The House voted Wednesday to advance a resolution honoring slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, clearing the way for floor debate later this week.

Lawmakers voted in favor of advancing the measure and a bill to avert a government shutdown in a joint mechanism known as a ‘rule vote.’

The rule was adopted in a 216 to 210 vote along party lines. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is known to be opposing the federal funding bill, was the lone lawmaker from either side to vote ‘present.’

Massie explained to Fox News Digital that he vehemently supports the Kirk resolution, but opposed an unrelated provision in the rule that blocks Congress’ ability from weighing in on tariff policy.

‘I’m a cosponsor of the Kirk resolution, and obviously I will vote for it, but shamefully they turned off Congress’s ability to vote on tariffs with this rule,’ Massie said.

Rule votes are procedural hurdles that commonly tie together unrelated pieces of legislation that, if adopted, allow House lawmakers to debate each measure individually before respective votes. 

The current rule’s adoption means House lawmakers could vote on the resolution to honor Kirk on either Thursday or Friday.

A vote on the measure to avert a government shutdown – a short-term extension of current federal funding levels called a continuing resolution, or CR – is expected Friday morning.

It is not surprising that no Democrats supported the rule’s adoption on Wednesday; rule votes traditionally fall along party lines and have rarely seen bipartisan crossover, even if the legislation they include has wide support from both Republicans and Democrats.

And while Democrats are largely expected to buck the GOP-led government funding patch, the resolution to honor Kirk’s legacy is expected to get healthy bipartisan support.

The Turning Point USA founder was assassinated last week during a college campus speaking event in Utah.

The resolution to honor him, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., lauded Kirk as ‘one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding and strengthen the Republic.’

It also said Kirk’s ‘commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction,’ and it called his killing ‘a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society.’

Both Democrats and Republicans have released statements condemning political violence in the wake of Kirk’s killing.

The latter measure that advanced on Wednesday evening, the CR, will keep government agencies funded at current levels through Nov. 21 of this year – if it’s passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump.

That bill includes a combined $88 million in added security funds for Congress, the judicial branch and the executive branch.

Conversations about boosting lawmaker security, in particular, had been ongoing but took on new urgency after Kirk’s death.

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., sharply criticized Kash Patel’s tenure as FBI director Wednesday, telling reporters that he viewed Patel’s leadership as deeply partisan and a ‘terrible tragedy’ for the nation’s sprawling law enforcement agency. 

Speaking at a news conference alongside former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House Democrats, Schiff took umbrage at Patel’s testimony one day earlier before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Schiff said further crystallized his concerns about politicization within the bureau.

The FBI ‘has been the premier law enforcement agency in the country, and the world, because they’ve been constantly professional and non-partisan,’ Schiff said Wednesday, noting the close working relationship he had with FBI agents during the years he spent as a federal prosecutor. 

‘It is a terrible tragedy, I think, for the men and women of the bureau to have such poor leadership that is replacing expertise with incompetence, that is replacing non-partisanship with the most rabid partisanship,’ Schiff told Fox News Digital. ‘And this is not unrelated to why we’re here today.’

His remarks come as Patel appeared on Capitol Hill Wednesday for a second day of testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary committees.

Both hearings were marked by sharp lines of questioning from Democrats, who grilled Patel on issues ranging from a flurry of FBI firings, the bureau’s handling of the Epstein files and concerns of politicization, among many other topics.

Schiff, in particular, pressed Patel on his tenure at the FBI, saying the bureau’s agents — mostly assigned to its 52 field offices across the country and loath to see their work politicized — wanted to know what, if any, marching orders Patel had received from President Donald Trump.

The heated back-and-forth devolved into a shouting match between the two as Schiff pressed Patel repeatedly on the firings of FBI agents and whether those individuals were removed for political reasons.

Patel, for his part, described Schiff as a ‘political buffoon.’ 

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Schiff said Patel’s appearance did little to assuage his broader fears of weaponization within the bureau.

‘You can’t have a vibrant democracy without the rule of law,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘You can’t have the rule of law if you have a weaponized FBI and a weaponized Justice Department, and, sadly, that’s what we have here today,’ Schiff said.

He also weighed in on Patel’s remarks yesterday on the Epstein files, another issue that sparked intense criticism from lawmakers, after Patel claimed Tuesday that there was ‘no credible evidence’ that Jeffrey Epstein was trafficking women other than for himself. 

Schiff said it was a ‘startling claim,’ particularly from someone who had previously promoted the belief that Epstein maintained a vast client list of powerful people.

‘So, it was completely contradictory to everything he said in the past,’ he said. He also noted Patel’s ‘refusal’ to answer his questions on why Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to press Ghislaine Maxwell further on the Cabinet members she identified as being ‘close’ to Epstein or having a relationship with him during a two-day interview in July.

‘Blanche refused to ask who they were and just ignored her comment,’ Schiff added. 

‘And this is, again, the kind of incompetence we’re seeing,’ he said. ‘Incompetence is probably the most polite thing I can describe, but it certainly looks like a cover-up.’

The Justice Department and FBI have struggled to quell the mounting public pressure on them to release more information related to the Epstein investigation, underscoring the story’s sticking power in a fast-moving news cycle and among Trump supporters, who have been some of the leading voices in demanding the information be released.

Former Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va., said he spoke more with President Donald Trump in the first two years of Trump’s term than with former President Barack Obama during Obama’s eight years in office.

In his new book, ‘Dead Center: In Defense of Common Sense,’ released this week, Manchin outlined a cordial working relationship with Trump and a far chillier, less active back and forth with Obama.

Manchin, who switched from the Democratic Party to become an Independent before retiring from the Senate last year, wrote that he considered Trump a fellow ‘outsider’ when he arrived in Washington, D.C., for his first term and lauded him as the ‘most engaged president I ever worked with’ since former President Bill Clinton.

‘From the start, President Trump had an open line of communication with me,’ he wrote. ‘I spoke to him more in the first two years of his presidency than I did to President Obama during all eight years of his time in office.’

He noted, ‘If you want to have influence with Donald Trump, you have to be the last person he talks to about a topic,’ and said he would jokingly ask that the president ensure he was the last person he called.

‘He’d laugh, and we’d talk it out,’ he said.

He recalled his 2018 election campaign in the wake of Trump’s dominant, 40-point win in the state. Trump told Manchin that he was being pressured to campaign against him and promised he wouldn’t. Ultimately, Trump visited the state five times, but Manchin still came out on top.

He was later invited to the Oval Office to meet with Trump, where, in front of then-Vice President Mike Pence and Ivanka Trump, the president ‘blurted to his other guests, ‘I told you we couldn’t beat him,’’ Manchin wrote.

Manchin’s relationship with the former president goes back to his time as governor of West Virginia, when Obama was still a senator. The two worked together on a coal deal in Illinois that had previously excluded West Virginia.

During the 2008 election cycle, he said he invited both then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Obama to come to West Virginia to campaign, but said Obama shook off the invitation and told him, ‘Let’s be honest with each other —­ my demographics don’t work well in your state.’

‘But he didn’t come, and that night belonged to Hillary,’ he wrote. ‘She made the most of her visit and won the primary by 41 points.’

He said their relationship became even chillier when Obama launched his ‘war on coal’ with a push for green initiatives that targeted fossil fuels and states like West Virginia.

Manchin argued that the Democratic Party had grown dismissive and lost touch with the working class as a means to reshape their agenda through a progressive lens. That led to a seismic shift in West Virginia’s political alignment, from Democratic to now largely Republican, he said.

And in the process that began when Obama won in 2008, he said that rural states like his felt ‘overlooked and undervalued.’

‘But that’s exactly how Democrats handled West Virginia, and no one embodied that disconnect more than President Obama,’ he wrote.

Fox News Digital reached out to Obama’s office and the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back. 

I’m writing today about anger.

And I’m ticked off about it.

I actually think it’s America’s biggest problem right now. Half the country hates the other half of the country. And vice versa.

There are online mobs ready to pounce on any available target. That could be loathsome human beings, like the remorseless madman who killed Charlie Kirk.

Or it could be a deranged person at a lower level, like the crazed, screaming woman who stole a Phillies home run ball from a 10-year-old kid. Or the man who brought his assistant and side squeeze to a Coldplay concert and was outed by the Jumbotron — which turned more serious when both were fired.

