Latest

    Featured

    Home Featured Page 7
    Featured posts

    Inside The White House Correspondents’ Dinner Suspect’s ‘Manifesto’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3

    The man accused of opening fire outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner left behind a detailed “manifesto” describing his intent to target members of the Trump administration, “prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest,” according to a copy obtained by CBS News.

    Cole Allen, 31, allegedly sent the writing to family members before the attack. In it, he stated that while law enforcement, hotel employees, and guests were not his intended targets, he was willing to harm them if necessary to reach administration officials. “I really hope it doesn’t come to that,” he wrote.

    Authorities say Allen charged a security checkpoint outside the Washington Hilton on Saturday night armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and knives. President Donald Trump and other officials were quickly escorted from the event, which was later canceled. A Secret Service agent who was shot during the incident, while wearing a bulletproof vest, has since been released from the hospital.

    The suspect’s brother reportedly alerted police in Connecticut after receiving the email, prompting law enforcement to intervene. Investigators later recovered additional writings from Allen’s home in Torrance, California, and his hotel room at the Hilton.

    A chilling and ironic tone

    Throughout the message, Allen adopted a matter-of-fact tone, at times veering into irony.

    “Hello everybody!” he began. “So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today.”

    He apologized to his parents “for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for ‘Most Wanted,’” and to colleagues and students for claiming he had a personal emergency. He suggested that by the time the email was read, he might already require medical attention, referring to potential injuries as “self-inflicted status.”

    Declared targets — with one exception

    Allen wrote that he chose to act because he did not want the administration’s alleged “crimes” to “coat [his] hands.” While he did not explicitly name Trump or the event, he described a plan to target officials in descending order of rank.

    He made one notable exception: “not including Mr. Patel,” he wrote, referencing the FBI director, who was also in attendance.

    Allen added that he would avoid targeting Secret Service, Capitol Police, or National Guard personnel unless necessary. “I hope they are wearing body armor,” he wrote.

    He also detailed tactical decisions, claiming, “In order to minimize casualties, I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls).”

    Anticipating criticism

    The manifesto included a section addressing hypothetical objections to his actions, along with rebuttals.

    “As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this,” he wrote as a potential criticism. “Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack.”

    He also referenced his Christian faith, writing that some might argue he should “turn the other cheek.”

    “Rebuttal,” he continued, “Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed.”

    Allen then described various unnamed individuals experiencing hardship, in some cases attributing their struggles to the administration.

    “I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it,” he added.

    Criticism of security

    In a postscript, Allen sharply criticized security measures at the event.

    “PS… what the hell is the Secret Service doing? … No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event,” he wrote.

    He claimed that if he had been a foreign agent, he could have brought in heavier weaponry without detection. Officials note that while the Washington Hilton hosted the event, it remained an operational hotel with public access, and only specific areas were secured.

    Family warnings and prior behavior

    Allen’s sister reportedly told investigators that he frequently used “radical” rhetoric and had previously discussed doing “something” to address what he saw as problems in society and government.

    She also revealed her brother was a regular visitor to the shooting range, was a member of a group called “The Wide Awakes” and had previously attended a “No Kings” rally in California. 

    Political reaction and unanswered questions

    The motive behind the attack remains under investigation.

    Former President Barack Obama emphasized the lack of confirmed details while condemning political violence broadly.

    “Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting… it’s incumbent upon all of us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” Obama wrote. He also praised the Secret Service, calling their work “a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice” they show.

    During a “60 Minutes” interview, Trump reacted angrily after host Norah O’Donnell read excerpts from the alleged manifesto.

    “You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all stuff that has nothing to do with me,” Trump said, adding, “You should be ashamed of yourself… You’re a disgrace.”

    More than 2,500 people had gathered for the annual dinner, which celebrates the First Amendment. Trump, who has typically declined to attend during his presidency, had made a historic appearance this year and has since said he hopes to reschedule the event within 30 days.

    The Full Manifesto

    To read Allen’s full 1,052-word manifesto as published by The New York Post, with minor edits to improve profanity, see below:

    Hello everybody!

    So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.

    I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”

    I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)

    I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.

    I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.

    I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.

    On to why I did any of this:

    I am a citizen of the United States of America.

