U.S. Congressman Cory Mills (R-FL) told President Donald Trump that there was no restraining order filed against him in order to secure his endorsement. Information has come out showing that Rep. Mills, as a matter of xz fact, lied to President Trump in a desperate attempt to save his own hide.

In a decision made in the 3rd District Court of Florida, an injunction for protection against dating violence was filed on behalf of former Miss USA Lindsey Langston against Mills. The injunction was approved by Judge Fred Koberlein Jr. and remained in effect until Jan. 1 of this year preventing Mills from committing any acts of domestic violence and stopping him from being within 500 feet of his victim or contacting her online.

The case centered on Mills and Langston whose relationship reportedly lasted about a year before deteriorating in 2025. In court filings, Langston accused Mills of threatening to release explicit revenge porn material of her in an attempt to coerce her silence over alleged abuse, providing screenshots of text messages that indicated as such. Langston accused Mills of controlling and intimidating behavior as well as repeated unwanted contact after the relationship faltered. The court found sufficient evidence of the credible threat or fear for Langston’s safety and granted her the temporary restraining order against Mills.

This is far from an isolated incident for Mills, who has been dogged by a variety of depraved and reprehensible scandals that are almost too bizarre to be believed. The sheer incredulousness of his offenses seem to be how Mills hopes to survive despite a resume of skullduggery that puts him among the most loathsome reprobates ever to serve in the People’s House.

In the most recently publicized incident caught on video from Feb. 2025, Iranian-American activist Sarah Raviani, another girlfriend of Mills, called law enforcement at 4:30 am in Washington D.C. to report an assault. Raviani told officer Richard Mazloom that Mills had become “very abusive” during an altercation and grabbed her, shoved her and then forced her out of his apartment. Officers saw Raviani with bruises on her arms and marks near her face that were consistent with a physical altercation. Raviani, crying while recounting her story, said she wanted the instance documented so it “doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

At this point, Officer Mazloom believed there was probable cause for arrest. While still with the police, Raviani received a phone call. After getting on the phone, Raviani quickly changed her story with officers believing she did so after being coerced by Mills. She told officers that “he wants me to say” and the injuries came from a vacation because she “bruises easily.” Later, Raviani claimed that both she and Mills were physical during the altercation yet stating contradictorily that she did not quite remember what happened, and the testimony she gave previously was issued “under duress.”

Officer Mazloom was not convinced by Raviani’s story and wished to arrest Mills, as the injuries and initial statement met the legal criteria for an arrest. Mills was warned that he could be placed in handcuffs and that they were legally obliged to arrest him as they prepared to transport the Congressman to be formally charged. Mills expressed concern that the situation could be “weaponized” against him politically, fearing he could be held accountable for his violent, degenerate behavior. This is when a supervising lieutenant intervened, classifying the incident as a “family disturbance” to help Mills evade justice. The Metropolitan Police Department formally requested an arrest warrant for Mills the next day, but the prosecutor refused to sign it, and no warrant was ever issued for Mills’ arrest.

In addition to the serially abusive behavior, Mills has been subject to an inquiry from the U.S. House Ethics Committee in 2025. This is not your typical deep state witch hunt but rather, a legitimate investigation into Mills’ unethical business endeavors. Mills is accused of improperly benefiting financially from serving in Congress, failing to disclose key financial information and maintaining conflicts of interest tied to government contracts.

Before entering Congress, Mills founded and led Pacem Defense, a supplier of defense and security equipment such as munitions and protective gear. His firm has frequently done business with U.S. government agencies and foreign governments. After Mills entered Congress, reports have indicated that companies connected to him continued to receive federal contracts estimated to be worth millions of dollars.

Members of Congress are not outright banned from owning businesses but it is illegal to derive direct financial benefit from federal contracts. These are situations that create a conflict between public duty and private gain. Mills’ activity potentially puts him in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 431–432 as well as House rules. Investigators are examining whether Mills divested properly or if he still obtained indirect financial benefits from these contracts while serving in Congress.

Congressmen are expected to either fully divest or place assets in arrangements that prevent influence such as a blind trust. There is also concern that Mills may have delayed or resisted providing documents to the Ethics Committee, which may be worthy of separate disciplinary actions. Mills is also suspected of various campaign finance irregularities with serious questions as to how funds were raised or spent. The connections between Mills’ campaign activity and business interests remain opaque as Mills has been as squirrelly as possible throughout the proceedings.

Mills swept into Congress largely based on his alleged history as a war hero. Mills did in fact serve in the U.S. Army from 1999 to 2003 and received a Bronze Star Medal. But his fellow veterans attest that the stories that Mills tells about his service have been largely exaggerated or are outright falsehoods. Mills claims that he helped evacuate wounded soldiers while under enemy fire at great risk to his own life, but his hero story does not stand up to scrutiny.

