money was transmitted to Guzman Lopez and other members of the cartel in Mexico.
Guzman Lopez then admitted he and his cartel associates committed violent acts against law enforcement officials, civilians and rival drug traffickers to protect the cartel’s drug-trafficking activities.
FEDS WON’T SEEK DEATH PENALTY FOR EL CHAPO’S SON IN MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKING CASE
As part of the plea agreement, Guzman Lopez will also forfeit $80 million, though his sentencing date hasn’t been set.
He is one of four brothers known as “The Chapitos,” who took over after their father’s arrest in 2016.
Joaquin Guzman Lopez was arrested last year and is being held in the U.S. without bail. He pleaded not guilty and is waiting for his trial in Illinois.
Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar and Jesus Alfredo Guzman Salazar are also facing charges in Illinois and New York. They have not been arrested yet, and warrants have been issued for their arrests.
EL CHAPO’S FAMILY MEMBERS CROSS US BORDER IN APPARENT DEAL WITH TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
Federal officials praised the guilty plea, saying “with each passing day, you are seeing the sunset of the Sinaloa Cartel.”
“The Chapitos’ latest violence reflects their fading future. Their leaders who remain free are now paranoid, distrusted and desperate,” U.S. Attorney Adam Gordon wrote.
The U.S. State Department has issued rewards of up to $10 million for information leading to their arrests and convictions.
“The guilty plea by Ovidio Guzman Lopez, son of ‘El Chapo,’ is a real victory for both the United States and Mexico but also a clear win for the rule of law,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security Investigations Arizona Ray Rede.
“So much blood and violence lay with the Guzman family as well as spreading terror and plaguing both sides of the border with deadly drugs and weapons — no more. It’s impossible to measure the amount of work HSI and partner agencies have spent in securing this guilty verdict, but what is clear and evident is that no one is beyond the reach of law enforcement and our nation’s laws. Deliberate and coordinated teamwork resulted in today’s victory.”
Wednesday’s Forum
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal . Thanks for your consideration.
Trump Applies Madman Theory For Real
CNN (“Trump said he threatened to bomb Moscow if Putin attacked Ukraine, 2024 fundraiser tapes show“):
Donald Trump told a private gathering of donors last year that he once sought to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from attacking Ukraine by threatening to “bomb the sh*t out of Moscow” in retaliation, according to audio provided to CNN.
“With Putin I said, ‘If you go into Ukraine, I’m going to bomb the sh*t out of Moscow. I’m telling you I have no choice,’” Trump said during one 2024 fundraiser, according to the audio. “And then [Putin] goes, like, ‘I don’t believe you.’ But he believed me 10%.”
Trump later claimed he relayed a similar warning to Chinese President Xi Jinping over a potential invasion of Taiwan, telling him that the US would bomb Beijing in response.
“He thought I was crazy,” Trump said of Xi, before noting that “we never had a problem.”
BBC’s Allan Little (“How Trump is using the ‘Madman Theory’ to try to change the world (and it’s working)“) had this to say days before this news broke:
Asked last month whether he was planning to join Israel in attacking Iran, US President Donald Trump said “I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I’m going to do”.
He let the world believe he had agreed a two-week pause to allow Iran to resume negotiations. And then he bombed anyway.
A pattern is emerging: The most predictable thing about Trump is his unpredictability. He changes his mind. He contradicts himself. He is inconsistent.
“[Trump] has put together a highly centralised policy-making operation, arguably the most centralised, at least in the area of foreign policy, since Richard Nixon,” says Peter Trubowitz, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics.
“And that makes policy decisions more dependent on Trump’s character, his preferences, his temperament.”
Trump has put this to political use; he has made his own unpredictability a key strategic and political asset. He has elevated unpredictability to the status of a doctrine. And now the personality trait he brought to the White House is driving foreign and security policy.
It is changing the shape of the world.
Political scientists call this the Madman Theory, in which a world leader seeks to persuade his adversary that he is temperamentally capable of anything, to extract concessions. Used successfully it can be a form of coercion and Trump believes it is paying dividends, getting the US’s allies where he wants them.
There has been a longstanding debate in the deterrence literature about the desirabilty of ambiguity. Some argue that, for it to be maximally effective, parties need to be transparent about where red lines are to avoid catastrophe. Others counter that some degree of murkiness is preferable, lest the adversary take the red line as license to advance right up to it.
After some discussion of actions taken by Trump and his senior appointees, Little continues,
Julie Norman, professor of politics at University College London, agrees that there is now an Unpredictability Doctrine.
“It’s very hard to know what’s coming from day to day,” she argues. “And that has always been Trump’s approach.”
Trump successfully harnessed his reputation for volatility to change the trans-Atlantic defence relationship. And apparently to keep Trump on side, some European leaders have flattered and fawned.
Last month’s Nato summit in The Hague was an exercise in obsequious courtship. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte had earlier sent President Trump (or “Dear Donald”) a text message, which Trump leaked.
“Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, it was truly extraordinary,” he wrote.
On the forthcoming announcement that all Nato members had agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP, he continued: “You will achieve something NO president in decades could get done.”
Trump supporters rightly point to these concessions as evidence his Tough Guy approach is achieving its desired outcome. (Opponents rightly note the considerable costs in soft power.) But Little is unconvinced that the approach works as well with adversaries:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, an ally who was given a dressing down by Trump and Vance in the Oval Office, later agreed to grant the US lucrative rights to exploit Ukrainian mineral resources.
Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, apparently remains impervious to Trump’s charms and threats alike. On Thursday, following a telephone call, Trump said he was “disappointed” that Putin was not ready to end the war against Ukraine.
And Iran? Trump promised his base that he would end American involvement in Middle Eastern “forever wars”. His decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was perhaps the most unpredictable policy choice of his second term so far. The question is whether it will have the desired effect.
The former British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has argued that it will do precisely the opposite: it will make Iran more, not less likely, to seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
Prof Desch agrees. “I think it’s now highly likely that Iran will make the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon,” he says. “So I wouldn’t be surprised if they lie low and do everything they can to complete the full fuel cycle and conduct a [nuclear] test.
There’s also the question of sustainability:
Looking ahead, unpredictability may not work on foes, but it is unclear whether the recent shifts it has yielded among allies can be sustained.
Whilst possible, this is a process built largely on impulse. And there may be a worry that the US could be seen as an unreliable broker.
“People won’t want to do business with the US if they don’t trust the US in negotiations, if they’re not sure the US will stand by them in defence and security issues,” argues Prof Norman. “So the isolation that many in the MAGA world seek is, I think, going to backfire.”
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for one has said Europe now needs to become operationally independent of the US.
“The importance of the chancellor’s comment is that it’s a recognition that US strategic priorities are changing,” says Prof Trubowitz. “They’re not going to snap back to the way they were before Trump took office.
“So yes, Europe is going to have to get more operationally independent.”
Which, in the short term, is very much what Trump has signaled he wants. A more robust European defense capability has been a longstanding, bipartisan US foreign policy goal. It’s even more desirable as our focus shifts to the Indo-Pacific. But I fear Trump’s approach will come at the cost of alliance cohesion.
Further, it’s not at all clear to me why a mercurial approach to foreign and defense policy will deter adversaries. Certainly, Putin has seemed completely undaunted by these threats, as he continues to escalate his illegal war in Ukraine.
SCOTUS Allows Mass Firings, For Now
NYT (“Supreme Court Clears Way for Mass Firings at Federal Agencies“):
The Trump administration can move forward with plans to slash the federal work force and dismantle federal agencies, the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday. The decision could result in job losses for tens of thousands of employees at agencies including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, State and Treasury.
The order, which lifted a lower court’s ruling that had blocked mass layoffs, was unsigned and did not include a vote count. That is typical in such emergency applications. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a public dissent.
The case represents a key test of the extent of President Trump’s power to reorganize the government without input from Congress. The justices’ order is technically only temporary, guiding how the administration can proceed while the challenge to Mr. Trump’s plans continues. But in practice, it means he is free to pursue his restructuring plans, even if judges later determine that they exceed presidential power.
In a two-paragraph order, the justices wrote that they had concluded that “the government is likely to succeed on its argument” that President Trump’s executive order announcing plans to downsize the government was legal. The justices added that they had not expressed a view on the legality of specific layoffs or reorganizations by the Trump administration.
[…]Although the vote count was not listed, the order included a short public concurrence by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberals, suggesting broad agreement among the justices on the outcome. Justice Sotomayor wrote that she agreed with the court’s decision, but she added that the trial court was “free to consider” the legality of the specifics of the Trump administration’s downsizing plans.
