Latest News

June 10, 2023



Blessings on you and your family from all the Huckabee staff! 

Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter. 



Call to Me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know.

Jeremiah 33:3


“Huckabee” Preview

Join me tonight for a great new episode of “Huckabee” on TBN! I’ll welcome an outstanding new voice in conservative politics, Florida Rep. Byron Donalds. You’ll meet a Huck’s Hero who’s saving lives around the world by providing the most basic necessity of life. We’ll visit “Our Kind of Town” and one of its favorite residents will share a sweet recipe that attracts visitors from far and wide. You’ll be astounded by master magician and Vegas headliner, Shimshi. And we’ll top it off with terrific music from rising country singer, Brei Carter.

Catch it all tonight at 8 and 11 EST, 7 and 10 CST, and Sunday at 9 EST/8 CST on TBN. To find out how to watch TBN, from local cable and broadcast channels to streaming, visit and click on “Channel Finder” on the top menu. You can stream previous episodes, highlights and online-only “Digital Exclusives,” including extended interviews, “In Case You Missed It” and “Facts of the Matter” segments, plus extra performances by our great musical and comedy guests and links to all their sites, at You can also find past shows, highlights and digital exclusives on YouTube and my Facebook page.

Flag Day Reminder/Invitation!

Next Wednesday is Flag Day, a holiday in honor of the too-often disrespected Stars and Stripes. Across America, many Elks Clubs hold Flag Day ceremonies, some of them during this weekend. Here’s a site where you can find a lodge near you to see if they’re hosting one:

And if you are in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, the public is invited to the Ft. Worth Elks Lodge #124 Flag Day celebration at 2 pm Sunday June 11th at their lodge at 3233 White Settlement Road. My writers Laura Ainsworth and Pat Reeder will be there. Laura is also an award-winning recording artist, and she’ll be singing the National Anthem, as she has for the past few years.

Light refreshments will be served, and it’s a fun and patriotic way for your kids (and you) to learn the fascinating history of all the flags that have flown over America since before its birth.

Related: Congratulations to Laura for being nominated for both Artist and Female Vocalist of the Year in the Jazz/Blues category of the Josie Music Awards, to be given out in October at the Grand Ole Opry theater in Nashville. Learn more at

America the Beautiful

God's creation is all around us.  We are blessed with his bounty.  Take a moment to enjoy it.


The Trump Indictment

Friday, the indictment of President Trump was unsealed, and it was worse than previously described, with Trump facing 37 charges, most related to “Willful Retention of National Defense Information.” There were also transcripts of an audio tape in which he appeared to be sharing a document that he knew wasn’t declassified. This link has the full indictment.

While I support Trump, there’s no question that this is a serious threat, and I hope he’ll be able to retain the best attorneys, after the left has spent years hounding anyone who represents him in an attempt to deny him legal representation.

However, while things look bad, it’s important to remember that this document is the product of a grand jury hearing the one-sided arguments of Jack Smith, a rabid Trump hater, and accepting them as the only evidence. The TDS crowd likes to boast of how the feds have a 99% conviction rate in these cases, but (1.) they weren’t dealing with a former President, which brings up a lot of unique legal and Constitutional issues that his attorneys will no doubt raise, and (2.) this particular partisan prosecutor has a lousy record of prosecuting high profile political figures.

His prosecution of then-Sen. John Edwards on campaign finance violations was dismissed after  a mistrial. And his conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court due to him defining “official acts" to the jury so broadly that it could include virtually any action an official might take while in office. Sound familiar?

Also, to accept his evidence against Trump, we have to assume that Smith’s alleged transcripts are not only accurate, but that he has some way of proving that an audio-only tape reflects what actually happened. That’s already being questioned, with reporter Paul Sperry tweeting that a source told him Smith doesn’t actually have the alleged “smoking gun” document he claims Trump is talking about on tape. If this is true, he has no evidence to show the jury to prove it was classified or that Trump knew it was classified. And without video, there’s no real proof that was even the document under discussion. And paper rattling sounds don’t prove he was showing it to anybody.

There are also serious allegations of misconduct by the FBI and DOJ that taint the entire case and could get it dismissed.

These are the types of questions and objections that are brought up when you have a defense attorney present, which is not the case when a prosecutor is trying to get an indictment out of a grand jury. And I’m sure this grand jury was happy to accept any pretext at all for throwing another charge at Trump.

But I’m not an attorney, so I’m not going to go through every charge in detail. There are plenty of lawyers already writing those articles. I have a feeling this won’t be decided on a line-by-line basis anyway, but on the larger issue of whether the FBI/DOJ acted Constitutionally and even has the power to charge Trump on these issues. As I’ve written before, much of the “He’s guilty, lock him away!” hysteria has been going on for years, fueled by the fact that Trump haters of both parties have simply never been able to cognitively accept that Trump really was the President.

