The path to finding an impartial jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York has faced a number of setbacks throughout the week.
On Thursday, two jurors were dismissed after being sworn in on Tuesday, including one who had previously been arrested for tearing down Right-leaning political posters.
Judge Juan Merchan excused juror #4 after a prosecutor from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said the man had been arrested for ripping down “political posters that were on the Right,” Fox News reported. Juror #4’s dismissal came just after another juror — juror #2 — was excused by Merchan following her admission that she could no longer be impartial.
“I definitely have concerns. I don’t think I can be fair,” she said, adding that “outside influence” would “interfere” with her judgment.
The dismissals of jurors #4 and #2 brought the total of those seated down to five, but shortly after they were let go, more jurors were sworn in, bringing the total to 12, according to the New York Post.
Five more jurors must be selected as alternates before the trial can move forward. Thursday marks the third day of the hush-money trial, which is the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president. Jury selection will continue on Friday and with hopes that opening statements will kick off at the beginning of next week.
Dozens of prospective jurors were dismissed on Monday after they said it would be difficult for them to remain impartial throughout the trial.
Trump is being charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to make alleged hush money payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr is making waves in Washington by refusing to give corporate media a free pass. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Carr said he is prepared to hold powerful broadcasters accountable if they cross the line, even suggesting their licenses could be at risk.
“Broadcast licenses are not sacred cows,” Carr declared, emphasizing that media companies must serve the public interest—not just their own political agenda.
Unlike past FCC chairs who often looked the other way, Carr has embraced President Trump’s call to challenge the entrenched power of legacy outlets. He noted that Trump shattered the illusion that the mainstream press acts as neutral gatekeepers of truth, exposing the bias that millions of Americans already sensed.
Taking on Comcast and NBC
Carr has already taken steps to ensure media giants like Comcast are not misleading the public. Following concerns about the company’s partisan coverage and questionable diversity policies, Carr launched two investigations into Comcast’s practices.
In April, Carr accused Comcast of misleading Americans with its reporting on a high-profile deportation case. By July, he expanded the review to include whether NBC affiliates were truly serving their communities as required under federal law.
The standard Carr cites dates back to 1934, which requires broadcasters to act in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” While critics claim such standards are outdated, Carr argues that the law remains clear: if companies are given privileged access to America’s airwaves, they must be held accountable to the public.
The FCC has rarely revoked a broadcast license—most notably in 1971 when a Mississippi station defended segregation—but Carr has signaled he’s willing to use that authority again if necessary.
Fully Aligned With Trump’s Agenda
Carr has been at the FCC since 2017 and makes no secret that he supports the president’s approach. “We are fully aligned with the agenda that President Trump is running,” he told the Journal.
For Carr, this means standing up to the mainstream press, protecting Americans from being misled, and ensuring that media companies don’t abuse their privileged position.
Critics Push Back
Of course, media lawyers and progressive watchdog groups are sounding the alarm. Robert Corn-Revere of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression complained to the Journal that Carr’s actions are political. But for millions of conservatives, Carr’s willingness to confront biased outlets is long overdue.
By leaning in rather than playing the old Washington “independence” game, Carr is showing he’s willing to take bold steps to ensure the public gets fair and honest coverage—not just the partisan spin of corporate media.
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) did not receive the warmest of welcomes from firefighters during a recent ceremony…
In videos circulating online, booing erupted as James walked up to the podium to honor the swearing-in of the first African-American woman chaplain of the FDNY, the Rev. Pamela Holmes as well as other first responders.
“Oh c’mon, we’re in a house of God. Simmer down,” James told the rowdy crowd. “Thank you for getting it out of your system.”
🚨 Radical Democrat NY AG Letitia James got BOOED at an FDNY event where they also erupted with chants of “TRUMP!”
Despite the crowd’s jeers, James pressed away with her remarks, paying homage to first responders, but some in the crowd continued booing.
Then the crowd began to repeatedly chant, “Trump!” Later in her speech, James said she prayed even for those firefighters in the audience booing her.
According to Fox News, Chief of Department John Hodgens later harshly criticized the behavior of the firefighters.
