A harrowing timeline of Eugenics in America. Spoiler: It's STILL ongoing.

Do you believe ALL life is sacred? We have learned all too well the consequences of when societies quantify the sanctity of human beings on physical characteristics... or have we?

Glenn recently interviewed Scott Schara, who tragically lost his daughter, Grace, with Down syndrome, to alleged medical malpractice. What was the malpractice? After Schara and his wife took Grace to the hospital when her oxygen levels dropped due to contracting COVID, her doctors and nurses gave her a deadly cocktail and a "do not resuscitate" order WITHOUT her parents' consent. Schara alleged Grace's doctors didn't deem his daughter's life "worth saving" because she had Down syndrome—and allegedly expedited her death.

Glenn recently said, we are becoming a "culture of death" as our society is dangerously edging closer to the mistakes of the past. From New Mexico's law requiring ALL doctors to offer assisted suicide to Canada's expansion of euthanasia laws to include mentally ill and handicapped patients, it is harrowingly clear we are close to repeating the horrors of the 20th century when the sacredness of life was disregarded.

As Glenn recently said, we are becoming a "culture of death."

We often point to Nazi Germany as the prime example of a society that devalues life based on physical characteristics. However, we have been too quick to forget the seeds that resulted in the Holocaust were planted here during America's eugenics movement. We laid the egg that Hitler later hatched.

The seeds that resulted in the Holocaust were planted here during America's eugenics movement.

Here is a harrowing timeline of the history of eugenics in America. Many of these eugenics-based laws are STILL in effect to this day. America's continued history of eugenics demonstrates our culture stands on an ever-thinning razor between good and evil.

1883: Francis Galton coins the word "Eugenics"

This was a popular image promoting eugenics, describing it as the "self-direction of human evolution."

Famous British scientist and zoologist Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" in 1883. Galton was the cousin of the "Father of Evolution" himself, Charles Darwin, and he took inspiration from his cousin's insights into "natural selection"—if species "naturally select" towards those with stronger and fitter traits to weed out the "weak" and "undesirable" traits, why couldn't humans expedite their own natural selection process?

The cousin of the "Father of Evolution" himself, Charles Darwin, Galton took inspiration from his cousin's insights into "natural selection."

Thus, Galton coined the term "eugenics"—taken from the Greek, which literally means "good genes." He called for the new practice of humans directing their own natural selection process—their own evolution into a stronger, fitter species. Galton defined eugenics as the practice of giving “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”

Eugenics emerged alongside "Social Darwinism," the popular 19th-century theory that promoted the similar ideal that society was ruled by “survival of the fittest." These two movements morphed into the "positive eugenics" that took hold in Britain, which promoted purposeful breeding to ensure the greatest possible genetic outcome for offspring.

Many would assume that such an enterprise emerged from Dr. Mengele out of Auschwitz rather than from one of Britain's most praised scientists. However, the roots of Mengele's practice started in Britain, and would soon be exported to America.

1896: Connecticut bans "negative-eugenics" marriages

The "Mongol Family" is an American family that was often put on display as an example of the result of when those with "negative eugenics" were allowed to "breed." The origin of the term "Mongol Family" is unclear.

Smithsonian

While "positive eugenics" flourished across the pond, "negative eugenics" took hold in America. Instead of facilitating the "breeding" of the high class, "negative eugenics" attempted to ensure that the "lower" or "unfit classes" weren't able to breed at all.

"Negative eugenics" attempted to ensure that the "lower" or "unfit classes" weren't able to breed at all.

In 1896, Connecticut became the first state to enact a law to this end, prohibiting epileptics, imbeciles, and the feeble-minded from marrying. Many states followed suit in the first few years of the 20th century, such as Kansas, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.

1906: American Breeders' Association

This image was taken from a phrenology textbook from the 1960s, a practice used to collect "eugenics data" alleging physical differences could distinguish an "idiot" from a "malefactor" from a "poet."

