As always, I want to thank all of the readers who have sent messages of support and financial assistance. Please visit my Go Fund Me if you’d like to help me keep this column going.

Who Gets to Decide If You’re Heard? Actually, the Federal Government

by | Jun 3, 2026 | Political

Explore More from Brent Lambi

MAGA’s Worldwide Finance Plan Paid in Cocaine Poison: A convicted cocaine kingpin walks free — and the timing tells you everything.

MAGA’s Worldwide Finance Plan Paid in Cocaine Poison: A convicted cocaine kingpin walks free — and the timing tells you everything.

MAGA’s Worldwide Finance Plan Paid in Cocaine Poison
OPINION | May 31, 2026
THERE IS A WORD, for a government that frees a convicted drug trafficker and presses him into the service of its foreign policy. The word is not “conservative.” It is not “populist.” It is not even “corrupt,” though corruption is the least of it. The word is captured — and on December 1, 2025, the United States gave its clearest demonstration yet of what critics argue is a movement that no longer recognizes the difference between a statesman and a smuggler.
On that day, the President of the United States signed a full pardon for Juan Orlando Hernández. Eighteenmonths earlier, a jury of Americans had convicted him — not of jaywalking, but of conspiring to move more than 400 tons of cocaine into this country. The trial judge found that Hernández turned his country’s army and police into protection networks linked to the Sinaloa Cartel. “El Chapo” Guzmán himself, prosecutors alleged, funneled roughly a million dollars through Hernández’s associates. The sentence was forty-five years. He served barely one before Donald Trump set him free.
Ask the only question that matters: why?
Consider first what was set loose. Four hundred tons of cocaine is roughly 882,000 pounds — some 400 million grams. At a wholesale price near $28,000 a kilogram, that single conspiracy was worth more than$11 billion before a gram was ever cut; sold off by the gram on American streets at $100 to $150 apiece, the same load is worth $40 to $60 billion. The Justice Department called it “billions of individual doses” —roughly 4.5 billion of them — fed into a country where, in 2023 alone, nearly 30,000 Americans died in overdoses involving cocaine. There is no honest formula that turns tonnage into a body count, but hold those numbers beside each other: billions of doses on one side, tens of thousands of graves a year on the other. That is the record associated with the man Donald Trump set free.
Not for mercy — critics argue this movement has shown little mercy to the desperate. The same administration that freed the kingpin has authorized aggressive anti-narcotics operations in the
Caribbean and Pacific that critics argue have at times used overwhelming force against suspected smuggling vessels. Deaths have been reported in connection with those operations, raising serious questions among critics about proportionality, due process, and rules of engagement. A man who shipped 400 tons of cocaine gets a pardon and a TikTok thank-you note; a fisherman with an empty hold gets a missile.
LOOK AT THE TIMING,because the timing is a confession. The pardon was issued three days before Honduras went to the polls — while Hernández’s political allies were attempting to retain power. Critics immediately argued that the timing created the appearance of ideological
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
favoritism. Critics argued that the decision looked less like ordinary clemency and more like an overtly ideological intervention into a politically sensitive regional moment.
And it was not the work of one country. In Argentina, this administration dangled forty billion dollars before President Javier Milei — and Trump stood in the Oval Office and publicly emphasized the political importance of Milei’s continued electoral success while discussing the financial support. In Brazil, it sanctioned the very judge who prosecuted Jair Bolsonaro for attempting a coup. In Colombia, it has threatened President Gustavo Petro with military force. And when it staged its “Shield of the Americas” summit, it pointedly excluded the elected presidents of Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia — the three largest democracies in Latin America — while seating its ideological clients in the front row.
String those beads together and a pattern begins to appear. A pardon here, a bailout there, a sanction, a threat, a snub — each one defensible in isolation, each one damning in sequence. Critics increasingly argue that this is not merely foreign policy, but the construction of an openly ideological sphere of influence across the hemisphere.
So here is the question Congress is duty-bound to ask and too cowardly to ask aloud:
Why was the pardon power of the United States used to restore to freedom a man federal prosecutors once described as a central figure in one of the largest cocaine-trafficking conspiracies ever prosecuted in the Americas?
Where is Hernández now? Whom does he meet? Which of the networks laid bare in open court remain operational? These are not the fevered questions of a conspiracy theorist. They are the obvious questions of any prosecutor who has read the transcript — and any senator who swore an oath to the Constitution rather than to a man. MAGA will call this hysteria. Let them. There is nothing hysterical about reading a verdict, a pardon, and a calendar and noticing they line up. The hysteria belongs to a political culture critics argue increasingly applies the law unevenly depending on who benefits politically.