“Today’s ceremony was about one thing: the accomplishments of the members being promoted,” he said. “The members whose behavior distracted from that celebration were an embarrassment and not befitting of the world’s best fire department.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued Trump in 2022, alleging he falsely altered his net worth on key financial statements to receive tax and insurance benefits. The documents, which detailed the value of the Trump Organization’s various assets, were sent to banks and insurers to secure loans and deals, which the state purports is evidence of fraud.
The former president faces more than 90 criminal charges in four prosecutions.
Thursday morning, Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance announced he has accepted Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s debate challenge.
“The American people deserve as many debates as possible, which is why President Trump has challenged Kamala to three of them already,” Vance posted in response to Walz. “Not only do I accept the CBS debate on October 1st, I accept the CNN debate on September 18th as well. I look forward to seeing you at both!”
The American people deserve as many debates as possible, which is why President Trump has challenged Kamala to three of them already. Not only do I accept the CBS debate on October 1st, I accept the CNN debate on September 18th as well. I look forward to seeing you at both! https://t.co/63FyI99dKU
The Oct. 1 vice presidential debate will take place after the first planned debate between Harris and former President Trump, which is currently scheduled for Sept. 10 and will be hosted by ABC News.
Vance told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle” Wednesday that CBS News had reached out to his team hours before. CBS said in a statement that it offered the two running mates four dates: Sept. 17, Sept. 24, Oct. 1 and Oct. 8.
“We want to actually look at the debates, look at the moderators, talk about the rules a little bit,” he said.
“I strongly suspect we’re going to be there on October the 1st, but we’re not going to do one of these fake debates where they don’t actually have an audience there, where they don’t actually set the parameters in a way where we can have a good exchange of ideas. In other words, we’re not going to walk into a fake news media garbage debate. We’re going to do a real debate, and if CBS agrees to it, then certainly we’ll do it.”
“I think it’s important for the American people to actually see us discuss our views. If you look at the way that we’ve run this campaign, Donald Trump and I are giving every media interview. We’re talking to every audience that we can get in front of because our vision is so clear,” he told Ingraham.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Former President Donald Trump harshly criticized Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Fox News after Jesse Watters interviewed Kennedy on Wednesday evening.
“So bad that FoxNews [sic] puts RFK Jr., considered the dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan, on their fairly conservative platform so much. Competitive networks don’t want anything to do with him. He’s a Radical Left Lunatic whose crazy Climate Change views make the Democrat’s Green New Scam look Conservative. He’s polling badly, 8% at best, but says he does well against Crooked Joe and me, one on one. WRONG, he gets trounced!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“Junior said I’m the ‘best debater’ in generations, and I want to debate him, and Crooked, but first he’s got to get his bad poll numbers up – a lot! He would be ‘easy pickins,’” Trump boasted.
“With all of that said, he probably hurts Sleepy Crooked Joe more than ‘US!’”
So bad that FoxNews puts RFK Jr., considered the dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan, on their fairly conservative platform so much. Competitive networks don’t want anything to do with him. He’s a Radical Left Lunatic whose crazy Climate Change views make the Democrat’s Green New…
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 2, 2024
A recent survey from Emerson College suggests that Kennedy’s presence has benefited Trump’s campaign and harmed Biden’s, eroding the latter’s support in several crucial swing states.
Nevertheless, Trump and his supporters have increased their criticism of Kennedy’s campaign, indicating concerns on both sides about his impact.
Trump posted repeatedly about Kennedy on Truth Social following his appearance on “Real Time With Bill Maher” on HBO.
The former president accused Kennedy of being a “plant” to help Biden win reelection and claimed that voting for him would be a “WASTED PROTEST VOTE,” which could “swing either way.”
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
During a recent interview, the 81-year-old lawmaker called on the former President’s family to immediately stage an intervention
Office of Public Affairs from Washington DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“He knows he’s wacky,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “He knows he’s an imposter.”
“But I do wish there would be an intervention from his family, assuming they love him beyond the resources … that they would intervene,” she said, adding that she also hoped that the “Republican Party would have an intervention.”
On Thursday, Trump visited Capitol Hill and took part in a series of meetings with Republicans on several issues, including abortion and his legal challenges. According to several GOP senators, the former president will attempt to focus on the economy ahead of the November election.