As eugenics became a renowned scientific practice, the American Breeders Association established its eugenics branch in 1906—the first official consolidation of organized eugenics research. The eugenics branch was first chaired by ichthyologist and Stanford University president, David Starr Jordan.

1907: Indiana passes first state-level sterilization law

Indiana became the first state to legalize forced sterilization of criminals, "feeble-minded," or the disabled held in state custody.

Indiana became the first state to pass a forced sterilization law, allowing doctors to castrate or sterilize people in institutions against their will. Due to the rise of social Darwinism, it was believed that criminal behavior and poverty were hereditary traits that could be "bred out."

It was believed that criminal behavior and poverty were hereditary traits that could be "bred out."

Indiana's law, therefore, made sterilization mandatory for certain individuals with those "negative traits" in state custody. The law wasn't permanently repealed until 1974. Approximately 2,500 total in state custody were sterilized in Indiana.

1910: Eugenics Record Office

Dr. Charles Davenport spearheaded the Eugenics Office and served as the head of multiple "racial hygienic" boards in Germany, which eventually morphed into the Nazi's Aryan movement.

In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was established. As opposed to a single branch of the American Breeding Society, the ERO was dedicated entirely to eugenics research. The ERO was led by the "father of eugenics," Dr. Charles Davenport, and its activities were directly superintended by Harry H. Laughlin, a professor from Kirksville, Missouri, who would become one of the nation's leaders in eugenics-based legislation.

The ERO had multiple "missions," including compiling an index of traits in American families, training field workers to gather data throughout the United States, and providing guidance on the "eugenic fitness" for couples considering marriage. Some of America's greatest industrialist titans were the main funders behind the ERO, including the Kellogg family and the Harriman railroad empire. Yes, that's the same Kellogg whose name you probably see on your box of cereal.

1913: 29 states have banned mixed-eugenics marriages.

The "Feebleminded Family" was often displayed at Eugenics meetings and the World Fair to display the effects of "negative eugenics."

Francis Curtis | The Smithsonian

Connecticut passed the first eugenics-based marriage law in 1896. By 1913, more than half of the states have adopted eugenics-based marriage laws, prohibiting "mixed marriages," whether it be of race or socioeconomic class.

More than half of the states have adopted eugenics-based marriage laws.

1914: Laughlin's Model Eugenical Sterilization Law

Junius Wilson, a deaf man from North Carolina, was falsely accused of attempted rape in the early 1900s. He was incorrectly judged incompetent and sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. In 1931, Wilson became one of the 70,000 who were castrated under state law.

Everett Parker, Jr. | Smithsonian

1914, Laughlin from the ERO created the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" which proposed the sterilization of the “feebleminded” and those that had physical and mental defects. By this time, 11 states followed suit with Indiana to pass their own sterilization laws.

After Laughlin published his "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" and proposed it before Congress, 18 more states followed soon after. 33 states in total enacted sterilization laws, leading to 60,000 known forced sterilizations without consent under state/federal custody. California, Virginia, and Michigan led the staunchest sterilization campaigns.

1916: Margaret Sanger opens up the first Planned Parenthood clinic in Brooklyn.

Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger encouraged birth control to "[weed] out the unfit."

Bettmann / Contributor | Getty Images

Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was one of the largest proponents of eugenics. She routinely touted birth control and abortion as a means of controlling the reproduction of the "undesirables" and facilitating a stronger race through purposeful breeding. She regularly spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies and other white supremacist groups championing a "stronger race."

This quote from Sanger sums it up:

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.

1925: 'Mein Kampf'

In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler praised the American eugenics movement, particularly the successful sterilization laws in California. American eugenics continued to influence the Aryan movement in Germany. Davenport, founder of the ERO, was a vocal supporter of Germany’s racial hygiene and eugenics and was on two editorial boards for the Zeitschrift für menschliche Vererbungs- und Konstitutionslehre, which were German racial hygiene journals.

American eugenics continued to influence the Aryan movement in Germany.