You can claim that “we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone” and that the FBI is just doing its enforcement job fairly and dispassionately. That’s exactly what Smith did in a laughable speech after unveiling his indictment, as he sought to deflect criticism of his partisan prosecution. The obvious response to that is, “Then where’s your multi-count indictment of Hillary Clinton?”

But the fact is that Trump isn’t just any citizen. He is one of only 46 men in the history of America to serve as President. As the living embodiment of the Executive branch, one third of the government under the Constitution with unique powers that cannot be taken away by the others, indicting him is a big leap into a Constitutional minefield. The same goes for the banana republic move of the Biden Administration in trying to jail his leading political opponent for up to 400 years (yes) for what amounts to paperwork and process crimes.

Previous Administrations were wise enough to avoid these issues. On taking office, Trump himself disappointed his followers who wanted to lock up Hillary Clinton, saying that in America, that’s not how we do things.  So much for Trump being the one who “shatters norms.”

So even though I’m no legal expert, I suspect that the outcome of this will not hinge on arguing in court over every alleged document and over-charge, but on whether this anti-Trump jihad should ever have been allowed to go this far in the first place. As with the McDonnell case, I hope the Supreme Court will rein in Biden’s rogue DOJ, but let’s hope we don’t have to wait until after a drawn-out trial for them to restore the separation of powers.

Asian-American discrimination

Meet Jon Wang, an Asian-American student who scored a near-perfect 1590 out of 1600 on his SATs and a better-than-perfect 4.65 GPA in high school. So he applied to his top six elite universities: Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, Carnegie-Mellon, and UC Berkeley. And all of them rejected him.

Jon said his friends and guidance counselors all told him, "It's tougher to get in, especially as an Asian-American. I just took it as gospel."

Well, to be fair, how can these schools possibly fight racism and promote diversity, equity and inclusion if they don’t blatantly discriminate against Asian-Americans?

Reparations Update

Denver city councilwoman Candi CdeBaca (no, I didn’t fall asleep on my keyboard), the first “Democratic socialist” to hold a council seat, suggested that white-owned businesses could be taxed more and the money given to black-owned businesses. There was a runoff election this week, and challenger Darrell Watson crushed CdeBaca by over 21 points. Sounds like she could have used some vote redistribution.

Blowing smoke

If you’re in the Northeast, I hope the smoke is clearing from the Canadian wildfires and you’re able to breathe again. Or at least, as well as anyone is ever able to breathe in New York City. Residents will probably be relieved when it stops smelling of smoke and is back to smelling of urine.

I don't know which is worse: the orange smoke or the green leftists who are insisting that this is proof of climate change. I’d rather choke on smoke than have to choke down any more stupid pronouncements from “Squad” members, daring Republicans to deny that climate change is an emergency when there’s all this smoke in the air.

In fact, everything they are saying defies reality. Let me count the ways…

First of all, no matter what started the fires – whether it was an unattended campfire, a discarded cigarette butt or an arsonist – none of those things were caused by CO2 levels. News flash: long before humans were driving cars or using gas stoves or eating hamburgers, trees were flammable.

Eco-radicals think that humans are a pestilence on the Earth, but before the Americas were populated, lightning strikes would spark forest fires that raged across what is now the expanse of several states before they were either rained out or burned themselves out. It was nature’s way of “clearing the slate,” and removing all the kindling and deadwood. And over time, the Earth recovered from both the fires and the smoke.

Then along came people, and we developed ways to prevent such raging infernos. Things like clearing out the deadwood, doing controlled burns, and cutting roads into forests so that firefighting equipment could get to the fires. We also built dams and reservoirs and desalination plants, so we’d have plenty of water to put fires out.

The greens have opposed every one of those things, and in places with really leftist governments, like California and (cough-cough!) Canada, guess what the result has been? Yes, the people who are now pointing at the raging wildfires as proof that we have to adopt their policies are the very people whose policies are largely responsible for the raging wildfires.

So if you’re choking on smoke, thank a green radical leftist. Because blowing smoke is what they do.

PS – You can also thank them when your air conditioner goes out during the worst heat waves of this summer.

Legalizing theft in California

Speaking of leftists trying to fix problems created by their own policies and making them worse, the California Senate passed a bill that would ban retailers from requiring staff to confront people who are stealing things.