“They have become a cult to a thug,” she said about the visit. “And that is really a tragedy.”
During her MSNBC interview, Pelosi called the former president “a master of projection.”
“Everything he says about somebody else, whether it’s a judge in the courtroom, a witness, a juror, a member of Congress, a woman, an opponent in an election — everything he says is a projection of his own shortcomings,” she said.
Pelosi previously aired her Trump intervention proposal, in February also called for an intervention due to Trump’s mental health.
NEW: 83-year-old Nancy Pelosi says *Trump* (not Biden) needs an intervention about his "mental health."
Pelosi, who is not mentally sharp herself, went on to ramble about Trump and Putin theories, ignoring Putin's strong support of Biden.
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)
ANALYSIS – Where there’s smoke there’s fire. And there is a lot of smoke surrounding Joe and Hunter Biden. It is increasingly clear that Joe Biden has repeatedly lied about his involvement in, and knowledge of, his son Hunter’s overseas influence peddling businesses.
And with Biden’s Department of Justice (DoJ) and FBI dragging their feet with documents requested by congressional investigators, an official impeachment inquiry may be the only way to get to the truth.
And that official inquiry may be coming very soon.
Republicans could open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden over ties to his son Hunter’s shady and unethical business entanglements when Congress reconvenes on September 12.
In the final presidential debate of the 2020 U.S. election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joseph Biden, moderator Kristen Welker asked Biden: “there have been questions about the work your son has done in China and for a Ukrainian energy company when you were vice president; in retrospect, was anything about those relationships inappropriate or unethical?”
“Nothing was unethical. My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China,” Biden replied.
Biden also said he never discussed business with his son.
Well, to put it in Biden terms, that was all a bunch of malarkey.
Now, nearly three years later, Hunter has rebutted Joe Biden’s assertions directly. In court testimony in late June, Hunter acknowledged that he had been paid substantial sums in China – the first official confirmation that this was the case.
This direct contradiction creates a major problem for the White House, and Republicans insist there’s a lot more to find out.
“A lot of the things the president said about his family’s shady business dealings, we’re proving every day that they’re not true,” Republican James Comer, Chair of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, said.
An impeachment inquiry is the next logical step to find out what is true.
The Epoch Times (ET) reported: “House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said that initiating an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden would be a ‘natural step forward.’” This, following unresolved questions from the House Oversight and Accountability Committee’s investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings.
The speaker said on Monday that the impeachment inquiry could start soon. McCarthy added that an impeachment inquiry would provide Congress “the apex of legal power to get all the information they need” to investigate whether President Biden misused his office to assist family businesses.
ET continued:
McCarthy said on Monday that the inquiry was needed to overcome stonewalling of congressional investigators looking for transparency about the Biden family’s business records following testimony from former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer that President Biden met with son Hunter Biden’s business partners during the time he was vice president, as well as concerns raised by whistleblowers at the IRS regarding Hunter Biden’s tax records.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee has so far subpoenaed six different banks, receiving thousands of bank records of businesses and individuals connected to Joe Biden’s family members.
Those records showed that more than $20 million in payments from foreign sources have been made to the president’s relatives, including Hunter Biden, and their business associates while Mr. Biden was acting as U.S. vice president from 2009 to 2017.
Romanian, Chinese, and Russian nationals were among those making payments to the Biden family and their associates. The records also revealed that the funds were funneled through a network of at least 20 shell companies before being transferred to Biden family members.
An inquiry doesn’t mean the House will impeach Biden. But it does give Republicans far more legal power to force reluctant Biden DoJ bureaucrats and others to come forward with the truth.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
First Lady Michelle Obama and Ellen DeGeneres participate in a water balloon game with Stephan Curry during a taping of The Ellen DeGeneres Show in Burbank, California, Sept. 12, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
Ellen DeGeneres has reportedly left the United States following Donald Trump‘s decisive reelection. Alongside her wife, actress Portia de Rossi, DeGeneres has relocated to the rural Cotswolds region in southwestern England, where the celebrity couple plans to settle permanently.
