Longtime Republican consultant Roger Stone lambasted Trump adviser-turned-staunch-critic John Bolton following the FBI raid on his Bethesda, Maryland residence on Friday.

‘Good morning. John Bolton. How does it feel to have your home raided at 6 o’clock in the morning?’ Stone riffed on X, six years after the Biden FBI raided his own Fort Lauderdale home in an operation to which CNN was reportedly tipped off to.

‘Wait! Where was CNN?’ added Stone, who has often criticized Republicans who become disloyal to President Donald Trump.

‘What goes around comes around- and Roger Stone still ‘did nothing wrong,’’ he said, quoting the catchphrase and shirts that were circulated after his 2019 raid.

Stone, who began his political career volunteering for 1964 presidential nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., before moving on to advising President Richard Nixon, also posted a photo of himself from his arrest wearing a ‘Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong’ shirt.

Stone continued his critique of Bolton later Friday morning with another X post that included a split photo of the two men:

‘The man on the left had his home rated at 6 am because he did something wrong. The man on the right had his home raided at 6 am because he didn’t. Karma is b—-.’

He later released a mock statement claiming Bolton admitted his signature mustache was ‘appropriated from a member of the Village People.’

Bolton, who held diplomatic posts under Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush before joining President Donald Trump’s first administration, later broke with Trump over his handling of COVID-19, his approach to diplomacy, and the impeachment saga.

Trump often returned fire at Bolton after their messy breakup, and Stone occasionally chimed in to defend his longtime friend from New York.

After Bolton attacked Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, calling her a ‘serious threat to national security’ – Stone returned fire.

‘Watching war pig John Bolton attack the appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI makes me all the more certain that she is precisely the right person for the job,’ Stone said in November.

After the raid on Bolton’s home, FBI agents were also seen in DuPont Circle, D.C., removing boxes from the Baltimore native’s personal office.

The FBI launched a raid Friday morning into the home and office of John Bolton — President Donald Trump’s national security advisor from 2018 and 2019 — months after Trump yanked Bolton’s security clearance in January upon taking office. 

The two men have a long history of trading barbs following Bolton’s exit from Trump’s first administration — all of which escalated after Bolton sought to publish a memoir in 2020 that included some unflattering details about his time in the White House. 

While Trump has labeled Bolton a ‘wacko’ and a ‘dope,’ Bolton has had his fair share of harsh words for the president. 

‘I don’t think he’s fit for office,’ Bolton said in an interview with ABC News in June 2020, ahead of his memoir’s release. ‘I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job.’ 

‘There really isn’t any guiding principle that I was able to discern other than what’s good for Donald Trump’s reelection,’ Bolton said at the time. ‘I think he was so focused on the reelection that longer-term considerations fell by the wayside.’ 

Bolton also characterized Trump as lacking focus on policy while being very fixated on himself — to the detriment of national security matters. 

‘His policymaking is so incoherent, so unfocused, so unstructured, so wrapped around his own personal political fortunes, that mistakes are being made that will have grave consequences for the national security of the United States,’ Bolton also said in an ABC interview in June 2020. 

The first Trump administration sought to block the release of Bolton’s memoir, ‘The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,’ and asserted it contained classified material. 

The book alleged that Trump ‘pleaded’ Chinese President Xi Jinping to support Trump’s reelection campaign, and called the president ‘stunningly uninformed.’ 

While the Justice Department attempted to prevent its publication on the grounds that the book disclosed classified matters pertaining to U.S. intelligence sources and methods, a federal judge signed off on the publication of the book, which ultimately was published June 23, 2020. 

Meanwhile, Trump discredited Bolton’s assertions included in the book, and hurled his own insults back at Bolton. 

‘Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made, pure fiction,’ Trump said in a social media post June 18, 2020. ‘Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is!’ 

‘Wacko John Bolton’s ‘exceedingly tedious’(New York Times) book is made up of lies & fake stories. Said all good about me, in print, until the day I fired him,’ Trump said in a separate social media post on June 18, 2020. ‘A disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war. Never had a clue, was ostracized & happily dumped. What a dope!’

Bolton departed his post at the White House in September 2019. While Bolton said that he left due to his own volition, Trump claimed that he fired Bolton. 

Bolton was not arrested or taken into custody following the raid on his home and office Friday.

Trump told reporters Friday that he had no knowledge of the raid and learned about it watching TV. 

‘He’s a, not a smart guy,’ Trump said Friday. ‘But he could be a very unpatriotic. I mean, we’re going to find out. I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning. They did a raid.’ 

The Trump administration began handing over documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case to the House Oversight Committee on Friday, a spokesperson for the panel said.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., has committed to making the documents public in the interest of transparency, albeit after a committee review for sensitive information related to Epstein’s victims.

