Jeffries Vows To Weaponize Govt. Against Trump Officials
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed on Thursday to go after members of President Donald Trump’s administration — essentially weaponizing the government against political opponents — while at the same time complaining that Trump was doing exactly that. Speaking to left-wing MSNBC host Chris Hayes, Jeffries complained about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year upholding a key aspect of the Constitution’s provision granting presidents wide immunity from legal actions taken while in office. But he then threatened to move against Trump administration officials if Democrats take power again.
“There are so many corrupt sycophants within the Trump administration, including but not limited to, within the Department of Justice. Now these people don’t have immunity, and the reality is, the statute of limitations is five years. And there will be accountability with the next administration if not before, when Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives.”
Jeffries’ threat comes amid a couple of high-profile indictments by the Justice Department of noted anti-Trump figures.
WATCH:
Last month, fired FBI Director James Comey was charged with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. And on Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on allegations of mortgage fraud.
Meanwhile, California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff is also under investigation by the DOJ for similar allegations of mortgage fraud.
Also, a Democrat whistleblower’s allegations, backed by newly declassified FBI interview reports, are now threatening to upend Schiff’s political career.
If the whistleblower’s account is accurate and prosecutors pursue the case, Schiff could face not only career-ending political consequences but also staggering financial penalties and lengthy prison terms.
A longtime intelligence officer who served on the House Intelligence Committee under Democratic leadership for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI starting in 2017 that then-Rep. Schiff had authorized the leaking of classified information related to the Trump-Russia investigation, according to FBI memos obtained by Just the News.
The documents, which were recently turned over to Congress by current FBI Director Kash Patel, allege that the leaks were part of an effort to discredit then-President Donald Trump
amid the now-disproven “Russiagate” controversy.
FBI 302 interview reports obtained by Just the News this week indicate that the intelligence staffer — a registered Democrat who described himself as a friend to both then-Rep. Adam Schiff and former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes — viewed the alleged classified leaks as “unethical,” “illegal,” and “treasonous.”
According to the reports, the staffer said he was told not to be concerned because Schiff believed he would be protected from prosecution under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress for actions taken in the course of legislative duties.
In a 2023 interview with FBI agents from the bureau’s St. Louis field office, the whistleblower — whose name was redacted in the documents — stated that he personally attended a meeting where Schiff authorized the release of classified information, according to the reports.
“When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer’s name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF,” the interview report said. “In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”
The whistleblower told investigators that he “stated this would be illegal and, upon hearing his concerns, unnamed members of the meeting reassured that they would not be caught leaking classified information,” the 2023 interview report said.
The staff member made similar claims to agents in the FBI’s Washington field office as early as 2017, shortly after Trump began his first term.
“For years, certain officials used their positions to selectively leak classified information to shape political narratives,” FBI Director Kash Patel told the outlet.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