Reports indicate that the pair has already begun the process of parting ways with their California properties. According to sources cited by The Wrap on Wednesday, their Montecito mansion had been “pocket-listed” for sale, or will be officially listed soon. Just one day later, Fox Newsconfirmed their multimillion-dollar estate had already sold:
The DeGeneres source told the outlet that Trump’s re-election had inspired the couple’s decision to jump ship. DeGeneres announced her support for Vice President Kamala Harris in September by reposting Taylor Swift’s Instagram endorsement. She simply added, “This childless cat lady couldn’t agree more,” a direct dig at Vice President-elect JD Vance.
Representatives for DeGeneres and Rossi did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
JUST IN: Ellen DeGeneres has moved to Great Britain and says she is "never coming back" to the United States after Trump's election win.
DeGeneres' Montecito mansion "has been pocket-listed or will be listed soon."
While the decision to leave the U.S. appears to stem primarily from dissatisfaction with the election results, some close to the couple have suggested that DeGeneres’ departure may also be tied to the ongoing fallout from her professional controversies.
In 2022, allegations of a toxic workplace culture on The Ellen DeGeneres Show surfaced, including alleged sexual misconduct. These accusations significantly damaged her reputation and marked the end of her 19-year daytime television career.
– Advertisement –
DeGeneres has since expressed frustration about what she described as being “pushed out of show business” in a Netflix stand-up special.
Following an internal investigation by Warner Bros. into DeGeneres’s talk show, she issued a written apology to her staff while seemingly absolving herself of any responsibility.
“On day one of our show, I told everyone in our first meeting that The Ellen DeGeneres Show would be a place of happiness—no one would ever raise their voice, and everyone would be treated with respect. Obviously, something changed, and I am disappointed to learn that this has not been the case.”
“I could not have the success I’ve had without all of your contributions. My name is on the show and everything we do and I take responsibility for that. Alongside Warner Bros., we immediately began an internal investigation and we are taking steps, together, to correct the issues. As we’ve grown exponentially, I’ve not been able to stay on top of everything and relied on others to do their jobs as they knew I’d want them done. Clearly some didn’t. That will now change and I’m committed to ensuring this does not happen again,” she continued.
Warner Bros. announced following their findings, there would be staffing changes. “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” aired its final episode in 2022, but by then, DeGeneres’ reputation had been permanently impacted.
DeGeneres’ reported move follows empty threats from other A-listers, including Cher, Sharon Stone and Barbra Streisand, who had threatened to leave the U.S. if Trump were victorious once again. Speaking with The Guardian in 2023, Cher said she “almost got an ulcer the last time” Trump nearly regained power. “If he gets in, who knows? This time I will leave [the country].”
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
Just hours after the White House publicly accused congressional Democrats of selectively leaking emails related to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released tens of thousands of additional pages of documents. These include email exchanges between Epstein and prominent journalists.
A significant portion of the new material shows correspondence between Epstein and writer-turned-biographer Michael Wolff. Wolff reached out to Epstein multiple times, discussing not only Epstein’s public image but how to leverage criticism of Donald Trump for strategic benefit.
In February 2016, Wolff wrote to Epstein:
“NYT called me about you and Trump,” “Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.”
A month later they discussed plans ahead of the release of Filthy Rich — a true-crime book by James Patterson about Epstein, who was Patterson’s neighbor in Palm Beach. Wolff suggested to Epstein:
“Becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now.” And he added: “Patterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn’t regarded as a serious writer, he’ll surely be unloading a lot of tabloid copy … Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton angle will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Possibly more than anything you’ve encountered before.”
When Epstein asked Wolff what he should say publicly about his relationship with Trump, Wolff’s advice was pointed:
“If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” “You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”
In further correspondence, Wolff requested introductions for Epstein to two figures close to Trump: business leader and inaugural-committee chair Tom Barrack and former federal prosecutor Kathy Ruemmler. He told Epstein he sought “an off-the-record perspective on White House procedures,” while researching his book about Trump’s first 100 days in office. He also asked whether former President Bill Clinton would confirm he had never been to Epstein’s private U.S. Virgin Islands island, Little St. John — a place Clinton has publicly denied visiting. Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell has also denied seeing Clinton there.
The documents show that Epstein and Wolff planned to meet as recently as May 2019 — months before Epstein died in a federal jail cell while awaiting trial.