    What my representatives do reflects on me.

    And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

    (Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)

    While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

    Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

    Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

    Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)

    Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security

    National Guard: same as Hotel Security

    Hotel Employees: not targets at all

    Guests: not targets at all

    In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)

    I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

    Rebuttals to objections:

    Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.

    Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.

    Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.

    Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.

    Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?

    This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.

    Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.

    Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.

    Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.

    Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack

    Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

    Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.

    I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)

    Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.

    Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.

    Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.

    Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.

    Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.

    Thank you all for everything.

    Sincerely,

    Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen

    PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.

    Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.

    What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.

    No damn security.

    Not in transport.

    Not in the hotel.

    Not in the event.

    Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.

    I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

    The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

    Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.

    Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed s**t.

    Actually insane.

    Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.

    Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.

    John Kennedy here. The last fundraising deadline passed — and we came up short. Now the woke crowd is celebrating, saying “Kennedy’s finished.” Let’s prove them wrong. Chip in $25, $50, or whatever you can to close the gap and keep fighting.

    Trump’s Signature To Be Added To US Currency

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

    The Treasury Department announced Thursday that President Donald Trump’s signature will be added to future U.S. paper currency, a move that would mark a notable departure from longstanding norms governing American money.

    If implemented, Trump would become the first sitting president whose name appears on U.S. currency, a development that is already drawing both historical comparisons and legal scrutiny. Traditionally, U.S. paper currency features the engraved portraits of deceased presidents and statesmen, along with the signature of the Treasury secretary and the treasurer of the United States—not the president.

    The announcement comes alongside broader efforts tied to Trump’s image and legacy in U.S. coinage. The administration has supported the creation of two coins bearing Trump’s likeness: a proposed $1 coin and a special 24-karat commemorative gold coin. The latter recently received approval from the federal Commission of Fine Arts, which voted to move forward with a design based on a photograph of Trump taken in the White House.

    Historically, depictions of living individuals on U.S. currency have been restricted. Federal law generally prohibits living persons, including presidents, from appearing on U.S. currency. The administration, however, has argued that the restriction applies differently to coins than to paper money, opening the door to legal interpretation and potential challenges. The only sitting president ever to appear on a U.S. coin was Calvin Coolidge, who was featured on a commemorative half dollar in 1926 marking the 150th anniversary of American independence.

    Treasury officials framed the decision as part of a broader effort to commemorate the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary, also known as the Semiquincentennial, which will take place in 2026. The milestone has prompted a range of proposals aimed at celebrating American history, including new currency designs and commemorative issues.

    “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are on a path toward unprecedented economic growth, lasting dollar dominance, and fiscal strength and stability,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement.

    “There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Donald J. Trump than U.S dollar bills bearing his name, and it is only appropriate that this historic currency be issued at the Semiquincentennial,” he added.

    Supporters of the move argue that it reflects Trump’s economic agenda and its perceived impact on U.S. financial policy, while critics have raised concerns about breaking with precedent and politicizing national symbols like currency. Some Democrats and outside stakeholders have already voiced opposition, particularly regarding the commemorative gold coin, arguing that such decisions should adhere to established bipartisan norms and legal guidelines.

    Beyond the political debate, the mechanics of redesigning U.S. currency are complex. Changes to paper money typically involve coordination between the Treasury Department, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the Federal Reserve, and can take years to implement due to security features, anti-counterfeiting measures, and logistical considerations.

    The Treasury has not yet provided a timeline for when the updated currency bearing Trump’s signature would enter circulation, nor has it clarified whether the change would apply across all denominations.

    READ NEXT: Senate Candidate Behind Bars After Florida Resort Incident

    Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

    Hunter Biden Admits His ‘Bias’ Towards Pardons, Says Founders ‘Didn’t Imagine Trump’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4
    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)

    Hunter Biden is openly acknowledging what critics have argued for months: when it comes to his father’s sweeping pardon, he is anything but objective.

    “I’m completely biased as it relates to what my dad did for me. I fully understand how uniquely situated I am in being privileged enough to have received a pardon from my father,” Hunter said in an interview published by liberal outlet MediasTouch.