In a 15-page dissent, Justice Jackson sharply criticized the court’s decision, calling it “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless” and arguing that it undercut the authority of trial court judges.
“It is not this court’s role to swoop in and second-guess a lower court’s factual findings,” Justice Jackson wrote, echoing her dissent last month in the case limiting the power of lower-court judges to block administration policies nationwide.
She said that “no one seriously disputes” that the president’s executive order would “lead to enormous real-world consequences,” including “the dismantling of much of the federal government as Congress has created it.”
“What one person (or president) might call bureaucratic bloat is a farmer’s prospect for a healthy crop, a coal miner’s chance to breathe free from black lung, or a preschooler’s opportunity to learn in a safe environment,” she wrote.
Jackson’s consequentialist argument is bizarre coming from a Supreme Court Justice. Either the President has the power to do a thing or he doesn’t. Whether the thing amounts to good public policy is not for the judiciary to decide.
But she’s absolutely right as to the core issue: Congress sets the size of the agencies via their annual budget authorizations and it’s highly unusual, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s finding on the facts while simultaneously not ruling on the facts.
The fact that Sotomayor was on board with the ruling certainly undercuts the instinct that this is simply a Republican-dominated court bending to the wishes of a Republican President. Her concurrence, in full:
I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. See post, at 13. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force “consistent with applicable law,” App. to Application for Stay 2a, and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.
Here, I’m well beyond my limited legal expertise. But it seems to me that continuing the stay until the matter could be adjudicated was the wiser course. The damage suffered by the President in having to wait a few months to carry out a hastily-considered force reduction is de minimis. The damage suffered to the workers and the agencies themselves in having them carried out, quite possibly illegally, is significant. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again is a considerably more difficult task than waiting to push him off the wall.
As a NYT analysis (“Trump Got the Green Light to Fire Federal Workers. Now, They Wait.“) notes:
If courts ultimately find that the layoffs are illegal, federal workers would receive a minimum of back pay for the period when they had been illegally terminated, according to Nick Bednar, an administrative law expert at the University of Minnesota.
In these situations, employees may be entitled to get their jobs back. But the cases could drag on for so long that the government would be reorganized by the time a decision comes. There may not be jobs for the fired employees to go back to.
As it is, several agencies have been shuttered—again, quite possibly illegally—and others considerably hobbled.
Since Mr. Trump called for widespread layoffs in an executive order, thousands of federal workers have decided to leave the government, accepting early retirement incentives to avoid the stress of waiting to learn their fates. This, too, has changed the calculations for layoffs across agencies.
On Monday, Doug Collins, the veterans affairs secretary, said that his agency would not need to conduct widespread layoffs because 17,000 employees had resigned since January. Mr. Collins added that the agency expected another 12,000 people to resign or retire by the end of September.
Tom Yazdgerdi, the president of the American Foreign Service Association, said he was concerned that the State Department would announce more layoffs beyond the 1,900 it had previously disclosed to Congress.
“With this Supreme Court decision, the administration now has a green light to hobble the diplomatic work force in real time,” he said. “While we don’t know the exact numbers as yet, this shortsighted move will inflict lasting damage on America’s diplomatic capacity and our foreign service work force, which is already stretched thin.”
It will take decades to undo this damage. And, if the courts rule that a sitting President can do this whenever he wants, I don’t know why anyone with a decent alternative option would start a career under those conditions.
Fmr Border Chief Says Some ‘Children That Disappeared’ During Biden Era Found At Place Not Fit For Children
‘These are those children’
Trump grants ‘total authorization’ to ICE agents to protect themselves after violent California clashes
President Donald Trump on Friday said he has given federal immigration agents “Total Authorization” to protect themselves after clashes with protesters during an enforcement operation at a California cannabis farm.
Trump was traveling to Washington from Texas, where he toured the region where devastating floods have left at least 120 people dead, and he penned a lengthy post on Truth Social about the violence against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
“I am on my way back from Texas, and watched in disbelief as THUGS were violently throwing rocks and bricks at ICE Officers while they were moving down a roadway in their car and/or official vehicle,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“Tremendous damage was done to these brand new vehicles. I know for a fact that these Officers are having a hard time with allowing this to happen in that it shows such total disrespect for LAW AND ORDER.”