Can a country withstand so much rage?

Passion is good. Railing at people you don’t know, not so much.

The irony is that the vast majority of these people wouldn’t say such things to you on the street. Then they’d have to deal with your reaction. 

But in the dark expanse of social media, they can spew all kinds of garbage, curse like sailors — especially if they’re hiding behind screen names. That should be punishable by the death penalty — okay, maybe I’m getting too worked up here.

Some public figures harness anger as a political tool. In private, Donald Trump can be funny and charming. But his constant battles–with the media, law firms, universities, big cities, Democrats, judges, prosecutors, critics, adversaries, allies around the world–are fueled by his sense of grievance. Just read his Truth Social page.

I first began covering Trump in New York in the 1980s, and he was the same way. He would pick fights with the likes of Leona Helmsley, knowing it made good copy.

But I could also argue that without the contempt he has for people and institutions who stand in his way, the president wouldn’t be driven to accomplish all that he has in the past eight months.

Elon Musk clearly has the same anger-management issue, having declared ‘the left’ to be ‘the party of murder.’ 

So do such Democrats as Adam Schiff, who relentlessly hammered Kash Patel at a hearing this week, ‘You want the American people to believe that? Do you think they’re stupid?’ And so does the FBI director, ‘You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate, you are a disgrace to this institution, and an utter coward!’

But we all know the game. In our echo-chamber world, you have to be harsher and angrier than the last person to break through the static and have your sound bite featured on cable or X or podcasts. So these institutions reward outrage, faux or otherwise.

Silicon Valley giants make their money from engagement, and nothing fosters engagement like pissed-off people.

The last few Democratic presidents haven’t been purveyors of anger. (putting aside what they’re like behind closed doors). Joe Biden was so secluded we barely heard from him–we now know why–and was a backslapper and conciliator. Barack Obama was all about the audacity of hope. Bill Clinton ran as a southern moderate against the ‘brain-dead’ politics of both parties.

You have to go back to LBJ to find a Democrat who relished beating the crap out of others, based on his years of threats and arm-twisting as Senate majority leader. ‘Ah got Hubert’s pecker in my pocket,’ he would say, and other variations on that quote.

He also said this about disloyal lawmakers: ‘I want him to kiss my ass in Macy’s window at high noon and tell me it smells like roses.’

What has been truly sickening, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s heartbreaking murder, are the sickos who flooded social media to celebrate his demise. 

Professors, teachers, journalists and many others have been fired for such conduct, though they had no need to vent their fury online. They didn’t know Kirk. Who would want to employ someone so heartless that they don’t care about his wife, and the children, 3 and 1, who have to grow up without him?

No wonder I’m angry. This is disgusting and pathetic.

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that this is one of the most famous lines in movie history, delivered by the sweating, wild-eyed anchor played by Peter Finch: 

‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’

The U.S. on Wednesday once again took aim at Iran and targeted its Axis of Resistance by designating four Iraq-based militias as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

According to the State Department, the groups identified were Harakat al-Nujaba, Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya and Kata’ib al-Imam Ali – all four of which were previously designated by the Department of Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) in 2023. 

‘Iran-aligned militia groups have conducted attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and bases hosting U.S. and Coalition forces, typically using front names or proxy groups to obfuscate their involvement,’ Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in the statement.

According to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), the four groups are all backed by Iran and form the core of an umbrella organization known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), which gained prominence following the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

The IRI is believed to be responsible for hundreds of attacks in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and was behind the killing of three U.S. service members during a drone attack in January 2024 in Jordan. 

‘The Trump administration broke the taboo during term one when it proved it could name, shame, and punish Iran-backed militias in Iraq without the country devolving into civil war,’ Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iranian expert and senior director of the FDD’s Iran program, told Fox News Digital. ‘Now in term two the administration is upping the ante continuing a campaign of designations against the agents of influence and terror of Iran in Iraq.’

The four terrorist groups also operate within the Popular Mobilization Forces, which is a coalition force of largely Shia groups that was formed to counter ISIS by the Iraqi government, but which is also strongly influenced by Iran. 