The United States once prosecuted this man. Now it has chosen to restore him to freedom. If Congress cannot summon the spine to ask why — under oath, in public, with subpoenas — then the capture is complete, and the only thing separating the government from the cartel is the letterhead.
Ask the question. The country is owed an answer.
SOURCES & METHOD
Conviction, sentence & bribe: U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D.N.Y., and U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Juan Orlando Hernández … Sentenced to 45 Years … for Conspiring to Distribute More Than 400 Tons of Cocaine, “June 26, 2024 (incl. ≈ $1M paid via his brother by Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán). Pardon issued Dec. 1,2025 (Congressional Research Service, IN12621; FactCheck.org, Dec. 5, 2025).
Conversion & wholesale value: 400 metric tons = 400,000 kg = 881,849 lb = 14,109,585 oz =400,000,000 g. At a U.S. wholesale price of ≈ $28,000/kg — about $12,700/lb — (UN Office on
A PERSONAL NOTE
FROM THE AUTHOR
THEY HAVEN’T THROWN ME FROM A WINDOW — BUT THEY ARE TRYING
In Putin’s Russia, dissidents have a way of falling from hospital windows. Businessmen who speak inconvenient truths meet inconvenient ends on staircases and balconies across Moscow. I am writing this from Omaha,
Nebraska. I have not been thrown from a window.
THE IRS AS A WEAPON OF SILENCE
But I am being thrown out of something just as vital: my life savings. What I am experiencing is what I believe to be a targeted, methodical IRS assault — not random, not routine, not coincidental. It follows my speaking out. It follows my refusal to be silenced. In Russia, they silence critics with gravity. In America, I think they are learning to do it with audits, paperwork, and financial ruin — stripping away everything a person has built until the cost of their voice becomes too steep to bear.
See Lambi v. United States of America, et al
Case # 8:2026cv00101
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
SLANDER THROUGH TRUSTED
INSTITUTIONS: THE BERKSHIRE
HATHAWAY CAMPAIGN
And the IRS is not the only instrument being wielded against me. I believe I have also been the victim of deliberate, government-sourced slander — lies spread to professional contacts who had no reason to doubt what they were told. I believe that honest, hardworking realtors employed by Berkshire Hathaway — one of the most respected real estate companies in America built on a foundation of integrity — were fed false information about me by government actors. These were decent professionals simply doing their jobs, used as unwitting vectors of what I think is a smear campaign designed to isolate me professionally, damage my reputation, and ensure that doors would close before I could even knock on them. This is not the free market. This is not the rule of law. This is the deliberate destruction of a private citizen’s livelihood by government machinery set in motion to punish dissent. I believe that Berkshire Hathaway is as much of a victim in this as I am.
See Brent Lambi, Pro Se V. Berkshire Hathaway Home Services, et al
Case # DO1CI260001752
Nebraska District Court, Douglas County
I AM STILL STANDING
This is the American version of defenestration. No broken glass. No headlines. Just a man — his savings under assault, his name poisoned in his own community — meant to serve as a quiet warning to everyone watching. The message is clear: speak up, and we will take everything. Your money. Your reputation.
Your future.
I am still watching. I am still writing. I am still standing. And I intend to be heard.
The opinions expressed above are solely those of the author.
PAID FOR BY BRENT LAMBI PO BOX 241028 OMAHA, NE 68124
WWW.HONEST-POLITICS.COM
BY THE NUMBERS
A convicted cocaine kingpin walks free — and the timing tells you everything.
Drugs& Crime), 400,000 × $28,000 = $11.2 billion.
Retail value: at a U.S. street price of $100–$150/g — about $2,835–$4,250 per ounce — (UNODC; DEA; Office of National Drug Control Policy), 400,000,000 g × $100–150 = $40–$60 billion. Wholesale and retail are alternative valuations of the same load, not additive.
Doses: DOJ characterized the load as “billions of individual doses”; ≈ 4.5 billion estimate, Al Jazeera, Dec. 2, 2025 (≈ 0.09 g per dose).
Overdose deaths: 29,449 U.S. cocaine-involved overdose deaths in 2023 — ≈ 28% of all overdose deaths (CDC WONDER; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2025). No figure here estimates deaths caused by this specific shipment; tonnage cannot be converted to a death toll.
Maritime strikes: cumulative reported death toll from U.S. strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, late 2025 (press reporting; administration statements).
Argentina: U.S. Treasury $20 billion currency-swap line plus a $20 billion private financing facility, October 2025 (U.S. Dept. of the Treasury; Financial Times). Brazil judicial sanctions, Colombia threats, and “Shield of the Americas” exclusions per contemporaneous press reporting.

read more
An Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump: The Drug Enforcement Administration has misled you. The Honduras pardon is the proof. Please act.

An Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump: The Drug Enforcement Administration has misled you. The Honduras pardon is the proof. Please act.

AnOpen Letter to
TheDrug Enforcement Administration hasmisled you.
TheHonduras pardon is the proof. Please act.
DearMr. President:
I write to you as an independent voter, a small-business owner, and the editor of an independent civic-journalismpublication
inOmaha—the citywhere BerkshireHathaway holds itsAnnualMeeting andwhere the country’s
most respected businessminds gather each spring. I write not in anger, but in concern—for your reputation, for
the country, and for the truth.
On November 28, 2025, you announced—and on December 1, formally granted—a full pardon to Juan Orlando
Hernández, former President of Honduras.Mr. President, with all respect: I believe the people who urged that
pardonmisled you about whoMr.Hernández is.
This is not aman who was “treated very harshly and unfairly.” This is aman whomprosecutors accused of leading
a narco-state. A federal jury in New York convicted him in March 2024. A federal judge sentenced him to 45
years and an $8 million fine. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told the court Mr. Hernández had “paved a cocaine superhighway
to theUnited States.” Prosecutors documented at least 400 tons of cocainemoved intoAmerica during
his presidency and a $1million bribe to his brother—also convicted—fromthe Sinaloa Cartel under “El Chapo”
Guzmán himself, in exchange for unimpeded passage of product throughHonduras.
By any measure—tonnage, duration, sophistication, government infrastructure—Juan Orlando Hernández is
in the running for the largest cocaine trafficker any American jury has ever convicted. Bloomberg described the
pardon as having “toppled the capstone of one of themost ambitious narcotics investigations in the history of the
Department of Justice.”
Mr. President, I do not believe you knew. I believe you were told a different story.
That story came, in significant part, through the Drug Enforcement Administration — the agency that built the
case, that knows every page of the record, and that should have walked into the Oval Office and told you plainly:
“Sir, do not pardon this man. His record will become your record.” If the DEA gave you anything less, I believe the
DEA failed you. If theDEA helped engineer that pardonwhilewithholding its institutional knowledge, I believe the
DEA betrayed you.
I do notwrite to you as a stranger toDEAmisconduct. I amthe pro se plaintiff in active federal litigation in theU.S.
DistrictCourt for theDistrict ofNebraska arising froma Freedomof InformationAct enforcement claimagainst the
DEA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security. In the course of that litigation, I have
developed firsthand knowledge ofDEA conduct that inmy opinion does not reflectwell on the agency. Iwill not air
the details here; they belong in court filings. But Iwill statemy opinion plainly:my experience is consistentwith an
agency that has lost the discipline of telling its political leadership the truth.
You have demonstrated, in this term, a willingness to remove officials whose conduct damaged the administration.
That same willingness is needed now. Senator Mark Warner has already called the Hernández pardon
“glaring hypocrisy”—and that was before the capture of NicolásMaduro on essentially identical charges. The
contradiction is unanswerable; the agency that allowed it to develop is the one that should answer for it.
I write from Omaha, where the country’s most discerning business community gathers eachMay. Your reputation
among serious Omaha businesspeople is being eroded by DEA conduct that does not bear your fingerprints
but is being attributed to your administration. That is unjust to you.
For your protection, and for mine, please act:
 Direct the Attorney General to remove the current Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
 Direct the Department of Justice Inspector General to open a formal review of the agency’s communications
with theWhiteHouse regarding theHernández pardon—who recommended it, who vouched for the recommendation,
and who possessed institutional knowledge ofMr.Hernández’s conduct and failed to convey it.
The country deserves aDrug Enforcement Administration that tells the President the truth. You deserve advisors
who do not damage your record by engineering pardons that contradict your own policy. And I deserve a federal
agency that responds tomy FOIA requests honestly, accurately and transparently.
Respectfully,
Brent Lambi
May 28, 2026
PresidentDonald J. Trump

read more
We’re Both Getting Dirty: Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices and I are both being financially bled by the same thing — and it isn’t each other. The pig in Charlie Munger’s parable is wearing a federal badge.