    The admission revives scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s dramatic reversal on the issue. After repeatedly insisting he would not grant clemency to his son, Biden ultimately issued a sweeping pardon—undercutting Democrats’ long-standing “no one is above the law” message as Hunter faced serious federal charges.

    Despite conceding his own bias, Hunter declined to weigh in on potential reforms to the presidential pardon system. Instead, he pivoted to attacking former President Donald Trump’s use of the same authority, pointing to the more than 1,000 individuals pardoned in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protest.

    Hunter Biden was granted an unusually broad pardon covering any offense he “has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024—a scope that drew bipartisan criticism.

    “I was filled with gratitude,” he said of his father’s decision.

    The legal backdrop is significant. In September 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges tied to a scheme that evaded more than $1.4 million in taxes. Months earlier, he was convicted in Delaware for lying about his drug use on a federal firearm purchase form.

    Still, Hunter sought to shift the focus toward Trump and his family, saying, “I don’t think that the founders ever imagined Donald Trump. I don’t think they ever imagined the Trump family.”

    He also attempted to contrast pardon totals: “I don’t think people understand is that, in the first year, I think—I don’t know the exact number—I think my dad gave 80 or so pardons over a four-year period of time. I think that that’s about the number.”

    He added, “Donald Trump has given over 1,500 pardons in the first year alone. But I’m obviously—I’m not the one to be, I don’t think, fairly or unbiasedly talking about the presidential pardon vote.”

    Trump, notably, did not pardon any of his children during his presidency, though he did grant clemency in 2020 to Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.

    The White House defended Trump’s record, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying he has used his authority to pardon individuals who were victims of what she described as a “weaponized justice system.”

    Jackson also criticized Biden’s final actions in office, arguing that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen,” citing clemency for violent offenders and “proactive pardons he ‘signed’ for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door.”

    In addition to Hunter, Biden issued pardons to several relatives, including his brother James, sister-in-law Sara, sister Valerie, and brother Francis—moves he framed as necessary protection against political retaliation.

    READ NEXT: Congresswoman Resigns In Stunning Last-Minute Exit

    Tick-Tock: Time is running out to sync your Trump account before your data is lost forever! Team Trump is counting on you. HURRY, before it’s too late! [Click HERE to update your info]

    Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals To DOJ For 2 Officials Linked To Trump Impeachment

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Tulsi Gabbard via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has referred two former U.S. officials to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation, escalating efforts to revisit the events that led to President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.

    A spokesperson for Gabbard confirmed that the referrals target a whistleblower and former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, both of whom played central roles in the 2019 inquiry. The spokesperson did not specify what crimes were alleged, and any decision to pursue charges rests with federal prosecutors.

    The move follows Gabbard’s release of newly declassified testimony and documents that she argues show a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community to “manufacture a conspiracy” used to justify Trump’s impeachment.

    Atkinson’s actions were instrumental in advancing a whistleblower complaint that raised concerns about Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In that call, Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate then–former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

    The whistleblower wrote at the time: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

    Gabbard has sharply disputed the legitimacy of that complaint and Atkinson’s handling of it. Her office said Atkinson relied on “secondhand information” and “politicized, manufactured narratives,” and “did not follow standard IG procedures.”

    “In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a ‘preliminary investigation,’” her office said, quoting testimony in which he acknowledged he had not determined whether the alleged actions “actually took place.”

    Under federal law, however, an inspector general’s role at that stage is limited to assessing whether a whistleblower complaint appears credible, not to fully investigate or verify the claims.

    In a post on X, Gabbard accused “deep state actors” of constructing “a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019.”

    Atkinson, who was fired by Trump in 2020, previously defended his conduct, saying he had “faithfully discharged” his duties and served “without regard to partisan favor or political fear.”

    Democrats quickly condemned the referrals and the broader effort to revisit the impeachment.

    Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the whistleblower “demonstrated courage and principle” in exposing Trump’s “efforts to extort Ukraine and falsely smear his opponent.”

    “This apparent criminal referral will amount to nothing because no misconduct occurred,” Himes said. “But what it will do is chill future whistleblowers from coming forward… I suspect that is precisely the point.”

    Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed the declassified materials as “a nothingburger” and “another sad attempt… to get in Donald Trump’s good graces.”

    Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress tied to the Ukraine matter. He was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020 in a largely party-line vote and has consistently denied wrongdoing, calling his conversation with Zelenskyy “perfect.”

    The latest referrals come as part of a broader push by Gabbard and other officials to reexamine controversies from Trump’s first term, including intelligence assessments of Russian election interference. While some figures connected to those investigations have been subpoenaed in ongoing probes, no charges have been filed.

    At the same time, the effort unfolds against a backdrop of renewed political and legal scrutiny surrounding Trump. While prior impeachment proceedings ended in acquittal and are widely viewed as politically unlikely to result in removal from office, they continue to shape partisan divisions in Washington. Any new impeachment-related efforts would face long odds in Congress, particularly given the high threshold required for conviction in the Senate.

    Still, the renewed focus on the 2019 impeachment underscores how the political battles of Trump’s presidency continue to reverberate, with competing narratives over the Ukraine episode remaining central to broader debates about executive power, accountability, and the role of intelligence agencies in U.S. politics.

    House Democrats File Bill to Form 25th Amendment Commission to Assess Trump’s Mental Fitness

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    8
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is leading the latest Democratic push to remove President Donald Trump from office—but like past efforts, this one faces steep odds, even as it draws a larger bloc of support.

    Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has rolled out a new bill backed by roughly 50 House Democrats that would create a commission to evaluate Trump’s mental fitness under the 25th Amendment.

    The proposal would assemble a bipartisan panel of physicians and former top officials to determine whether Trump is “mentally or physically unable” to carry out his duties.

    “The Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to create a body that will guarantee the successful continuity of government by responding to presidential incapacity to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Raskin said. “We have a solemn duty to play our defined role under the 25th Amendment by setting up this body to act alongside the Vice President and the Cabinet.”

    He added, “Public trust in Donald Trump’s ability to meet the duties of his office has dropped to unprecedented lows as he threatens to destroy entire civilizations.”

    Raskin has also formally pushed for a medical evaluation of the president, citing what he called “incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening” public comments tied to the Iran conflict.

    But here’s the reality: the effort is a long shot.

    Republicans still control both chambers of Congress, meaning the bill is unlikely to pass—and even if it did, Trump could veto it. More importantly, the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the Cabinet to sign off on removing Trump, a scenario widely seen as improbable.

    Even in the unlikely event that hurdle were cleared, Congress would still need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to make any removal permanent.

    In other words, this is far from a realistic path to ousting the president.

    FROM THE DESK OF DONALD TRUMP JR. Democrats tried to rig the census by counting millions of illegal immigrants — giving blue states more power in Congress. Now we’re making sure only American citizens are counted. But first, we need to verify our own records. CONFIRM YOUR VOTER INFORMATION NOW.

    Still, the size of the backing is notable. About 50 Democrats have signed on, making this one of the more organized removal efforts of Trump’s second term so far.

    It also comes amid a broader wave of attempts by Democrats to challenge Trump’s presidency—from new impeachment articles filed by multiple lawmakers to calls for the 25th Amendment following his escalating rhetoric on Iran.

    That pattern isn’t new. Trump was impeached twice during his first term, with both efforts ultimately failing to remove him from office in the Senate. Now, similar political battles are resurfacing, though with slightly broader coordination this time.

    The White House quickly dismissed Raskin’s latest push.

    “Lightweight Jamie Raskin is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person,” said spokesperson Davis Ingle. “President Trump’s sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the past four years when Democrats like Raskin intentionally covered up Joe Biden’s serious mental and physical decline from the American people.”

    Trump himself has defended his rhetoric, arguing his hardline stance forced Iran to the negotiating table and helped secure a temporary ceasefire.

    For now, Raskin’s plan is unlikely to go anywhere. But the growing number of Democrats backing it—and the renewed push for impeachment and removal—signals that the political fight over Trump’s presidency is only heating up.

    Trump Snub? GOP Incumbents Accused of ‘Borrowing’ President’s Support to Survive Brutal Primaries

    By
    admin
    -
    1
    President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

    President Donald Trump’s pull inside the Republican Party is still absolute.

    His endorsement? Political gold.