‘Tehran relies on these militias to literally have a state within a state in Iraq,’ Ben Taleblu said. ‘Sandwiching these and other Iran-backed terror groups between Treasury Department [Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons] SDN listings and State Department [Foreign Terrorist Organizations] FTO listings, as the Trump administration previously did with their patron, the IRGC, in term one is the right approach.’

The Trump administration said Tuesday it would appeal a lower court’s decision blocking the president’s effort to fire Fed’s Lisa Cook to the Supreme Court, an eleventh-hour effort to remove her from the board in the run-up to a crucial interest rate-setting meeting.

White House officials confirmed to Fox News Digital that they will seek to stay the lower court’s ruling, and a filing is expected imminently. 

‘The president lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause,’ White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. ‘The administration will appeal this decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.’ 

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals blocked President Donald Trump from immediately firing Lisa Cook from her role on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, clearing the way for her to participate in a crucial interest rate-setting meeting that begins in a matter of hours.

It was not immediately clear whether the Trump administration would seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court before the two-day meeting of central bankers kicks off on Tuesday. 

For months, Trump has pressed the Federal Reserve to cut rates in order to help spur the nation’s economic growth. Fed watchers broadly expect the central bank to cut rates during the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). 

The outcome of the FOMC meeting impacts every American, with knock-down effects felt in borrowing costs from everything from mortgages to credit cards. 

The D.C. Appeals Court ruling also comes as the Senate narrowly voted 48-47 Monday night to approve Trump’s Fed board nominee, Stephen Miran. He will also participate in the FOMC meeting that will help decide the direction of the economy.

Trump last month tapped Miran — who currently leads the White House Council of Economic Advisers — to fill the seat vacated by Federal Reserve Governor Adriana Kugler, following her resignation in August. He will finish the remainder of Kugler’s term, which ends on Jan. 31, 2026.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb temporarily blocked Cook’s firing, allowing her to continue in her current role for now. She said Trump likely violated Cook’s due process rights and that the Federal Reserve statute does not account for conduct that occurred before a governor took office, like the mortgage fraud alleged against Cook.

The allegations originated with Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

Pulte tied Cook to a trio of properties in Michigan, Georgia, and Massachusetts, which prompted scrutiny over whether Cook had misrepresented how the homes would be used. The three mortgage loans were issued in 2021, before she was nominated by former President Joe Biden to join the Fed board. 

Pulte made two separate referrals to the Justice Department over Cook’s mortgage applications.

Trump seized on those allegations and ousted Cook on Aug. 25, which prompted her to sue him in federal court three days later. Her lawsuit named as defendants Trump, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

The suit, which was filed on Aug. 28, centered on whether Trump satisfied the ‘for cause’ provisions under federal law required to remove a sitting Fed governor, is the first of its kind. Cook’s lawsuit does not address the allegations that she listed multiple houses as a primary residence on mortgage filings. 

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation on Sept. 4 into Cook over allegations of mortgage application fraud. Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, wrote in a filing on Sept. 2 that she ‘did not ever commit mortgage fraud.’

Cook’s lawyers have also stressed both in court filings and in arguments before Judge Cobb last month the novelty of Trump’s attempt to oust her — a move they argued lacked sufficient cause, and could be used as a dangerous pretext to oust other members of independent federal boards.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed Tuesday that the FBI’s election-related investigation into President Donald Trump, launched in 2022, swept in dozens of Republican entities, including the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA.

Speaking during a hearing focused on oversight of the FBI, Grassley said the investigation, which the bureau called ‘Arctic Frost,’ was partisan in nature and that its expansive scope was evidence of that.

‘In other words, Arctic Frost wasn’t just a case to politically investigate Trump,’ Grassley said. ‘It was a vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.’

Since January, Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have been publishing records related to Arctic Frost, the investigation launched during FBI Director Chris Wray’s tenure that served as the basis for former special counsel Jack Smith to bring criminal charges against Trump related to the 2020 election.

Grassley unveiled a new set of documents during his opening statement on Tuesday that showed numerous Republican-affiliated organizations and people were targeted with subpoenas during Arctic Frost.

Some targets on the list were well known, such as Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who spread unproven allegations that widespread election fraud occurred during the 2020 election. But the basis for targeting other groups, like Kirk’s group and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), was less clear.