Of course, they claim this is needed because of recent incidents of violence, and even fatalities, when the thieves attacked the workers. There seem to be two solutions to that. A person with a functioning brain would suggest that you have a police force that arrests shoplifters and then you keep them in jail, to stop those criminals and discourage others. On the other hand, a California politician would defund the police, release the criminals, let them steal retailers blind until stores are moving out in droves -- and then pass a bill that somehow makes theft even easier. In effect, they'd legalize theft, as some have put it.

Related: A giant IKEA store that was supposed to open in San Francisco in 2021, then was delayed to May 2023, has now had its opening postponed indefinitely.

Locals expressed frustration and disappointment because they were already lined up around the block to rob it.

Speaking of theft…

Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Biden’s “student loan debt relief” program (or forcing people who didn’t go to college or who paid off their student loans to pay off the loans of people who did go to college.) Congress passed a bipartisan resolution to block it (but Biden vetoed that.) The Supreme Court is likely soon to affirm that he has no power to spend $400 billion of the taxpayers’ money in a giveaway to one of his voting blocs.

And yet, just as with his former boss Obama, Biden is not about to let pesky things like the Constitution get in the way of him doing whatever he wants. As this column by Grover Norquist and Sal Nuzzo warns, his Administration already has its next sneaky “runaround” set up to defy both Congress and the Supreme Court and do it anyway. They’re considering “settling” a lawsuit by paying out far more money to far more people than even the attorneys wanted, in effect laundering the money by disguising a student loan payoff scheme as a legal settlement. I wonder if Hunter suggested that?

Bottom line: No matter how it’s entered into the books, it’s still our tax money paying off other people’s student loans. And allocating tax money is the job of Congress, so no matter how he tries to disguise it, Biden has no authority to do it.

Destroying evidence

A Dutch “youth sexuality charity” called the Rutgers Foundation, which is partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is under fire after a video surfaced of their members talking to children as young as four in wildly inappropriate terms about sex. I won’t go into detail, but you can read it at the link, if you have a stomach strong enough to tolerate creepy groomers pretending to be professionals who help children learn about their bodies.

The Rutgers Foundation responded to the outrage by saying, "We find that the video is being taken out of context by some people online and used to spread misinformation" and “fake news” (like the “misinformation” that your people like to talk to confused small children about sex?) They’ve since deleted the video and are threatening legal action against anyone who reposts it. Because nothing says, “I’m completely innocent!” like destroying the evidence, right, Hillary?

Speaking of Hillary

Speaking of Hillary, the woman who was allowed to skate on her far more egregious handling of classified documents, then repaid the man who refused to prosecute her by trying to undermine and destroy his presidency, now has the gall to try to mock Trump’s indictment by reminding us of her own email scandal – and the double standard of the DOJ in saying “no reasonable prosecutor” would file charges against a major presidential candidate over something like that.

Well, I guess you could argue that’s true: we have no reasonable prosecutors anymore.

As for Hillary, one of her commenters on Twitter got it right: Trying to mock Trump by reminding us of how she got away with doing far worse is not a good look.

No, Trump’s attorneys did NOT resign; here’s the real story

Perhaps you heard Friday that two of Trump’s personal attorneys working on the Mar-A-Lago documents case were suddenly off that case, with the assumption in the media being that they’d quit in frustration or been fired by Trump.  That is not what happened.

The attorneys, Jim Trusty (you’ve seen him on FOX NEWS) and John Rowley, did NOT resign, according to reliable source Sundance at CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE.  These are the two attorneys who had been forced by Special Counsel Jack Smith to testify before the grand jury --- violating attorney-client privilege, but who cares, right? --- and after their forced testimony was used in the indictment, they had no choice but to resign from the case.  “Despite the lawyers providing no damaging information against Trump,” Sundance wrote, “the DOJ used language in the indictment to turn Trump’s lawyers into material witnesses.”

So not only has the DOJ contorted the Presidential Records Act (with Biden’s okay) to criminally target a political enemy, they’ve also fixed it so he has to say goodbye to his legal counsel.  Pretty slick, huh?  If these federal attorneys don’t watch out, they’re going to sully the image of the legal profession.    

Oh, and there’s more sullying.  Since these lawyers were well aware that the President had full declassification authority --- just as Trump has insisted all along --- rendering the “classified documents” charge bogus, the case is no longer about that.  Instead of talking about classified material, the charging document specifies the more subjective category of “documents vital to U.S. defense security.”  Smith didn’t say anything about classified documents in his remarks, either.  As Sundance says, “The classification status is moot, nonexistent, except to create the predicate for the proverbial FBI nose under the tent.”