    “The Trump endorsement is king in any primary,” longtime GOP strategist Jesse Hunt told Fox News Digital. Fellow Republican consultant Matt Gorman didn’t mince words either, calling it “an undeniable force.”

    And that reality is driving a new, high-stakes strategy among vulnerable Republicans: if you can’t win Trump’s backing… try to look like you have it anyway.

    PLAYING DEFENSE AGAINST TRUMP-BACKED CHALLENGERS

    Across the country, embattled GOP incumbents are facing serious primary threats from candidates backed by Trump himself. And instead of confronting that head-on, some are leaning into carefully crafted messaging that suggests they’re still aligned with the president.

    Take Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy.

    Cassidy — one of just seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump after the January 6 impeachment — is now locked in a tough primary against Trump-endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow.

    But you wouldn’t know that from his ads.

    In one spot, Cassidy highlights a fentanyl bill he authored, adding:
    “President Trump said it was the most important legislation he would sign this year,”

    Images of Trump appear prominently.

    Another ad goes further, flashing “Trump & Cassidy” on screen while touting tax cuts the two “worked” on together.

    Notably missing? Any mention that Trump is backing his opponent.

    MASSIE’S PHOTO-OP FLASHBACK

    In Kentucky, Rep. Thomas Massie — a longtime Trump critic — is facing a Trump-backed challenger, former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein.

    Massie has repeatedly clashed with Trump, including over the Epstein files and foreign policy. But in a recent campaign ad, he spotlighted an old photo of himself smiling alongside the former president.

    A subtle signal — but a deliberate one.

    Meanwhile, Trump allies are pouring money into boosting Gallrein and attacking Massie.

    CORNERNED IN TEXAS

    In Texas, Sen. John Cornyn is fighting for survival in a runoff against MAGA favorite and state Attorney General John Paxton.

    Trump hasn’t endorsed either candidate — but Cornyn is making sure voters remember their past relationship.

    In one ad, the narrator says Cornyn “had his back,” as footage shows Trump and the senator giving a thumbs-up together.

    “We’re especially grateful to your wonderful senators,” Trump says in an old clip featured in the ad, referring to Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz.

    Unlike Cassidy and Massie, Cornyn isn’t contradicting an endorsement — but he’s still leaning hard into Trump’s image.

    HIGH-RISK STRATEGY?

    The tactic may be clever — but it’s also dangerous.

    Hunt warns that implying support from Trump when you don’t actually have it could blow up fast.

    “If you haven’t earned it but portray as though you have, it could be the end of your campaign,” he said. “That’s if the President decides to take issue with it.”

    In today’s GOP, one thing is clear: crossing Trump is risky — but pretending he’s on your side when he isn’t could be even worse.

    Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

    Pope Leo Sends Bold Response After Trump Ramps Up Attacks Against The Pontiff

      By
      Madeleine Jackson
      -
      6
      President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

      Pope Leo XIV pushed back Monday against criticism from President Donald Trump, framing his remarks on peace as rooted in religious teaching rather than politics.

      Speaking to reporters aboard the papal plane en route to Algeria, the pope dismissed the notion that his message should be interpreted as a political challenge to the White House.

      “I have no fear of the Trump administration,” the pope said.

      “The message of the church, my message, the message of the Gospel: Blessed are the Peacemakers. I do not look at my role as being political, a politician,” he added.

      The exchange follows a sharp escalation from Trump, who on Sunday used his Truth Social platform to attack the pope’s positions on global security, crime, and diplomacy. In a lengthy post, Trump accused Leo of undermining strong foreign policy and aligning with left-wing priorities.

      “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” Trump wrote.

      “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church,” he continued.

      Trump later expanded on those criticisms while speaking to reporters on the tarmac after arriving on Air Force One, suggesting the pope’s rhetoric was dangerously out of step with global threats.

      “We don’t like a pope that’s going to say that it’s okay to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “We don’t want a pope that says crime is okay in our cities. I don’t like it.”

      “I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo. He’s a very liberal person, and he’s a man that doesn’t believe in stopping crime,” he added. “He’s a man that doesn’t think that we should be toying with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world.”

      Trump also made the claim that his presidency played a role in Leo’s rise, pointing to the pope’s American background.

      “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” Trump wrote. “He gets it, and Leo doesn’t.”