UNION SAYS FARM WORKER DIED AFTER ICE RAID THAT UNCOVERED UNDERAGE LABORERS
Federal authorities conducted raids on Glass House Farms families in Camarillo and Carpinteria . Authorities used tear gas, and there were reports of objects being thrown at agents.
NEWSOM DONOR’S CANNABIS FARM UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION FOR ‘CHILD LABOR VIOLATIONS’
In response, Trump said he directed Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Border Czar Tom Homan to instruct ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other law enforcement on the receiving end of “thrown rocks, bricks, or any other form of assault, to stop their car, and arrest these SLIMEBALLS, using whatever means is necessary to do so.”
“I am giving Total Authorization for ICE to protect itself, just like they protect the Public,” he wrote. “I never want to see a car carrying a Law Enforcement Officer attacked again! AUTHORIZATION IMMEDIATELY GRANTED FOR ARREST AND INCARCERATION. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The United Farm Workers said one worker died from his injuries.
“This man was not in and has not been in CBP or ICE custody,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “Although he was not being pursued by law enforcement, this individual climbed up to the roof of a greenhouse and fell 30 feet. CBP immediately called a medivac to the scene to get him care as quickly as possible.”
Judge Continues Block On Defunding Planned Parenthood
The court’s decision came in response to a motion the Planned Parenthood filed
Gregg Jarrett Explains How Brennan And Comey ‘Tried To Entrap Trump’ And Then ‘Hobbled’ His Presidency
‘Hats off to Ratcliffe’
Report: FBI chief Kash Patel not resigning over Epstein
Kash Patel is NOT resigning from his post at the FBI — unless the President himself removes him, according to new reports.
Earlier Friday, rumors exploded across social media, suggesting that FBI Director Kash Patel might join FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino in stepping down after growing friction with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Dan Bongino reportedly took a day off following a heated confrontation with Bondi over her suppression of critical evidence tied to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
According to CNN and The Daily Wire, Bongino has told confidants he is strongly considering resigning if Bondi remains at the DOJ.
Later Friday, The Daily Wire reported that Patel himself was “frustrated” with Bondi’s DOJ stonewalling and might follow Bongino out the door if the stalemate continued.
However, investigative journalist John Solomon of Just the News set the record straight with an update on Friday night.
According to Solomon, Patel is overseeing one of the largest criminal conspiracy investigations in FBI history—a decade-long look into the coordinated effort to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency, re-election, and comeback bid.
Solomon teased that within the next 10 days, bombshell revelations would be made public — possibly exposing how weaponized federal agencies colluded to rig the political landscape against Trump and deceive the American people.
John Solomon: There are reports out there tonight that Kash Patel is considering resigning alongside Dan Bongino. It is not true. My reporting makes very clear: Kash Patel is going nowhere unless the President tries to move him. He’s there for the long haul.
Why is that? Because the FBI has a major investigation that looks at the last 10 years of what happened to Donald Trump as one large conspiracy case. No one’s going to give that opportunity up.
Now, it is true — Dan Bongino is taking a few days to reconsider whether he wants to stay in the job. That’s his decision. He’s gone through these things before. There have been times when he’s been on radio, he got mad, took a couple of days off. I bet you he’ll come back when it’s all done.
But Kash Patel is going nowhere.
And I think next week — over the next 10 days — the base who’s been wondering, “Where’s all that accountability?” is going to get some big surprises. Over the next week, we’ll learn where the conspiracy began — a few weeks before Crossfire Hurricane was opened — and when it ended, all the way in 2024, when they were still trying to pursue Donald Trump to keep him from winning the presidency.
There’s a big case that’s been built by the Justice Department and the FBI.
It’s been masked by a lot of this infighting and drama and soap opera. The matter is — MAGA-base Americans are going to be happy when they see where this is all heading in the next few weeks.
Kash Patel is going nowhere. I hope Dan Bongino isn’t going anywhere either — but I do think he’s going to take some time over the weekend to think that through.
WATCH:
BREAKING NEWS: Reports about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino considering resigning is not true. @jsolomonReports pic.twitter.com/uFy47fvl9S
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) July 11, 2025
The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that sources told Fox News that both FBI Director Kash Patel and the Attorney General are fully committed to staying and continuing their service.
[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com ]