‘The production contains thousands of pages of documents. The Trump DOJ is providing records at a far quicker pace than anything the Biden DOJ ever provided,’ the spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

‘The Committee intends to make these records public after thorough review to ensure any victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted. The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations.’

The spokesperson added that the Trump DOJ was complying with Comer’s subpoena at a quicker pace than former Biden administration Attorney General Merrick Garland did in handing over materials related to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into ex-President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.

House investigators originally requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce a tranche of files pertaining to the late pedophile and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19. 

It’s part of a wider bipartisan investigation into the handling of Epstein’s case, which has also reached several former attorneys general, FBI directors, and former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Comer announced Monday afternoon that he would delay the deadline until Friday in light of the DOJ’s cooperation.

‘Officials with the Department of Justice have informed us that the Department will begin to provide Epstein-related records to the Oversight Committee this week on Friday. There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,’ Comer said in a statement.

‘I appreciate the Trump administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.’

Requested materials included all documents and communications in the DOJ’s possession relating to both Epstein and Maxwell, as well as files ‘further relating or referring to human trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, or related activity.’

Documents relating specifically to the DOJ’s prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell, Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida, and any materials related to Epstein’s death were requested.

The House Oversight Committee asked for the documents to be largely unredacted, according to a subpoena obtained by Fox News Digital, ‘except for redactions to protect the personally identifiable information of victims, for any child sex abuse material as defined by the Department of Justice Manual, and any other redactions required by law.’

The deadline comes a day after former Attorney General Bill Barr was deposed by the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors. Barr was the first person scheduled to appear in the committee’s probe under subpoena.

The Clintons both have separate deposition dates scheduled for October.

Comer was directed to send the flurry of subpoenas after a House Oversight Committee subcommittee panel voted in favor of them during an unrelated hearing in July.

Renewed furor over Epstein’s case engulfed Capitol Hill after intra-GOP fallout over the Trump administration’s handling of the matter.

The DOJ effectively declared the case closed after an ‘exhaustive review,’ revealing Epstein had no ‘client list,’ did not blackmail ‘prominent individuals,’ and confirmed he did die by suicide in a New York City jail while awaiting prosecution.

In response to the backlash by some on the right, Trump directed the DOJ to release grand jury testimony related to Epstein – a request that’s been tied up in courts since then – while Attorney General Pam Bondi had her deputy, Todd Blanche, interview Maxwell in person to uncover any possible new information.

Comer also subpoenaed Maxwell but agreed to defer her scheduled deposition until after the Supreme Court heard her appeal to overturn her conviction.

Fox News Digital reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized on Thursday what she said were the ‘recent tendencies’ of the Supreme Court to side with the Trump administration, providing her remarks in a bitter dissent in a case related to National Institutes of Health grants.

Jackson, a Biden appointee, rebuked her colleagues for ‘lawmaking’ on the shadow docket, where an unusual volume of fast, preliminary decisionmaking has taken place related to the hundreds of lawsuits President Donald Trump’s administration has faced.

‘This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,’ Jackson wrote.

The liberal justice pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of Calvinball, which describes it as the practice of applying rules inconsistently for self-serving purposes.

Jackson, the high court’s most junior justice, said the majority ‘[bent] over backwards to accommodate’ the Trump administration by allowing the NIH to cancel about $783 million in grants that did not align with the administration’s priorities.

Some of the grants were geared toward research on diversity, equity and inclusion; COVID-19; and gender identity. Jackson argued the grants went far beyond that and that ‘life-saving biomedical research’ was at stake.

‘So, unfortunately, this newest entry in the Court’s quest to make way for the Executive Branch has real consequences, for the law and for the public,’ Jackson wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision was fractured and only a partial victory for the Trump administration.

In a 5-4 decision greenlighting, for now, the NIH’s existing grant cancellations, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices. In a second 5-4 decision that keeps a lower court’s block on the NIH’s directives about the grants intact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, sided with Roberts and the three liberals. The latter portion of the ruling could hinder the NIH’s ability to cancel future grants.

The varying opinions by the justices came out to 36 pages total, which is lengthy relative to other emergency rulings. Jackson’s dissent made up more than half of that.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observed in an op-ed last month a rise in ‘rhetoric’ from Jackson, who garnered a reputation as the most vocal justice during oral arguments upon her ascension to the high court.

‘The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself,’ Turley said.

Barrett had sharp words for Jackson in a recent highly anticipated decision in which the Supreme Court blocked lower courts from imposing universal injunctions on the government. Barrett accused Jackson of subscribing to an ‘imperial judiciary’ and instructed people not to ‘dwell’ on her colleague’s dissent.

Barrett, the lone justice to issue the split decision in the NIH case, said challenges to the grants should be brought by the grant recipients in the Court of Federal Claims.

But Barrett said ‘both law and logic’ support that the federal court in Massachusetts does have the authority to review challenges to the guidance the NIH issued about grant money. Barrett joined Jackson and the other three in denying that portion of the Trump administration’s request, though she said she would not weigh in at this early stage on the merits of the case as it proceeds through the lower courts.