American policies and scientists like Davenport played a massive role in influencing Hitler’s forced sterilizations in Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, the Nazi Party requested help from California eugenicists on how to run their own sterilization program. Christina Cogdell, a cultural historian at the University of California-Davis, said:

Germany used California’s program as its chief example that this was a working, successful policy [...] If you were deemed worthy of being sterilized by a doctor, there was no board where you could have a hearing to protest.

1927: Buck v Bell

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. supported the majority opinion in favor of state sterilization laws in Buck v Bell.

Bettmann / Contributor | Getty Images

The Supreme Court upheld state-level sterilization laws in the landmark case, Buck v Bell. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. claimed:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

Margaret Sanger spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey in support of the Supreme Court’s decision. By the 1970s more than 60,000 individuals had been forcibly sterilized under thirty-three state laws, protected by the Supreme Court.

1933-34: Chicago World Fair exhibit: "Pedigree Study In Man"

These "goodly heritage" medals were given to family members in the "fitter families contests" held by the American Eugenics Society in venues like the World Fair in Chicago.

Smithsonian

The 1933-34 World Fair in Chicago featured a eugenics exhibit titled “Pedigree-Study in Man” in coordination with the fair’s “Century of Progress” theme. Stations were organized to demonstrate how "favorable traits" in the human population could best be passed down. In addition to the World Fair, the ERO sponsored “fitter families” contests at state and county fairs, awarding medals to "eugenically sound" families.

Presentations contrasting the Roosevelt family and a "degenerate" family were displayed. Fairgoers were urged to adopt the progressive view that a responsible citizen should pursue marriage mindfully based on eugenics principles to promote a genetically stronger generation.

Present Day: 31 States STILL have forced sterilization laws. 

31 states and the District of Columbia still retain the forced sterilization laws pushed by Laughlin and other eugenicists in the 20th century. Though the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v Wade, Margaret Sanger's legacy still lives on in the thousands of abortions that are still carried out every day. ELEVEN states have active state-assisted suicide laws, which is a glossier term for "euthanasia." How many other cases have there been, like Grace Schara, whose lives weren't deemed living because of their genetic condition?

It is ironic, to say the least, that eugenics emerged during America's "Progressive Age," where leaders and scientists trampled over basic human dignity for the sake of "progress." Are we headed toward a similar fate in our current century? If you ask the Schara family, we are already there.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Can Trump make D.C. great again?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

For years, Washington, D.C., has been a symbol of everything wrong with big government—riddled with crime, manipulated stats, and soft-on-crime policies that let gangs terrorize innocent citizens while the elite turn a blind eye. Now, President Trump is stepping up, deploying federal agents after a savage attack on a hero like Edward Coristine, vowing no more "Mr. Nice Guy" as he promises to jail criminals, clear out the homeless encampments, and restore order just like he sealed the border. This isn't just a crackdown; it's a reclamation of our capital from the chaos liberals have unleashed.

Glenn has already covered this on his radio show, exposing how legacy media and Democrats twist crime numbers. They claim that there was a 35% drop in crime while ignoring FBI data showing only a 10% decline, and murders are still sky-high compared to pre-pandemic days. Trump's policies draw parallels to the 1990s, when Congress took control and turned things around, proving that strong leadership can counteract progressive failures. With Democratic mayors crying "power grab" in failing cities like Chicago and Baltimore, it's clear: Trump's bold move is a lifeline for liberty, not a threat. Our capital should be a shining example of America, where leaders can work in peace and foreign representatives can see what this nation stands for without fearing for their lives.

Our nation's heart is at risk from the gaslighting establishment that benefits from disorder, absurdly framing Trump's actions as a "military takeover." Is this the leadership America needs, or will we let the swamp dictate the narrative?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Can we trust the media's spin? Should Trump expand this fight? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you support President Trump's deployment of federal agents to crack down on D.C. crime?

Do you believe liberal media and Democrats are manipulating crime stats to undermine Trump's efforts?

Is Trump's plan to jail criminals and relocate the homeless a necessary step to restore order in our capital?