A 2025 investigative report found that five soldiers who served with him do not remember Mills being present for the incidents he described. One soldier, Joe Heit, who Mills has been credited with saving, said frankly: “He didn’t save my life.” Mills received the bronze star in 2021, many years after his service based on the unverified narrative that he advanced. It appears that while Mills did serve honorably for four years, much of his heroism was part of a stolen valor ploy concocted for the purposes of political and professional advancement.

In perhaps the most jaw-dropping instance of vile Mills’ lore, reports have indicated that he is a secret Muslim. Mills and his former wife Rana Al Saadi, a naturalized American citizen from Iraq were married in the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center of Falls Church, Virginia, which has been reported to be the most extremist Mosque in America. The officiant for the wedding was none other than Imam Mohammed Al-Hanooti. Al-Hanooti was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in both the 2008 Holy Land Foundation Hamas financing trial and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot. In his sermons, Al-Hanooti has encouraged Muslims to be “ready for the jihad with our properties and our souls,” promised that “Allah will rain his curse on the Americans and the British,” and pledged that “the curse of Allah will become true on the Jews.”

Additionally, five of Mills’ former colleagues have attested that Mills confirmed to each of them personally that he is a practicing Muslim. Max Woodside, CEO at Paladin LLC, stated on the record that over a decade ago, Mills requested he “take care” of a personal enemy in the Middle East over problems with his wife. After Woodside opted not to oblige Mills’ deluded revenge fantasies, he made a comment that Mills’ relationship with Al Saadi would always be problematic because Mills is a Christian and Al Saadi is a Muslim. Mills allegedly corrected Woodside and told him that he had in fact converted to Islam. This caused Woodside to sever ties with Mills completely.

Mills also came to the rescue of Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali-born Islamist from Minnesota, when a censure resolution attempted to hold her accountable over despicable comments she made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The resolution, which would have stripped Omar of her committee assignments, was killed by a narrow 214-213 vote in which Mills was the deciding factor. Mills claimed that his objection was based on free speech concerns, but Democrats dropped their efforts to censure him shortly after—suggesting the existence of a quid pro quo that was hatched behind closed doors. Mills being able to assist his sister in Islam was probably just the icing on the cake.

Mills’ shamelessness has, against the odds, kept him in Congress up to this point, but the sword of Damocles still swings just above his head and is about ready to drop. Mills’ blatant lie to President Trump will be his undoing as that is one man as a Republican you do not cross. Mills’ record could easily cost Republicans a winnable seat in Florida due to this lout’s uniquely heinous pattern of behavior. Mills is a psychopath who needs to be ejected from Congress and then put behind bars before he devastates more innocent lives in his path of destruction.

Gabbard released documents last week exposing the first Trump impeachment proceedings to be a complete and utter fraud.

Another recent success from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has reignited efforts to oust her from the Trump administration in an effort led by deep state hacks who are playing beat the clock in an attempt to avoid prosecution for their capital crimes.

Gabbard released documents last week exposing the first Trump impeachment proceedings to be a complete and utter fraud. The documents showed that former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson refused to follow procedure as he investigated communications between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — relying only on fabricated second-hand testimony to build the case for President Trump’s impropriety during what was in actuality a benign call.

“Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States,” Gabbard said. “Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth. And this, along with the politicization of the whistleblower process by a former CIA employee who was working hand in glove with Democrats in Congress, are egregious examples of the deep state playbook on how to weaponize the Intelligence Community. Exposing these tactics and showing how they undermine the fabric of our democratic republic furthers the critical cause of transparency and accountability and will help prevent future abuse of power.”

While this is not news to those of us who have been following these developments since the outset, for the general public who may not be as well-informed, these disclosures are massive. They provide concrete, irrefutable proof of a conspiracy against President Trump coming from the highest levels of government. These are the types of efforts that are necessary to build credibility to get the public behind prosecutions against Biden and Obama-era officials so they will be able to stick. So why is Gabbard under the gun when she is leading the charge on such a monumental task to secure President Trump’s legacy?

Gabbard is under fire precisely because she is the most dedicated opponent of the deep state within the Trump administration. This is not the first time that she has been on the receiving end of a dishonest smear campaign meant to impugn her character and mute her influence. In Sept. 2025, Gabbard was blamed by the New York Times and Axios for no criminal charges being filed against CIA Director John Brennan because Gabbard wisely removed security clearances for disgraced deep state hacks – an absurd notion that is laughable on its face. RINO U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas is also leading a disgraceful effort to strip the DNI of its authority, giving unrestrained power to CIA and NSA bureaucrats free of Gabbard’s oversight.

Previously, Gabbard exposed sensitive documents that were previously kept under wraps by former National Intelligence Directors, including current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, showing that the genesis of Russia-gate went straight to the top, with former President Barack Hussein Obama having intimate knowledge of the conspiracy, and officials such as Brennan, Comey, former NSA Director James Clapper and others having knowingly pushed faulty intelligence.