We’re Both Getting Dirty: Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices and I are both being financially bled by the same thing — and it isn’t each other. The pig in Charlie Munger’s parable is wearing a federal badge.

PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices and I are both being
financially bled by the same thing — and it isn’t each other.
The pig in Charlie Munger’s parable is wearing a federal badge.
We’re Both Getting Dirty
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
OPINION | May 24, 2026
Charlie Munger said it plain. “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” I want to say something today that an opposing party in active litigation almost never says. Berkshire Hathaway and I are both being hurt. By the same thing. And it isn’t each other.
Let me state my interest plainly. I am the pro se plaintiff in Case No. CI 26-1752, Douglas County District Court. I sued Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices entities for breach of a Buyer’s Listing Agreement and defamation. Separately, I have a federal civil rights and FOIA enforcement case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No. 8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, against components of the DEA, DOJ, and DHS.
Those two cases should have nothing to do with each other. They do.
Here is what I believe, in plain English. A federal officer, acting outside the lawful boundaries of their office, has reasons to want my state defamation case bogged down. Discovery in my state case touches my federal case. If my state case never produces discovery, their exposure shrinks. Delay protects them. Resolution exposes them.
That is the pig in the pen.
Now here is what most writers would never admit. Berkshire is not the villain in this story. Berkshire is bleeding too.
Count the costs. Defense counsel fees, billed by the hour, in a case the math says should have settled. Insurance reserves tied up. Brand exposure every week the case stays in the news. Discovery motions, depositions, sanctions briefing — none of that comes cheap. Every dollar Berkshire’s insurer spends defending this case past the point where settlement made sense is a dollar shareholders will not see. Charlie Munger could have done that arithmetic on a napkin.
And me? I am a pro se plaintiff carrying my own load on two fronts at once. Filing fees, transcripts, expert costs, the unrecoverable hours of my own life. Reputation hits in a small civic-journalism market. Stress I will not pretend does not exist.
Both sides of the “v.” are losing money. The only party making a return on this litigation is the federal actor who benefits from delay.
Which raises the only question that matters: why is this case still being fought the way it is being fought?
I do not believe Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, as a sophisticated business defendant, would choose to fight a routine state defamation and breach-of-contract case this way.
The conduct does not match the math. Defenses calibrated for delay, not resolution. Discovery resistance that costs more than the underlying claim. A posture that drives up fees on both sides while the actual exposure sits unchanged.
When the math does not work, somebody else is doing the calculations.
I believe — and I will say it directly — that the defense strategy in this case is being shaped, influenced, or coordinated by interests outside the four corners of the Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices contractual relationship. A third party. One with its own reasons. One whose interests are not Berkshire’s interests, and are certainly not mine.
If that is true, Berkshire is not the defendant. Berkshire is the host. And I am the bait.
Charlie Munger warned about exactly this. When you wrestle with a pig, the pig sets the rules. The pig picks the venue. The pig decides how long the fight goes. And when it is over, the pig walks away clean while everyone else is covered in mud and short on cash.
So I will say what a writer and a plaintiff can say at the same time. Berkshire, look at the bill. Look at who benefits. Look at who keeps pushing for more depositions, more delay, more motion practice in a case that should have closed months ago. Whose money is paying for this? Whose strategy is this actually serving?
And then look at the door. I am open to resolution. I have always been open to resolution. A buyer’s agency dispute is not a constitutional crisis. It is a contract and a duty of care, and grown adults find a number. If Berkshire’s actual decision-makers want to talk — not the defense apparatus, the actual decision-makers — the door is open.
What I am not willing to do is keep wrestling indefinitely while a federal officer profits from our fight.
That is the story. A pig in the pen. Two parties getting bled. One actor laughing.
Charlie Munger told us how this ends. We both get dirty. The pig likes it. The question for Omaha, for Berkshire shareholders, and for every lawyer billing on this case, is whether anyone is going to do the obvious thing: stop wrestling each other, and look at who let the pig in.
The author is the pro se plaintiff in Case No. CI 26-1752, Douglas County District Court, and in the matter docketed as Case No. 8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The opinions expressed are the author’s own and reflect allegations and beliefs based on the public record and the author’s observation of the proceedings. Nothing herein is intended as a finding of fact against any party. All parties named are presumed entitled to a full and fair adjudication on the merits. Honest Politics welcomes responses for publication.

read more