Jackson was dissatisfied with this partial denial of the Trump administration’s request, saying it was the high court’s way of preserving the ‘mirage of judicial review while eliminating its purpose: to remedy harms.’

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — a largely taxpayer-funded body that has taken in hundreds of millions in federal dollars — is facing pushback for fast-tracking a climate review that critics say is an attempt to undermine the Trump administration’s energy agenda.

Earlier this month, Politico reported that NASEM is using ‘internal funding’ to pay for a review that will be released in September in order to ‘inform’ the Environmental Protection Agency’s move to rescind the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding, a cornerstone of climate regulation that conservatives say has strangled American energy production.

That effort is being led by molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman who, in addition to being a member of NASEM, serves as an External Science Advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, a group tied to the progressive consulting behemoth Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund, a nonprofit that pushes a variety of progressive causes. 

Critics tell Fox News Digital they have concerns about the timing of this move and the possible political motives attached to the fast-tracked review. 

‘NASEM’s decision to do a fast-track study on greenhouse gas emissions and endangerment in response to the EPA rule undermines the legitimacy of the National Academies,’ Daren Bakst, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told Fox News Digital. 

‘The process shows the numerous problems with what they are doing. On August 7, NASEM announced they were doing a report to be finished in September. That is an incredible rush job that by itself undermines the legitimacy of what they are doing. Likely, the report has already been written in whole or in part, given the timing. This rush gives the impression they have their conclusions and are just working backwards. ‘

Conservatives have long argued that groups tied to Arabella Advisors operate as a ‘dark money’ network, influencing policy debates and shaping research priorities behind the scenes. This dynamic reflects a growing entanglement between research institutions and ideologically driven funding streams. 

The concern is heightened by the fact that NASEM derived roughly 58% of its budget from federal funds in 2024. The New York Times reported that ‘about 70%’ of the budget came from federal funds in 2023. 

‘To me, it seems like a move to protect NASEM’s position as the gatekeeper of official science,’ Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital. ‘I think it’s appropriate to ask whether government-funded researchers and organizations might have a conflict of interest in setting the terms of the climate debate. For example, it’s clear that more alarm means more research funding.’

Regarding the Arabella connection, Fisher said that ‘any overlap’ between the NASEM effort and political advocacy groups ‘deserves scrutiny.’

‘I’d like to know who pushed for NASEM’s involvement in the first place and whether ideological groups applied any pressure to get NASEM to join the political fray,’ Fisher said. ‘In any case, I’m surprised to see NASEM inject itself into inherently political fights over EPA policy.’

James Taylor, President of the Heartland Institute, told Fox News Digital that NASEM is a ‘leftist’ and ‘statist’ institution that is ‘funded by and dependent on big government.’

Fox News Digital previously reported that NASEM, sometimes referred to as NAS, has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in recent years while doling out hefty salaries to its top brass and bankrolling a variety of left-wing initiatives. 

‘It has long since stopped being a scientific organization and is now merely a political one,’ Taylor said. 

‘For example, in a recent so-called climate science assessment, only 22% of the authors had PhDs, which was equaled by the 22% of authors who worked for environmental activist groups. Counting Democrat politicians who were also co-authors, the NAS assessment had more environmental activists writing the report than actual scientists. NAS is a joke and has no credibility at all.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a NASEM spokesperson said, ‘This fast-track study is being funded by private donations, and is intended to inform public comments requested by EPA.’

‘The New Venture Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization that uses a fiscal sponsorship model to support a wide range of nonpartisan projects,’ a New Venture Fund spokesperson told Fox News Digital. ‘We fully support efforts to increase funding for foundational science and proudly served as Science Philanthropy Alliance’s fiscal sponsor until it spun off in 2023.’

‘Arabella Advisors is an independent organization and one of our many vendors. They do not ‘manage’ New Venture Fund or have any say in our funding or fiscal sponsorship decisions.’

The revelation comes as the Trump administration seeks to rescind the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding, a cornerstone of climate regulation that critics say has strangled American energy production.

The 45-day public comment period for the proposal is set to end in mid-September. 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ‘threaten both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.’

This finding established the EPA’s legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pledged to roll back the assessment, claiming it has fueled an avalanche of regulations that have cost the U.S. economy over $1 trillion. He doubled down again in July during a speech in Indiana, delivered against a backdrop of trucks, while slamming the Biden-Harris Administration’s electric vehicle mandate.

‘With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,’ Zeldin said, adding that regulatory relief will give U.S. consumers affordable choices when car shopping.

An Arabella spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Arabella ‘does not fund any organizations.’

‘We are a professional services firm that provides administrative and operational support such as compliance, HR, and accounting to nonprofit clients. We are not a donor and we are not a funder.’