The documents declassified by the DNI’s office showed that the faulty intelligence community (IC) assessment framing President Trump as a Russian asset was ordered during a Dec. 2016 meeting of the National Security Council at the direct request of President Obama. The effort was waged despite the IC’s determination that Russia was “probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means” and after post-election talking points were developed for DNI James Clapper stating that “foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome.”

Gabbard has worked doggedly to put on the spotlight on the deep state actors and Democrat operatives who plotted Russia-gate as well as election fraud in 2020 where she appeared in person to oversee a raid of election documents at the infamous fraud center of Fulton County, Georgia. Gabbard has released all of the information needed to secure convictions against a host of high-level criminals. It is the officials in the DOJ who are slowrolling prosecutions. Those are the ones who should be pressured to act. Incomprehensibly, it is Gabbard who is under the gun.

The War Party has always it out for Gabbard. Once somewhat-laudable, now utterly-contemptible propaganda artist Laura Loomer—off her schizo meds and working in an official or unofficial capacity for the Netanyahu government—has waged a relentless campaign against Gabbard because of Gabbard’s noted skepticism against endless foreign wars. Gabbard has given no indication she does not support President Trump’s aggressive foreign policy agenda as Trump has made it clear, time and again, he does not plan on entrenched Middle Eastern conflicts. If anyone is trying to subvert President Trump’s foreign policy agenda, it is disingenuous neocons like Loomer who desperately agitate for the Iran conflict to become another forever war at Israel’s behest.

A particularly absurd op/ed was published in American Thinker titled, “It’s Time To Replace DNI Tulsi Gabbard.” The article was penned by Robert F. Turner, a career national security bureaucrat and Conservative Inc. thinktank stooge. It states that Gabbard deserves to be ousted from the Trump administration because she is not a career intelligence operative, used to be a Democrat, met with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for peace talks and showed inadequate support for Zelensky’s corrupt Ukrainian regime. Turner also irresponsibly speculated without a shred of evidence about Gabbard’s willingness to leak sensitive intelligence with America’s enemies.

Gabbard served her country diligently in the Hawaii Army National Guard. She served as a specialist with the Medical Company, 29th Support Battalion during a 12-month tour in Iraq—receiving a Combat Medical Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal from the United States and the German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency for her heroic service. The notion that Gabbard would sell America out to the enemy because she does not adhere to the failed foreign policy orthodoxy is an insult not just to Gabbard but to all of America’s veterans.

The fact that Gabbard is not a toady for the military-industrial complex is what makes her uniquely qualified to lead the ODNI. She is not concerned about getting a cushy job with Raytheon or Lockheed Martin after she leaves Washington D.C. as that ship sailed many years ago. Gabbard has not had the ways of the CIA inculcated into her throughout her career and does not feel beholden to the system in the slightest. That is why she has declassified more documents than any intelligence community official in history.

MAGA must protect Gabbard against all the threats coming her way. She is an invaluable cog within the Administration. There are forces working constantly to sabotage any chance of any deep state criminals associated with Russia-gate, 2020 election fraud or any other of their nefarious, clandestine schemes from being locked behind bars. Nearly a year and a half into Trump’s second term, none of the crooks have even been forced to stand trial. Time is ticking, and Gabbard’s ouster would all but ensure that they escape culpability. The Deep State must be defanged, and Gabbard’s presence in ths administration is needed to accomplish this gargantuan task.

Murray M. Chotiner was the first modern political consultant ands responsible for the rise of President Richard Nixon. Chotiner was born on October 4, 1909, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the son of Albert Hyman Chotiner and Sarah Chotiner. The family moved to Columbus, Ohio, soon after Murray’s birth, and relocated to California in 1920. His father eventually abandoned his wife and children. Born into a Jewish family, his father was a cigar maker who moved the family to California to run a chain of cinemas before abandoning them.

After attending UCLA, Chotiner enrolled at the Southwestern School of Law, graduating at age 20 — the youngest graduate in the school’s history. He had to wait until he was 21 to be eligible to take the bar exam. He initially practiced law with his older brother Jack in a general practice in which they defended a number of bookmakers, but eventually dissolved the partnership and opened his own practice in Los Angeles. He later described many of his clients as “unsavory, to say the least.” Chotiner was known to be close to Mickey Cohen the crime boss of Los Angeles.

Chotiner initially registered to vote as a Democrat, but soon switched parties and involved himself in Republican politics, working on Herbert Hoover’s unsuccessful presidential re-election campaign in 1932. In 1944, Chotiner was elected president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, a grassroots organization of party activists.