      “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” Trump said.

      Responding Monday, Leo declined to engage directly in a political back-and-forth but made clear he viewed Trump’s criticisms as a misunderstanding of the church’s mission.

      “The things that I say are certainly not meant as attacks on anyone,” he said, speaking in English. “I don’t think that the message of the Gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing.”

      He also took a subtle swipe at Trump’s preferred platform, adding, “it’s ironic, the name of the site itself; say no more,” while insisting, “I will not enter into debate.”

      The pope emphasized that his comments on war, nuclear risk, and international cooperation are grounded in longstanding church teaching, not support for any government or adversary.

      “To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is,” Leo said. “And I’m sorry to hear that but I will continue on what I believe is the mission of the church in the world today.”

      “I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among the states to look for just solutions to problems,” he added.

      Framing his position as a moral imperative rather than a geopolitical stance, Leo pointed to the human cost of ongoing conflicts.

      “Too many people are suffering in the world today,” he said. “Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to stand up and say there’s a better way.”

      Leo also rejected Trump’s suggestion that his comments were aligned with Iran or any specific government.

      “Leo claimed he was speaking for the church and not himself or Iran.”

      The clash highlights a broader divide between the Vatican’s emphasis on diplomacy and moral authority and Trump’s more confrontational approach to foreign policy and domestic security—a divide now playing out publicly between two of the world’s most prominent figures.

      Vice President Vance downplayed concerns about President Trump’s ongoing feud with Pope Leo XIV late Monday.

      Vance, who is promoting his upcoming book about his conversion to Catholicism, dismissed the backlash over the exchange in an interview with Fox News.

      “I don’t think that it’s particularly newsworthy, but I certainly think that in some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of what’s going on in the Catholic Church and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” he said.

      Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

      Democrat Candidate Calls For Banning MAGA From Internet

        By
        Madeleine Jackson
        -
        4
        Gage Skidmore Flickr

        A Democratic candidate for the Georgia House is under fire after proposing a sweeping—and controversial—“punishment” for Trump supporters: kicking them off social media for four years.

        Suzanna Karatassos, a self-described “progressive fighter” running for a seat held by Republican state Rep. Houston Gaines, made the remark in a now-deleted video that quickly spread online.

        “When this is all over and Trump’s gone and Democrats are back in charge and we’re rebuilding everything, the punishment for MAGA for voting for Trump three times needs to be they remove their internet access for four years,” Karatassos said.

        “That they cannot post videos or comments on social media for four straight years, so that none of us are subjected to their lies and misinformation while we are rebuilding the chaos that they caused the whole world and America gets to be without their BS online for 4 straight years.”

        “Can we all agree to this?” she added.

        Karatassos later deleted the video—but not before it was captured and widely shared by critics.

        Her comments land in the middle of a heated national fight over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s role in policing online content.

        In 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a sweeping injunction blocking federal agencies—including the FBI and Department of Health and Human Services—from pressuring social media companies to suppress “protected free speech.”

        Doughty pointed to 25 instances of alleged government pressure on tech platforms, according to reporting tied to a thread by Substack writer Justin Hart.

        But the Supreme Court later struck down that ruling in a 6–3 decision, saying the states and individuals who brought the case lacked legal standing. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

        Separate emails from April 2021 also showed the Biden White House pushing Facebook over content, including a Tucker Carlson video on COVID-19 vaccines.

        Meanwhile, Karatassos’ remarks are already fueling backlash—raising fresh questions about how far some candidates are willing to go when it comes to policing political speech online and Donald Trump.

        Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

        Trump Asks Court To Throw Out Remnants of ‘Legally Unsound’ Fraud Case

        By
        Madeleine Jackson
        -
        1
        Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

        President Trump has asked New York’s highest court to dismiss the remaining findings and penalties in the state’s civil fraud case against him, arguing that the lawsuit brought by Attorney General Letitia James was legally flawed and politically motivated.

        In a 119-page filing submitted Wednesday to the New York Court of Appeals, Trump’s attorneys described the case as an “unprecedented” use of the attorney general’s authority and urged the court to fully overturn it.

        “This Court should put an end to this politically motivated action,” his lawyers wrote.

        James filed the civil lawsuit in 2022, accusing Trump and his family business of inflating the value of their assets to secure more favorable loan and insurance terms. The case became one of the most significant legal challenges Trump has faced, threatening both his public image as a successful real estate developer and the future of the Trump Organization. It also elevated James as one of Trump’s most prominent political and legal adversaries.

        The case has taken a complex path through the courts. After a bench trial, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable for fraud and imposed a $464 million judgment, which grew to more than $500 million with interest. Engoron also barred Trump from serving in top roles at New York companies for three years, imposed two-year bans on his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and appointed an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s business practices.

        However, a mid-level appellate court later struck down the financial penalty as excessive, removing the largest monetary consequence while leaving the liability finding and other restrictions in place. The appellate judges were sharply divided in their ruling.

        Despite that partial victory, Trump’s legal team is now seeking to eliminate the remaining penalties and the underlying liability determination. His lawyers acknowledged the “unusual posture” of the appeal, since the prior ruling largely benefited him, but argued that the decision still rests on an “erroneous finding” that must be reversed.

        “This unprecedented and legally unsound case is about far more than President Trump,” his lawyers said, arguing that James stretched a New York law targeting “persistent fraud or illegality” beyond its intended use.

        “If left on the books, the mistaken legal rulings below threaten New York’s position as the Nation’s financial capital, as well as the State’s commercial real-estate industry,” they added.

        The New York attorney general’s office, which has also appealed aspects of the appellate ruling, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

        The appeal comes amid a broader and highly contentious legal and political battle between Trump and James. During the period between Trump’s presidential terms, James secured a major civil fraud ruling against him, while Trump and his allies have repeatedly accused her of pursuing politically motivated cases.

        More recently, Trump administration officials have sought to pursue criminal cases against James. She was indicted last fall on mortgage fraud allegations, but a federal judge dismissed the charges, finding that the prosecutor who brought the case had been unlawfully appointed. Prosecutors later sought two additional indictments, but grand juries declined to bring charges.

        Trump’s latest appeal now asks the state’s highest court to bring the long-running civil case to a close by wiping out the remaining findings and penalties that continue to affect him and his business.

        Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

        Trump Calls For Fox News To Take ‘Loser’ Host Off The Air

          By
          Madeleine Jackson
          -
          5

          President Donald Trump criticized two Fox News hosts in a Truth Social post, calling on network executives to remove one of them from the air.

          Trump first responded to a “Fox News Sunday” interview with Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, accusing anchor Shannon Bream of failing to challenge what he described as false claims made by Democrats on her program. He also targeted Jessica Tarlov, a co-host of “The Five” and a liberal panelist who appears on the Sunday show, urging that she be taken off the air.

          “Tell Shannon Bream of FoxNews that it’s not the Save Act, it’s the Save America Act, a big difference! Also, when she insists on having lightweight Democrat Congressmen, such as Jake Auchincloss, on her not very hard hitting show, she should correct them when they spew out Democrat propaganda and lies. She never does! I always close deals, unlike the Dems, and did great with China in every way, also, unlike the Dems!” Trump said.

          “For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air. She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst “personalities” on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump continued.

          During the “Fox News Sunday” segment, Auchincloss said the war in Iran has been a “failure” and argued that it has given Iran leverage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

          Trump has previously criticized Fox News, particularly after the network’s early projection that former President Joe Biden would win Arizona in the 2020 election. In a March appearance on “The Five,” Trump said he was not a fan of Tarlov, who frequently criticizes him on-air, and suggested the show would be better without her.

          “I watch Jessica, and I’m not a fan,” Trump said. “And she uses fake numbers. She’ll give, ‘Well, he’s only polling 42%.’ That’s not right. Polling very high, actually.” He added criticism of “bad journalists” who write “fake stories,” before saying, “I’m sure I’d like her. I’m sure she’s a lovely person.”

          URGENT MISSION: 35 brave House GOP members are in JEOPARDY! Today ONLY, you can donate ANY amount and it will go DIRECTLY to fending off attacks on our 35 brightest MAGA fighters in Congress in these vulnerable districts! [Rush Donation HERE]
          1...678...106Page 7 of 106
          © Great America News Desk 2022