Some of the newly released material included a short video of a dog and what appear to be chew toys modeled after Trump and the 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton. Others appear to be slides from an adviser working to generate positive search-engine results for Epstein following his 2008 conviction for child-sex crimes.
Earlier, Democrats had released documents that included an especially cryptic email from Epstein to Maxwell — one that mentions Trump by name, and refers to an unnamed victim of Epstein’s trafficking network. The email read:
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,” Epstein wrote on April 2, 2011. “[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him…he has never once been mentioned. Police chief. etc. I’m 75% there.”
Officials later identified the “unnamed victim” as well-known Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year. Giuffre repeatedly stated that Trump was not involved in wrongdoing and “couldn’t have been friendlier” to her in their limited interactions. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, responded:
“The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre.”
In his own post on Truth Social, Trump weighed in:
“The Democrats cost our Country $1.5 Trillion Dollars with their recent antics of viciously closing our Country, while at the same time putting many at risk — and they should pay a fair price,” he wrote. “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!”
As a reminder: Epstein secured a highly-controversial so-called “sweetheart” deal in 2008 for child-sex crimes. He was arrested again in 2019 on more serious trafficking charges — but died before the case went to trial. Maxwell was convicted of grooming and procuring girls and young women for Epstein; she is appealing and continues to assert her innocence.
Key Takeaways for a Republican Audience
The timing of the document releases and allegations of selective leaking by Democrats raises questions about political motive and media stratagem.
The correspondence shows efforts to frame Epstein’s narrative around Trump — part of a broader attempt to tie the story to the 2016 presidential election and cast Trump in a negative light.
Trump’s defenders argue the documents reinforce his long-standing disassociation from Epstein, as well as serve to remind voters of Democrats’ role in political maneuvering, rather than holding criminals accountable.
For Republicans focused on institutional integrity and media accountability, the episode reinforces concerns about selective exposure of documents, agenda-driven leaks, and manipulation of public perception.
The Trump administration has closed fiscal year 2025 with a historic milestone on border security — the lowest U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions in more than five decades, according to preliminary enforcement data released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Border agents recorded 237,565 apprehensions in fiscal year 2025 — slightly above the 201,780 apprehensions in 1970 but dramatically below recent levels. The numbers represent an 87% drop compared to the average of the past four fiscal years (1.86 million apprehensions) and showcase what can happen when the federal government finally enforces immigration laws.
This achievement came even though 72% of this year’s total apprehensions happened during the final 111 days of the Biden administration — before President Trump returned to office and immediately began reversing his predecessor’s “open-border” policies.
“Fiscal year 2025 shows what happens when we enforce the law without compromise,” said CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott. “For too long, agents and officers were handcuffed by failed policies. Today they are empowered to do their jobs — and the result is the most secure border in modern history.”
Reversing Biden’s Border Chaos
When President Trump took office in January 2025, he inherited what many described as a border crisis fueled by Biden’s mass-release policies. In just the first 111 days of the fiscal year, under Biden’s watch, 172,026 apprehensions occurred — nearly three-quarters of the year’s total.
But once Trump’s immigration directives took effect, the situation changed dramatically. Over the next 254 days, apprehensions plummeted to 65,539 — just 27% of the fiscal year’s total.
September 2025 alone saw only about 279 apprehensions per day along the Southwest border — a staggering 95% decline compared to the Biden-era daily average of 5,110. It also marked the fifth consecutive month of zero illegal immigrant releases by Border Patrol — a stark contrast to 9,144 releases in September 2024.
Across all entry points, CBP recorded roughly 26,000 total encounters in September, down 89% from Biden’s monthly averages.
Strong Action From Day One
President Trump wasted no time taking decisive action to reestablish border control:
Deployed additional personnel to the southern border.
Ended “catch-and-release”, ensuring illegal migrants are no longer released while awaiting hearings.
Shut down Biden’s CBP One app parole loophole, later repurposing the app to help migrants self-deport.
Paused parole programs and authorized ICE to cancel parole statuses.
Ordered strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, restoring morale and authority to frontline border agents.
These policies stand in sharp contrast to Biden’s approach, which relied on controversial “parole” programs and insisted on new legislation instead of acting on existing laws.