When Earl Warren successfully ran for Governor of California in 1942, Murray Chotiner served as his field director for that campaign. Their relationship later soured when Chotiner asked the newly inaugurated governor to decline the extradition of one of his clients. Warren subsequently excluded Chotiner from any involvement in his 1946 re-election campaign. Despite this falling out, Chotiner later claimed (according to Nixon biographer Earl Mazo) that while people remembered him for “making” Richard Nixon, “the real man I created was Earl Warren.

Chotiner’s legacy is closely tied to Richard Nixon’s political rise. Together, they helped develop a more aggressive style of campaign politics that emphasized sharp attacks on opponents and became a lasting template in American elections.Nixon, running for Congress for the first time in 1946, had no qualms about Chotiner’s strong tactics. Chotiner urged his candidate to run a “high-risk campaign.”

By the end of it, Jerry Voorhis had been prominently linked in campaign materials to far-left organizations and accused of being soft on communism, based on his record with certain labor-backed groups. The defeated congressman later called himself ‘the first victim of the Nixon-Chotiner formula for political success.

Chotiner explained his core philosophy bluntly: “I believe in all sincerity that if you do not deflate the opposition candidate before your own campaign gets started, the odds are you are doomed to defeat.”

Nixon hired Chotiner to run his 1950 Senate campaign against liberal Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas. Chotiner used a similar strategy, stressing Douglas’s liberal voting record and printing accusations on pink paper to hint at communist sympathy. Chotiner found the commonality for Douglas’s voting record with New York’s notorious Communist Party Congressman Vito Marcantonio and thus was born ‘the Pink Lady” the tag given to her by the the crafty Chotiner.”She’s pink right down to her underwear “ Nixon would say in his speeches.

Chotiner oversaw the production of about 500,000 ‘pink sheets’—campaign flyers on pink paper that compared Douglas’s congressional voting record to that of thefar-left congressman known for communist sympathies. The campaign also arranged anonymous phone calls to voters inquiring about Douglas’s political leanings. This helped establish a more assertive and issue-driven style of politics that emphasized sharp contrasts between candidates. While these methods were legal, they generated significant debate and criticism during the race. Chotiner himself said of that campaign, “We only stated the facts. The interpretation of the facts was the prerogative of the electorate.”

Chotiner then maneuvered Nixon onto the ticket with Dwight Eisenhower at he same time settling a score with Earl Warren who was a favorite son candidate for President from California. Although pledged to Warren as a California delegate, Nixon undermined Warren among the California delegation,

He counseled Nixon through revelations that there were privately run funds to pay Nixon’s political expenses — revelations that the candidate decisively overcame with his televised Checkers speech. While Eisenhower contemplated dropping Nixon from the ticket Chotiner came up with the idea of Nixon taking his case directly to the people in a TV broadcast.

When Nixon faced accusations of antisemitism after Eisenhower picked him for the ticket, Chotiner — as Nixon’s Jewish campaign manager — secured a seal of approval from the Anti-Defamation League, which he used to answer concerned voters.

In 1956, a Senate subcommittee investigating bribery and influence peddling discovered a $5,000 check made out to “M. Chotiner” in the records of a New Jersey uniform manufacturer convicted of stealing from the federal government. Under questioning by subcommittee counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Chotiner also disclosed that he had been retained by New Jersey mobster Marco Regnelli in an attempt to stave off a deportation order. Chotiner fired back at Kennedy, as a practicing attorney, he routinely handled a wide range of criminal defense cases, including many bookmaking matters, and he pushed back against the subcommittee, arguing that he had been called primarily for political reasons.

Chotiner also contributed to Nixon’s 1962 campaign for Governor of California, and again for his successful 1968 presidential bid. After Nixon was inaugurated in 1969, Chotiner received a political appointment to a government position and, in 1970, became a member of the White House staff. He returned to private practice a year later, but remained involved in Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign.

Chotiner’s law offices were one floor above those of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP). Nixon aide Dwight Chapin was convinced Chotiner was secretly involved in Watergate, saying: “There is a person who goes all the way back through this thing, and that is Murray Chotiner. He was in the White House… he leaves; the break-in happens. Murray was the operator for Nixon on God only knows what.” Chotiner himself described the Watergate break-in as “stupid,” and when a newspaper accused him of organizing it, he sued for libel and won a substantial settlement.

On January 23, 1974, Chotiner was involved in a car accident outside the Washington home of Senator Edward Kennedy. Although he only suffered a broken leg, he died a week later. Nixon mourned the loss of a man he described as a counselor and friend.

Nixon adviser Leonard Garment described Chotiner as “a hardheaded exponent of the campaign philosophy that politics is war” and said that “politics is shabby most of the time, filled with lies and deceptions.” Chotiner is widely regarded as one of the earliest architects of modern negative campaigning in America — a forefather of the hardball, opposition-research-driven style of politics that would come to define the late 20th century and beyond.