Do you see Democratic policies as the root cause of rising violence in cities like D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore?

Should Trump extend this federal intervention to other failing blue cities to protect American liberty?

Durham annex exposes Hillary’s hand in Russiagate deception

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Newly declassified documents show that Hillary Clinton approved the Russia hoax strategy — and that the Obama White House was briefed from the beginning.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last week declassified a 29-page document known as the Durham annex. Its publication has received remarkably little attention from major media outlets, despite containing one of the most significant intelligence disclosures since the origins of the Russiagate investigation.

The Durham annex is not conjecture, analysis, or political spin. It is a collection of sensitive intelligence reports, internal memos, and declassified emails compiled by the intelligence community and withheld from public view for years under the pretext of “source protection.”

The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence in 2015 and 2016 suggesting that foreign governments were attempting to collude not with Trump, but with Clinton.

The declassified document offers a clearer view of what many Americans have long suspected: that the narrative surrounding Trump-Russia collusion was not only politically motivated but deliberately constructed by the Clinton campaign, facilitated by sympathetic actors within U.S. intelligence agencies, and ultimately endorsed by senior members of the Obama administration.

This trove of documents does not merely reinforce existing criticisms of the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. It provides evidence that the Clinton campaign approved a strategy to discredit Donald Trump by promoting a false association with Vladimir Putin. And it does so using intelligence collected from foreign surveillance of American political actors — surveillance that the CIA deemed credible enough to brief President Barack Obama directly.

The cover-up unraveled

Central to the Durham annex is a source codenamed “T1” — a foreign intelligence asset who intercepted Russian cyber-espionage activity targeting American entities, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Clinton campaign, and U.S. think tanks. The reports T1 relayed to U.S. intelligence included detailed assessments of internal American political strategy. In effect, T1 was watching Russian spies watch us — and reporting back.

T1’s identity remains classified, but strong circumstantial evidence points to a Dutch intelligence source. The Netherlands reportedly gained access to Russian cyber operations as early as 2014. Regardless of who provided it, U.S. agencies treated the intelligence from T1 as credible.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Those briefings included memos indicating Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russian election interference.

One memo, dated 2016 and reportedly obtained through Russian surveillance of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, outlined a Clinton campaign strategy: “Smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal” over Russia’s preference for Trump. That memo laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax now known as Russiagate.

Intelligence running Clinton’s interference

The CIA labeled the intelligence “sensitive” and credible. The FBI rejected it. Agents claimed it relied on hearsay, appeared exaggerated, and might have suffered from translation errors.

That kind of skepticism might seem reasonable — if the FBI had applied the same scrutiny to the Steele dossier. Instead, they accepted that now-debunked document without verification and used it to justify surveillance warrants.

The inconsistency runs deeper than analysis. The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence from 2015 and 2016 showing that foreign governments weren’t courting Trump — they were cozying up to Clinton.

One memo, written before Trump even announced his candidacy, described a foreign intelligence operative preparing to meet with a Clinton associate to discuss a “plan.” The operative was acting on direct orders from a foreign head of state

Gilbert Carrasquillo / Contributor | Getty Images

The precise content of the plan is redacted, but the FBI’s field office viewed it as serious enough to request a FISA warrant. That request, however, was left to “languish in limbo” by senior FBI officials, who subsequently warned Clinton in a defensive briefing.

Frayed trust, no accountability

The documents suggest a coordinated operation — one in which political, bureaucratic, and media institutions aligned to discredit a political opponent using information they had strong reasons to believe was false. The CIA deemed the intelligence worth a presidential briefing. The FBI discarded it. The media ignored it. And Clinton operatives implemented it.

This is not merely a scandal of partisan excess. Nearly 10 years after the first Hillary Clinton email leaks, and eight years after Trump’s unexpected victory, we are only now beginning to see the scope of institutional complicity in the Russiagate deception. The political cost may never be fully calculated, but the institutional damage — to the FBI, to the intelligence community, and to the trust of the American people — is already done.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.