How it worked:  Lisa Monaco, the Obama attorney who’s second-in-command at the DOJ and probably running this whole scheme, got a warrant to look for classified documents, but because of Trump’s declassification authority, she never even intended to use them as a cornerstone for the case.  They used a fraudulent premise to get permission to do the search, and then made the indictment fit what they found.  It’s getting harder and harder to find family-suitable names to call these horrid people.

With the firehose of indictment news that’s been spewing forth, one of the best take-aways is from Kimberly Strassel at THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.  Here’s the full quote from FOX NEWS “Special Report” last night…

“This [the fact that he’s the GOP presidential front-runner] is really the most concerning aspect of this, in that we now have a Democratic President and a Democratic attorney general, who have brought an indictment against the former Republican President who’s the leading contender to be Joe Biden’s opponent this fall.  This is the kind of thing that we would laugh at if it were coming from another country.

“And that in my mind is the biggest question...we’re now meditating on the contents of this particular indictment.  But the question for me is, why did we have to get here in the first place, knowing the stakes and the potential turmoil of this?  The Department of Justice had all manner of tools at its disposal to deal with this in a different way.  It could have requested to go and search Mar-A-Lago and see if there had been anything left behind.  There could’ve been civil charges that were brought.  Jack Smith, rather than issuing an indictment, could’ve put out a report, and maybe detailed some pretty unpleasant behavior, but let the American people decide.  And instead...this case is unknown territory because of the Presidential Records Act.  I just would like to think that if we’re gonna go down this road, that they would do so only with the most rock-solid of cases, not something that’s uncharted territory.”

Amen to that.  But Strassel could easily have answered her own question about why it had to go down this particular way.  The DOJ’s goal was NOT simply to handle the dispute with the National Archives.  The goal --- the obsession --- was to finish off Trump once and for all so he couldn’t be on the ballot next year, even to throw him in prison for the rest of his life just to make doubly sure.  A stake through the heart, so to speak.  And after years of trying, this is the best they could come up with.  They simply used what they had to go after him with, “unchartered territory” or not.  In that sense, it sounds a lot like what DA Bragg did to him in Manhattan.

Another thing the DOJ didn’t care about was the inappropriateness of the Mar-A-Lago raid.  A senior FBI official-turned-whistleblower, Steven D’Antuono,  told Congress four ways in which the raid violated standard protocols.  These are outlined in a letter sent Friday by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to AG Garland, concerning “additional information recently obtained by the Committee about the execution of a search warrant on President Trump’s residence.”  What they learned, he said, “only reinforces our grave concerns that your reported actions are nothing more than a politically motivated prosecution.”  Screenshots of the letter are reproduced here.  Highly recommended reading...

The EPOCH TIMES had a story on this by Mark Tapscott, shared by REDWAVE…

Here’s a quick summary of the four points:

1.  The search wasn’t conducted by the Miami Field Office, but was usurped by the DC Field Office.

2.  The Department didn’t assign a U.S. attorney to investigate this case, as would be customary.

3.  They “assertively pushed” for a warrant instead of trying to get the owner’s permission.

4.  The FBI refused to allow President Trump’s attorneys to be present before conducting the search. (As memory serves, the attorneys who arrived were made to wait at the end of the long driveway.  In the August heat.)

Read the full letter to see the list of materials Jordan is calling for the DOJ to produce; it covers virtually all communications and documents related to the Mar-A-Lago raid.  Merrick Garland has till 5 PM on June 16 to turn them over, at which time he will...just continue to ignore it, I’m guessing.

Legal professor Jonathan Turley, speaking with Harris Faulkner on Friday’s FOX NEWS TONIGHT, brought up an interesting scenario.  He said the biggest problem for the special counsel is “not Trump, it’s time.”  Smith needs to have the trial over before the election.  It’s in the prosecution’s interest to have a speedy trial, because if Trump becomes President before there’s a verdict, he can pardon himself.  (Yes, apparently the President can do that, although without support from the House, he surely would be impeached afterwards.)  Even if Trump doesn’t get across that finish line himself, some other GOP candidates are already saying they would pardon him if they’re elected.  Vivek Ramaswamy has been clear that he would.

Turley said that according to the Sixth Amendment and federal statutes, the trial is supposed to be speedy “unless there’s a waiver” by the defense.  (Tell that to the political prisoners held for many months without bail after January 6.  I digress.)  The idea is also supposed to be --- in theory, ha --- to avoid having a case interfere with an election.  But that consideration seems ridiculous in this case, because we all know that’s the reason it even exists --- to interfere with an election.  As Turley put it, “This case is going to be one of the issues IN the election.”