‘For years, the deep state, unelected Biden bureaucrats — including the FBI — used lawfare to target Republican AGs and many other close friends because we were allies of Donald Trump,’ RAGA Executive Director Adam Piper said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘The Biden Administration bastardized the rule of law, gave license to lawless liberals, and did everything possible to kneecap any and all opposition. Republican AGs will work to hold these bad actors accountable and help President Trump restore objectivity to our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.’

Kirk was assassinated last week while speaking during an event at Utah Valley University. He was a prolific conservative activist and his massive organization remains a part of his legacy. Turning Point USA recruited conservative college students and was heavily involved in promoting election turnout. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Kirk amplified some of Trump’s claims about election fraud.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Department of Justice leaders have said the suspect in Kirk’s shooting, Tyler Robinson, was driven by leftist ideology but that the investigation remains in an early stage. Authorities said antifascist messaging found on bullet casings, Discord messages and other messages have helped to develop an understanding of Robinson’s motive as the investigation continues.

Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace contributed to this report.

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released a roughly 120-page transcript of former Attorney General Bill Barr’s deposition, and it appears to affirm Republicans’ claims that the former Department of Justice (DOJ) official had no knowledge of any incriminating ties between President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

That’s despite the top Democrat on the committee claiming last month that the full transcript did not clear Trump of wrongdoing.

The House Oversight Committee has been investigating the DOJ handling of Epstein’s case, having subpoenaed multiple people and entities in the process.

Among them is Barr, who told investigators that he’s had two conversations with Trump about Epstein – once after the late convicted sex offender committed suicide, and another time he could not place.

Barr also denied Trump expressed any views on the DOJ’s Epstein probe, nor did he give instructions or state preferences in its conduct, according to the transcript obtained by Fox News Digital.

During a line of questioning led by Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, Barr said he never recalled telling Trump his name appeared in documents related to Epstein.

‘I’m curious to know, in those conversations that you do recall with the president, do you recall ever informing him that he was in the Epstein files at all, number one?’ Crockett asked, according to the transcript.

Barr replied, ‘Well, I’m not sure what ‘Epstein files’ refer to these days. But, no, I didn’t – I didn’t have that kind of conversation with him. I think at some point logs were made public that he was on Epstein’s plane making commutes from – or flying between Miami and New York or Miami and New Jersey or stuff like that, and I think that that got out publicly. I don’t recall discussing that with him.’

Crockett then asked, ‘And you have no direct knowledge of any of the young women or women that claimed that they had encounters with the president through Epstein, correct?’

‘I was never told that there was evidence to support that claim,’ Barr said, according to the transcript.

Barr later told investigators that he believed any incriminating evidence about Trump would have leaked if it existed, and he suggested the same would have been true of former President Bill Clinton, who, like Trump, was also known to be friendly with Epstein at one point.

‘I think it would come out if there was any feeling that, within the government, on either side, that someone was covering up. I think it would get out. I mean, [the Southern District of New York] is also – and New York – is also well-known as being the home of many, many a leak on investigations,’ Barr said.

A House Oversight lawyer asked, ‘So, in your experience, you have no doubt, if SDNY prosecutors saw evidence of a crime, they would’ve followed that evidence, and if it led to an indictment, they would’ve indicted, and if it led to a conviction, they would’ve followed the facts where they led. Is that fair?’

Barr said he would have anticipated such moves, even for high-profile individuals.

‘I also feel, you know, that, you know, they would’ve done the same for Clinton, I believe,’ he said.

‘I think – you know, remember, this stuff also went on under President [Joe] Biden’s administration, and they were looking for something to bring against President Trump, and this was – if they had evidence, this would’ve been low-hanging fruit. I just don’t – I was never informed of the evidence, and I’m skeptical there is any.’

The former Trump administration official also conceded, however, ‘I think it is possible that the SDNY did not inform me, you know, how deep they were in the investigation of particular individuals. That would not surprise me.’

‘By the same token, I feel that my view of that office and the people involved would be that, if they had evidence establishing a crime, they would pursue it as such,’ Barr added.

Partisan sparks flew after Barr’s testimony after the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., argued that his remarks did not clear Trump of wrongdoing.

‘[T]o be clear, yesterday, during his deposition with the committee, Attorney General Barr could not clear President Trump of wrongdoing. Chairman [James Comer, R-Ky.,] should release the full unedited transcript of his interview for the public,’ Garcia wrote in an August statement.

But the transcript appears to show that, at least to Barr’s recollection, Trump was not tied to Epstein in any criminally liable way.

Of the two conversations with Trump regarding Epstein, Barr said, ‘One was when I heard about the suicide. I called him up and said, ‘You better brace for this,’ and I told him words to that effect, and I told him about it and told him we were going to be investigating it very vigorously. And the second one, I can’t say for sure whether it happened before his suicide, during – meaning around the time of his arrest or whether it happened after his suicide during the continued developments there.’

The transcript also showed Barr defending current Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly informing Trump that his name appeared in the Epstein files in recent months as standard procedure.

‘I think that would normally be what the attorney general would do, you know, is to give the president a heads-up if something is going to happen like that, the release of documents that have his name in it and that will be, you know, a lot – there would be a lot of speculation about it,’ Barr said. 

‘It’s completely normal to tell the chief executive that his name is about to be released. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.’

Barr did not recall many specifics of the investigation throughout, but he did concede at one point that there were shortcomings in the federal probe. More specifically, he described the period when authorities were unable to locate Ghislaine Maxwell as ’embarrassing.’

And despite controversy erupting over the DOJ declaring the case closed earlier this year, Barr dismissed any conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death.

‘Absolutely,’ he answered when asked if he still believed Epstein committed suicide.

Jurors in the federal trial of Ryan Routh — accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club in 2024 — heard new evidence Tuesday from FBI digital and DNA specialists, including alleged text messages blasting Trump and lab results tying Routh’s DNA to key items.

Routh’s witness list also narrowed. Before jurors entered, Routh, who is representing himself in the trial, told the court, ‘As far as I’m concerned, we’re going to exclude my son,’ confirming he will not call Oran Routh, who is in separate federal custody, as a witness. Judge Aileen Cannon noted he could not revisit that decision later.

Judge Cannon cut off both prosecutors and Routh multiple times Tuesday, at one point asking, ‘How much longer is this going to take?’ She also reminded Routh to stop interrupting. When he complained, ‘I don’t have hot water and can’t shower … I won’t shower for a month,’ Cannon told him there were ‘proper administrative procedures … not piecemeal, as you have grown accustomed to.’

FBI Digital forensic examiner Jerry Llanes testified Tuesday for U.S. prosecutors that a Samsung phone recovered from Routh’s black Nissan Xterra had WhatsApp messages that included a Feb. 3, 2024, exchange with a contact saved as ‘Chinese hero to fight.’

‘I know it’s very different… I think Kennedy was killed from a hill… Certainly not an easy task. If I can help, just let me know what to do,’ Routh wrote.

In another chain with someone listed as ‘Ben,’ Routh texted: ‘What do you think of Trump?’ 

Ben replied: ‘Not a fan.’ 

‘I hate him,’ Routh responded. ‘Shan’t get elected again.’

And in a WhatsApp thread with ‘Captain Talk Recruiting,’ Routh said: ‘I think Trump will be a big problem for Ukraine … For sure, what an idiot. He needs to go away. He cancelled the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] for Iran. What an idiot. I hate him.’

From another device, Llanes described images showing flight searches from Miami to Mexico and Bogotá, Colombia, and a photo that ‘appears to be a rifle tied to a tree.’

FBI DNA examiner Kara Gregor additionally testified that Routh’s DNA was strongly linked to the rifle grip, a reddish-brown bag, a zip tie, a bungee cord and a glove. On the rifle, she said the DNA evidence was ‘250 centillion times more likely if the contributors were Routh and two unknown individuals than if the contributors were three unknown individuals.’

Routh challenged her on cross-examination with sarcasm: ‘Did you test a Colt .45 case? A golf tee? A blue flashlight? How about a Sunny D?’ 

Gregor responded that many of those items were not tested, or she could not recall.

The trial, moving quickly due to Routh’s quick cross examinations, continues Wednesday with more forensic experts expected. U.S. prosecutors are expected to wrap up presenting their case by Friday and Routh will bring his witnesses to the stand next week.