FBI Fires Investigators in Mar-a-Lago Case - Settling Scores With Its Own Past!
At least ten FBI employees who were involved in the investigation into the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago have been dismissed. They worked on the case under Special Counsel Jack Smith, which dealt with the retention of classified materials after Trump left the White House in 2021. The terminations took place on Wednesday - at the same time reports emerged that, during the earlier investigation, phone connection data from Kash Patel and Susie Wiles had been reviewed before either held government office. Patel claims his records were requested under flimsy pretenses and the process was hidden in files to circumvent oversight. He has provided no evidence. Reporting also shows clearly: Patel is lying. It is confirmed that Susie Wiles’ data were reviewed as part of the documents case. Whether Patel’s records were affected remains unclear. In the 2020 election case with the internal codename Arctic Frost, his data were reportedly not accessed.
Jack Smith led two federal cases against Trump: one concerning the attempt to challenge the 2020 election results, and one concerning the classified documents. The documents indictment was dismissed in 2024 by a federal judge in Florida on the grounds that Smith had been unlawfully appointed. Smith dropped the election case after Trump’s 2024 victory. Since then, officials involved in the investigations have come under scrutiny. The Justice Department had already dismissed prosecutors from Smith’s team, and the FBI separated from employees involved in the election case. The FBI Agents Association speaks of a violation of due process rights and warns of the loss of expertise and a destabilization of the agency.
The debate gained additional intensity when it became known that, as part of the election investigations, phone connection data of Republican members of Congress were also collected. According to reports, only metadata were obtained, not call content. In the fall, Trump called for criminal charges against Smith, Merrick Garland, and Christopher Wray. Smith’s attorneys, in contrast, stated that his actions were entirely lawful and in line with Justice Department guidelines.
"You Did Not Defeat Us" - Zelenskyy’s Assessment of the War
Volodymyr Zelenskyy draws a clear line. Russia was unable to occupy Ukraine and cannot do so now, he says. For him, that alone is proof of victory. No triumphal march, no capitulation of the opponent, but mere survival as success. The statement is directed inward and outward. Inward as a message to an exhausted population that resistance has impact. Outward as a message to partners that support has not been in vain. The war continues, front lines shift, cities are still attacked. Yet for Zelenskyy, one point counts: the state exists, the government stands, the flag has not fallen. In this logic, holding out is already a victory.
When Decency Was Still Reason of State
In January 2006, George W. Bush stood before Congress and said a sentence that now sounds almost foreign: there will always be differences and debates, but even hard disputes can be conducted in a civil tone. It was not idealism but a self-commitment. Bush was under pressure at the time because of the Iraq war and domestic conflicts, yet he made clear that disagreement must not mean dehumanization. Politics was confrontation, but not a personal feud. The president spoke of respect for the political opponent as a foundation of democracy. Anyone looking back at that passage today recognizes how much the tone in Washington has changed. The expectation that differences could be expressed without insult was once self-evident. In 2006, that was not weakness, but leadership. A president who set the frame and made clear that power also means responsibility for language.
Does the President Work for the Country - Or for Himself?
Governor Spanberger: "He enriches himself, his family, and his friends. The scale of corruption is unprecedented. There is the cover-up of the Epstein files, the crypto schemes, the cozying up to foreign princes over airplanes and to billionaires over ballrooms, his name and his face on buildings across the capital of our nation. That is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned - not even remotely. So I ask again: does the president work for you?"
Governor Spanberger poses a question that hangs in the room. She accuses the president of enriching himself, his family, and his circle. She speaks of a cover-up in the Epstein matter, of cryptocurrency dealings, of closeness to foreign princes and billionaires. She points to buildings in Washington bearing his name. For her, this is not a side issue but a fundamental question about the conduct of office. This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, she says. What she means is the separation between public office and private gain. Spanberger shifts the focus away from party politics toward responsibility to citizens. In the end, only one question remains: whom does power serve?
Fast Food for the Champions
The American ice hockey team wins gold. Trump invites them to the White House. McDonald’s is served. Burgers, fries, the full selection from his favorite menu. For Olympic champions. The women’s team said no. A stance. The men’s team ate. What does that say about a president who honors his own heroes with drive-in food? That he does not know what respect is. Or that he does not care. Both are worse than the other.
A state reception is more than a moment. It is the question: how does a nation value its best? Trump’s answer lay in cardboard boxes. The athletes could have eaten the same food in their cars. Instead, they sat in the White House and ate what Trump himself eats - because that is all he could offer. Or wanted to. This is not closeness to the people. It is indifference presented as authenticity. And the men who accepted it accepted that their gold is worth no more than a burger.
BAFTA Evening Escalates - BBC Under Pressure After Racist Remark in Live Broadcast
What began as a celebratory evening for the film industry ended in a fundamental debate. While Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo stood on the BAFTA Awards stage, a racist slur was shouted from the audience. The outburst came from John Davidson, a Scottish activist with Tourette syndrome, whose life story is the basis of a nominated film. The neurological disorder can trigger uncontrollable sounds and words. Nevertheless, the term was not removed from the time-delayed BBC broadcast. The BBC acknowledged an error and initiated an internal investigation. Another racist remark had been removed, but this one remained in the program by mistake. The video was later removed from the streaming platform iPlayer. The BAFTA organization also announced a comprehensive review and apologized to the affected actors.
The incident did not remain without political consequences. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the British Conservative Party, spoke of a serious failure and called for a full apology to Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo. Dawn Butler, a Labour member of Parliament, demanded clarification and pointed out that other content had indeed been censored during the broadcast. Producers stated that the outburst was not perceived in the control truck. Davidson himself said he was shaken, spoke of shame, and left the event early to prevent further harm. The incident touches two sensitive areas at once: racism and the treatment of people with disabilities. A moment in the auditorium became a public debate about responsibility, control, and sensitivity in television.
Clash Between Washington and the Vatican
Tom Homan, responsible for border policy, publicly targets Pope Leo XIV after the pontiff sharply criticized Trump’s immigration policy. Homan says the pope should focus on the Catholic Church’s own problems. Anyone who climbs over the walls of the Vatican is punished more severely than in the United States, he says. In doing so, he shifts the debate from moral responsibility to border enforcement. The tone is direct and without restraint. A government representative attacks the head of the Catholic Church head-on. This is not only about immigration, but about authority and interpretive power. When religious criticism meets state power, political disagreement becomes an open conflict between institutions.
Geneva Before the Next Round - Talks in the Shadow of War
A Ukrainian delegation meets in Geneva with envoys of Donald Trump. Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, is to speak with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The talks concern preparations for another trilateral meeting with Russian representatives, a possible prisoner exchange, and details of a reconstruction plan for the postwar period. A breakthrough has not yet materialized, although there have already been talks this year in Abu Dhabi and Geneva. The war enters its fifth year. Witkoff speaks of progress on security guarantees and almost daily contacts between the sides. No one believes that anymore. Washington is not exerting pressure on Kyiv, it is said, Moscow is showing a certain restraint. Expectations nevertheless remain low. At the same time, the situation at the front intensifies. Along the roughly 1,250 kilometer line in the east, Ukraine reports territorial gains that could disrupt Russian planning for a spring offensive, even if a shortage of soldiers limits larger advances.
While peace is discussed in Geneva, the attacks continue. Ukrainian drones strike targets deep inside Russia, including a fertilizer plant in Smolensk where workers were killed. Russia attacks with more than one hundred drones, a village in the Zaporizhzhia region is hit, people die, a child is injured. The talks proceed, but the war does not wait.