Finally, you’ve heard about the audio-only recording that purportedly shows Trump, as former President, waving around documents that he knows are still classified.  BREITBART NEWS offers some extremely good context for what this was.  It had to do with Gen. Mark Milley and HIS --- not Trump’s --- lunatic plan to invade Iraq.  The documents Trump seems to have been talking about would supposedly disprove the narrative, furthered by Milley, that Trump was the one who wanted to invade Iraq.

CNN’s sources had pointed out to them the sound of rustling papers, assuming this is proof that Trump was showing people the classified paper.  On the contrary, it’s no proof of anything.  But we want to know who leaked that recording --- evidence in the case --- to CNN?  It has to be the prosecutors.  Get ready to polish up that Emmy Award, CNN.

RELATED READING:  Legal analyst Margot Cleveland already has another column, written shortly before the charges in the indictment were revealed.  The FBI, she says, has gone beyond unequal treatment under the law and, with the help of the corrupt media, “is using its power to decide our elections and the destiny of our republic.”

About Face, and Race

By Steve Feazel

Entertainers who performed in black face were popular after the Civil War and in many following decades. The purpose of this form of entertainment was to belittle and demean those of the black race. In short, it was a form of acceptable racism which is no longer acceptable and rightly so. Some celebrities and even some political figures have had to explain away or apologize for having done black face in the past. Black face is condemned today because of its association to racism. This is understandable and the nation is correct to take such a position. It is an obvious position to take and not as bewildering as when racism is linked to items that are a far out reach like Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg claiming highways are racist.1

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act became law with the purpose to end discrimination based on race, color, religion and national origin. Title VII of the law included gender protection in employment and today females are protected against discrimination in all areas the law covers. Given the Civil Rights Act becoming law and the progress made of reducing racism and advocating equality of opportunity for all people in the nation, it is concerning that some actions by those holding progressive left political positions are violating the Civil Rights Act.

The Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team is in the midst of a controversy regarding giving honor to the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” This group is composed of gay men who dress up as drag queens in Catholic nun apparel which at certain times is risqué. They conduct events and performances that have vulgar actions on display. On its website, the group states, “We use humor and irreverent wit to expose the forces of bigotry, complacency and guilt that chain the human spirit.”2 They are claiming by this statement that the Catholic religion is one of bigotry, complacency and guilty of seeking to hinder the human spirit.

This would appear to be a violation of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 since it reveals discrimination and hate toward a religion. Why would a Major League Baseball team want to pay tribute to a group that takes pride in violating the Civil Rights Law? It is ironic that the Dodgers in April of 1987 fired their vice president, Al Campanis, who made demeaning racial remarks on ABC’s Nightline show.3 The organization was sensitive to civil rights when it came to the black community, but the Catholic church, that is protected from discrimination by the same law, is mocked by the Dodgers who in essence are cohorts with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in this violation of civil rights.

If black face is to be disdained because a white person is pretending to be a black person for the purpose of ridiculing that race, should not dressing as a drag queen be regarded as the same? It is a guy pretending to be a woman to demean womanhood. Certainly this is the case with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence taking aim at nuns, but could it not be extended to all drag queen performances? Drag queen story times are men wearing female face for a performance that degrades the female gender by lifting up skirts to show underwear and by sexual suggestive dance moves that are degrading to the female gender. Most mothers would not approve of this in front of their elementary age child. If black face is not tolerated, then according to the Civil Rights Law, female face entertainment should not be tolerated.

Men who identify as females for athletic competition are basically performing in "female face." Lia Thomas (formerly Will Thomas) joined the University of Pennsylvania Women’s swim team and competed winning a national championship. He still admits to being attracted to women and he still has his male anatomy parts.4 Athletes are forbidden to take performance enhancement drugs when competing, so why is a fully intact male allowed to compete as if a woman, with male hormones teaming through the body, just because he says he identifies as a female? This action is humiliating to the biological female swimmers and a case could be made their civil rights are being violated in light of the Civil Rights Law of America. The left always seeks a political advantage and they won’t let a little thing like the Civil Rights Act get in the way.


1. Stuti Mishra, “Buttigieg says America’s highways are racist and infrastructure bill will help fix it,” Yahoo News, November 9, 2021,


3. Grahame L. Jones, “Dodgers fire Campanis Over racial Remarks,” Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1987,

4. Patrick Reilly, “Teammates say they are uncomfortable changing in locker room with trans UPenn swimmer Lia Thomas,” New York Post, January 27, 2022,




Buy a Book or Subscribe to my newsletter on Substack.  Help make my voice heard over Big Tech attempts to silence me.

Read Mike's Books - Mike Huckabee

Subscribe to The Morning Edition (



Thank you for reading my newsletter. 

For more news, visit my website.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

No Comments