Earlier today, I posed three questions, and did my best to answer them, in the opening monologue of my national radio program. They all pertain to recent controversies involving policies and decisions made by the Trump administration. One is an immigration-related issue, another relates to a presidential termination, and the third is about a Department of Justice investigation. All three have been framed by critics as alarming examples of authoritarianism, abuse of power, and threats to the rule of law. But are they, actually? The critics should have to grapple with these questions:
(1) What reason remains not to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia? The whole argument about 'Maryland Father' Garcia was that he was improperly deported to the one country -- his own -- that a federal judge had ruled he couldn't be sent to. The US Supreme Court followed up with a ruling that the Trump administration, which admitted that they'd done this in error, had to 'facilitate' his return. They've now done so, charging him with multiple crimes, the bulk of which are connected to his alleged activities in a massive human trafficking ring. If the administration follows through with their prosecution, they can keep him locked up awaiting trial. But if they choose to deport him immediately, what is the case against that? He is a criminal illegal alien with a removal order against him. He has zero right to be here. He is an adjudicated gang member, a wife-beater (according to his wife and the protective orders she successfully obtained against him), and a human smuggler, per a great deal of evidence against him. The 'due process' and 'rule of law' concerns that were raised as the reason for rallying to his cause have been addressed and exhausted. What is left? Why continue to advocate on his behalf, unless one is affirmatively pro-illegal immigration and pro-crime (or if one is so fixated on 'resisting' a president that one becomes effectively pro-illegal immigration and pro-crime)? If family separation is the worry, surely they can choose to join him, wherever he may be sent.
(2) Did Lisa Cook commit mortgage fraud, or not? Amid all the hyperventilating about her firing (or attempted firing, which she's fighting) by President Trump, I've seen a lot of allegations about Trump abusing power and trying to control the Fed, as well as the usual cascade of identity politics claims, given her sex and skin color. I'm open to questions about whether Trump has fired her 'for cause,' within whatever the definition entails. I'm open to questions about whether doing so before she's been convicted or even charged is premature. But I have noticed that people rushing to her defense seem, including her, seem to be talking about everything except whether the accusation against her is true. Cosign:
On the topic of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, there is a long history of Fed Governors who had relatively minor ethical or legal infractions who resigned in light of the importance of unimpeachable probity for those who serve in this important position. It is either true or false that Governor Cook misrepresented her primary residence status on one or more mortgage applications. The evidence put forth publicly ... strongly suggests that she lied on one or more mortgage applications, in other words, mortgage fraud. It should be straightforward for Governor Cook to disprove the alleged fraud and it shouldn’t require a team of lawyers and litigation to do so. She just needs to answer a simple question: Did she or didn’t she sign an affidavit declaring that the subject properties were her primary residences? Yes or no. Whether President Trump has the technical legal authority to terminate Gov Cook is not that relevant in my view. What matters here is whether a Fed governor has committed mortgage fraud or not. It is not a political question. It is a question of fact. Governor Cook should immediately put forth the facts to clear her name or she should resign in the best interests of the integrity of our financial system. The sooner this occurs, the better for her and our country.
It seems as though the evidence looks pretty clear. Shouldn't this matter?
Frame it. https://t.co/GaWaIOmY4T
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 26, 2025
One additional note on this:
EXCLUSIVE: Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook is one of the most powerful economists in the world. But @LukeRosiak and I have discovered that her academic work appears to contain plagiarism, according to her former university’s policy.
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 10, 2024
The plagiarism scandal hits the Fed. 🧵
(3) Was the investigation into John Bolton, resulting in an FBI raid of his home, initiated before Trump's term? I've been keeping my powder dry on the Bolton matter because I didn't know the facts. If Trump had ordered or encouraged a criminal probe into the former adviser he detests (and vice versa) as personal retribution for criticism, that would be outrageous. But if that isn't the case, the people insisting it is are being very irresponsible. Based on New York Times reporting, the "Scandal!" conclusion jumpers appear to be sitting out on a limb that is in the process of being sawed off:
Susan Glasser, the wife of the NYT’s chief WH correspondent Peter Baker, wrote that the Bolton raid was “retribution” and “revenge vibes were strong”
— Cameron Cawthorne (@Cam_Cawthorne) August 28, 2025
Today: Her husband’s employer reports that the investigation picked up momentum under Biden amid concerns from intel officials pic.twitter.com/k5fsP3w0f0
If this started or 'picked up momentum' under the Biden administration, and it was initiated because US intelligence discovered that an enemy power managed to access sensitive or secret information because of Bolton's unlawful handling of classified materials, that is a very far cry from the Trump Vengeance narrative. Yes, several powerful political figures have escaped accountability for mishandling classified materials in recent years, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Donald Trump himself (who was basically saved from further prosecution by winning the presidency again). I believe there should be one standard of justice for everyone because the rules and laws should apply to everyone. But inconsistencies and double standards would not excuse anyone else's illegal conduct on this front. I also think Bolton should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Let's await more facts. The facts that we've already learned suggest that a theory (Trump revenge) repeated loudly and often across the press and social media is wrong. I'll leave you with my radio segments on these questions, which included more context and commentary: