Latest

    Media

    Home Media Page 2

    CNN Inks Deal With Major Prediction Market Backed by Trump Jr.

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

    CNN is reportedly entering a new partnership with prediction-market company Kalshi that would weave Kalshi’s real-time odds and forecasts into CNN’s on-air and digital coverage—an alliance that also has the effect of placing the network in a business relationship with Donald Trump Jr.

    Axios first reported the deal Tuesday, citing sources who said Kalshi will appear “across its television, digital, and social channels.” Under the arrangement, Kalshi’s prediction data would be featured on CNN programming as a live “real-time data ticker,” with additional segments built around prediction-market oriented content touching politics, news, culture, and weather. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is also expected to incorporate Kalshi’s numbers into his data-driven analysis, according to the report.

    The collaboration would represent Kalshi’s first major partnership with a national news organization—an important milestone for a company that has sought to position itself as a go-to source for fast-moving probability estimates about cultural and political events. In practice, prediction markets function like real-time sentiment gauges: prices (or implied probabilities) move up and down as participants buy and sell contracts tied to specific outcomes, translating collective bets into a snapshot of what the market thinks is most likely at a given moment. For a television newsroom, that kind of constantly updating “odds board” can be a compelling visual—especially during election cycles and major breaking-news moments—because it packages uncertainty into an easy-to-read number.

    But the most politically sensitive dimension of the reported partnership is who else is tied to Kalshi.

    As Media Matters’ Matthew Gertz noted, Donald Trump Jr. announced in January 2025 that he had joined Kalshi as a “strategic advisor.” Trump Jr. framed the company as a disruptive force in the U.S. market for event-based trading, touting Kalshi’s legal fights and its efforts to build mainstream legitimacy. “I’m excited to be part of what they’re building,” he said at the time, casting Kalshi as a pioneering player in an industry that has long operated in a gray area in the United States.

    That makes CNN’s reported move notable for more than its graphics package. If Kalshi data becomes a recurring on-air feature—particularly in political coverage—CNN would be elevating a product linked to a prominent partisan figure: the son of a president and a central surrogate in Republican politics. Even if Trump Jr. has no day-to-day role in editorial decisions at CNN, his publicly announced advisory position creates an unavoidable headline: a major news network integrating a data feed from a company whose strategic advisor is one of the most recognizable names in national GOP politics.

    The questions are as much about perception as they are about logistics. Prediction-market numbers can be useful as one input among many—alongside polling, modeling, and reporting—but they can also be misunderstood by audiences as “what will happen” rather than “what traders think might happen,” especially when those percentages are presented like sports odds. And with Trump Jr. connected to the company supplying the data, critics are likely to scrutinize when and how CNN uses the ticker, whether the network discloses the advisory relationship on-air, and how often the data appears in politically charged segments.

    For Kalshi, the upside is obvious: a prominent distribution channel that could normalize prediction markets and introduce the brand to a much larger audience. For CNN, the draw is fresh, visually dynamic data—something that fits modern broadcast pacing and could complement its analytics-heavy style, particularly in elections and major news events. But the addition of Donald Trump Jr. to the equation ensures the partnership won’t be viewed as just another data collaboration.

    Hillsdale College’s new free online course, “American Paintings,” takes you on a guided tour of our story through art. If you love this country and want to rediscover the spirit that built it, this course is for you. Be among the first to enroll — SIGN UP NOW and start “American Paintings” today.

    House Democrat Launches Investigation Into Trump’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview Edit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) is pressing CBS and its parent company, Paramount, to explain how the network handled edits to a President Trump interview that aired on “60 Minutes” on Nov. 2 — raising new questions about media transparency, newsroom accountability, and whether political pressure is being applied behind the scenes.

    In a letter to newly appointed CBS News ombudsperson Ken Weinstein, first shared with The Hill, Raskin accused the network of yielding to what he called the “improper influence President Donald Trump wielded over CBS News’s editorial decisions” in recent weeks.

    “President Trump increasingly appears to be exercising direct control over CBS’s editorial decisions, destroying CBS’s ‘journalistic integrity’ while violating its right to be free from governmental coercion and manipulation,” Raskin wrote.

    At the center of the dispute is CBS’s decision not to include a portion of Trump’s on-camera remarks to journalist Norah O’Donnell in which he referenced a past settlement involving Paramount and his presidential foundation. That omission, Raskin argued, undercuts the network’s responsibility to air relevant context — especially at a moment when many conservatives have long criticized legacy media for selective editing and narrative framing.

    In the transcript CBS posted online after the broadcast, Trump’s comments appeared, even though they weren’t included during the televised segment:

    “And, actually, ’60 Minutes’ paid me a lot of money,” Trump said. “And you don’t have to put this on, because I don’t want to embarrass you, and I’m sure you’re not … I think you have a great, new leader, frankly, who’s — the young woman that’s leading your whole enterprise is a great, from what I know.”

    Raskin’s complaint comes against the backdrop of a separate editing fight involving CBS and a “similar interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election,” which drew heavy criticism from Trump allies and prompted CBS to change its approach. After that blowback, CBS pledged to publish full transcripts of “60 Minutes” interviews with presidents and presidential candidates — a move some conservatives applauded as a step toward transparency.

    The letter also points to a major leadership shakeup inside Paramount and CBS. The transcript indicates Trump’s reference to a “new leader” was aimed at Bari Weiss, described as “the former New York Times columnist and a controversial figure in media,” who was installed as CBS’s editor in chief under new CEO David Ellison — son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison.

    Raskin’s letter further notes broader corporate and regulatory developments surrounding Paramount, including federal approval for its merger with Skydance and reported plans for additional media deals. He also claimed CBS News “is just one victim in President Trump’s systematic campaign of intimidation against media organizations,” and referenced Trump’s reported threats involving the BBC over editing in a Jan. 6 documentary.

    In practical terms, Raskin is asking for internal detail on how CBS handles complaints and how editorial choices get made. He is requesting a written explanation of CBS’s complaint-review standards, an assessment of whether “Trump’s requests to CBS to omit portions of his interview violates CBS News’s editorial independence standards,” and “all documents, communications, and editorial guidance provided to ‘60 Minutes’ producers regarding the Trump interview.”

    In his message to Weinstein, Raskin framed the ombudsman’s role as a check on management and outside influence:

    “Mr. Weinstein: news ombudsmen serve as independent advocates for the public, investigating complaints and publicly critiquing their organizations when those organizations fall short,” Raskin wrote. “You have a duty to defend CBS’s editorial independence, rather than ratify President Trump’s influence over the organization’s coverage.”

    Hanging on by a thread: Republicans hold the slimmest majority in 100 years! The GOP needs YOUR help to defeat the Democrats. Help save the House!

    Controversial Republicans Join New Pentagon Press Corps For Rare Briefing

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    Right-wing media personality Laura Loomer and former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) were among the press invited to a rare Pentagon briefing Tuesday, a meeting that underscored the Defense Department’s shifting approach to media access and messaging.

    Gaetz—once floated for attorney general and now a host at the pro-Trump outlet One America News Network—was called on early and asked what role the U.S. military could play in Venezuela if the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, flees amid a Trump administration pressure campaign tied to allegations of drug trafficking.

    “The department has a contingency plan for everything,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson replied. “Our focus is taking out narco terrorists … every single boat we strike is saving American lives.”

    The briefing comes as the Pentagon is facing backlash, including from some Republican lawmakers, over two U.S. military strikes in September on an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. The second strike reportedly killed survivors of the initial hit, raising fresh questions on Capitol Hill about rules of engagement and oversight.

    When Loomer was recognized, she asked about reported plans for the United States to sell fighter jets to Qatar.

    Wilson responded that the Pentagon “looks forward to continuing its partnership with Qatar.” Loomer pushed back, calling Qatar the “largest sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood,” and asked whether the U.S. would “reevaluate” its relationship with the country.

    Wilson declined to suggest any policy shift, saying the Defense Department “prioritizes national security” and that he was not aware of changes to U.S.-Qatari military agreements.

    The exchange unfolded against broader turmoil over Pentagon press access. Earlier this fall, the department announced a major revamp of operating procedures for journalists covering the Pentagon, including a requirement that reporters sign a more restrictive press policy—an overhaul that reportedly contributed to a mass departure of several mainstream outlets from the building.

    In response, the Trump administration has credentialed a number of right-leaning or MAGA-aligned figures, including some who have not previously attended Pentagon press briefings in person, signaling an effort to broaden access beyond the traditional media establishment.

    President Trump is fighting to make the U.S. Census citizens-only, and he needs every patriot standing with him. ADD YOUR NAME & STAND WITH TRUMP.

    Florida Judge Tosses Truth Social Lawsuit Against The Guardian

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    A Florida judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Truth Social’s parent company, Truth Media & Technology Group Corp. (TMTG), against The Guardian, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and several reporters—marking another instance in which legal actions connected to President Donald Trump’s media interests have faced significant hurdles in court.

    The case stemmed from two articles published by the UK-based Guardian in March 2023. According to Judge Hunter Carroll of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Sarasota County, the reporting focused on “a federal criminal investigation related to TMTG’s receipt of two payments totaling $8 million.” The articles described claims—sourced to individuals familiar with the matter—that “federal prosecutors in New York were conducting a money laundering investigation related to the payments, which were wired through the Caribbean from Paxum Bank and ES Family Trust, entities with ties to an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin and a history of providing banking services to the sex worker industry.” The reporting also said the origins of the loans raised internal concerns at TMTG, including that its then-CFO considered returning the funds before the company “ultimately did not.”

    The Guardian’s reporting was later referenced by other outlets, including the Herald-Tribune. TMTG filed suit, arguing the articles were false and defamatory and asserting that TMTG “is not, and never was, under investigation for money laundering,” and that neither the company nor its executives “have been the focus of any investigation.”

    Judge Carroll noted in his ruling that TMTG acknowledged it is a public figure, which requires a higher standard of proof—“actual malice”—to prevail on a defamation claim. After reviewing the allegations, the court concluded that TMTG had not met that threshold. The judge also cited Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, intended to stop lawsuits “without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue.” Under the statute, defendants may recover attorneys’ fees when targeted by meritless suits aimed at discouraging public participation.

    Carroll emphasized that “merely reporting on negative information is not enough to establish actual malice,” adding that the law “requires more than a departure from journalistic standards or a mere failure to investigate.”

    The articles, he wrote, were grounded in “multiple sources familiar with the investigation, review of internal TMTG communications, investigation of the entities who made the loans, and fruitless requests for further information from the Department of Justice, the investigators’ office, and outside counsel for TMTG.”

    TMTG’s CEO Devin Nunes—formerly a Republican congressman—had publicly denied that the company was aware of any issues related to the loans, and the Guardian included his denial in its reporting. But Carroll found that the denial did not demonstrate malice, writing: “This denial is not germane to the existence or nature of the investigation, and even if it was, such commonplace denials do not establish actual malice.”

    Broader Context: Trump-Affiliated Defamation Suits Face Legal Barriers

    The dismissal is the latest example of how defamation cases brought by Trump or entities connected to him have struggled to move forward, largely due to high legal standards for public figures and strong protections for political and investigative reporting.

    Key related examples include:

    Trump v. CNN (2022–2023)

    President Trump sued CNN for $475 million, arguing the network defamed him by comparing some of his statements about the 2020 election to rhetoric used by authoritarian regimes. A federal judge dismissed the suit in 2023, finding that the comparisons were protected opinion rather than factual claims.

    Trump Campaign v. The New York Times (2020–2021)

    The Trump campaign sued The New York Times over an opinion piece suggesting Trump had welcomed Russian election interference. A New York judge dismissed the case, emphasizing that opinion columns—especially on political matters—receive robust First Amendment protection.

    Trump Campaign v. The Washington Post (2020–2021)

    A similar lawsuit against The Washington Post over opinion articles discussing the campaign’s contacts with Russia was also dismissed for lack of actionable factual claims.

    Trump v. The New York Times and Mary Trump (2019 publication; lawsuit filed 2021; dismissed 2022)

    President Trump filed suit against the newspaper and his niece Mary Trump over reporting that relied on family tax records. A judge dismissed the case in 2022, finding that newsgathering activities—even aggressive ones—are protected under the First Amendment.

    American pride has hit an ALL-TIME low thanks to Democrats. Are you a proud American? [Respond by midnight to secure your answer]

    Bill Maher Open To Voting Republican – But With Some Changes

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Comedian and longtime liberal commentator Bill Maher told Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s GPS that he could “of course” envision voting Republican — but only if the party becomes something markedly different than what it has been.

    Maher, who has been a longtime critic of Donald Trump and a traditional supporter of Democrats, laid out a number of caveats before making such a move. “They would have to certainly lose the idea of ‘we don’t concede elections,’” he said.

    He added his biggest concern:

    “And my biggest worry is that they feel that the excesses of the left are so great, that they are so anti‐common sense. And again, they’re not completely wrong about that — that they are so — never met something that was counterintuitive that they didn’t embrace. That they just can’t let these people take power and, therefore, even if there has to — if democracy has to be sacrificed for hanging on to power,” Maher said.

    Maher also questioned the GOP’s long‐term commitment to democratic norms after Trump:

    “Will they still keep that idea that we cannot let these people take power? These people who just do not have any idea of common sense, they want to reinvent everything. They are revolutionaries in a country that is not asking for [a] revolution — they’re just asking for politicians to fix things. That is my biggest concern.” He noted a hope for a “return to normalcy” after Trump — though he expressed skepticism.

    At the same time, Maher acknowledged areas where he believes Trump was right:

    He pointed out the border, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and NATO contributions. “He showed that you can close the border. It wasn’t something you needed congressional help for. You could just do it, and he did it. He just did it too far. And people don’t like to see people tackled at Home Depot and people they know who have been in this country for a long time.”

    He wrapped up by hitting both parties:

    “Why can’t either one be normal?” he asked rhetorically.

    Why this matters for Republicans

    Maher’s comments underscore a key opportunity and challenge for the GOP: there are non‐traditional voices who might vote Republican — but only if the party reaffirms core democratic norms and common‐sense governance rather than radical transformation. If Republicans continue to be associated with election denial, extreme rhetoric, or sweeping change beyond what voters ask for, they risk alienating such swing voices.

    For Republican-leaning audiences focused on policy, governance, and institutional credibility, Maher’s remarks are a reminder that expanding the party’s appeal may hinge more on tone and norms than just raw policy wins.

    America thrives under conservative leadership — help Turning Point PAC save America, one precinct at a time! Help elect America First leaders! [Support Turning Point PAC HERE]

    Appeals Court Tosses Out ‘Meritless’ Trump Lawsuit Against CNN

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    A federal appeals court panel has rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to revive his lawsuit against CNN over the network’s repeated use of the term “Big Lie” to characterize his claims about irregularities in the 2020 election. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that CNN’s wording—despite its historical connotations and its association with Adolf Hitler—falls under First Amendment-protected opinion rather than a provable factual assertion.

    The three-judge panel, which notably included two judges appointed by Trump, concluded that CNN’s choice of language, while controversial, could not sustain a defamation claim.

    “Trump’s argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct — i.e., that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections — is true and that CNN’s interpretation — i.e., that Trump was peddling his ‘Big Lie’ — is false,” the unanimous panel wrote. “However, his conduct is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNN’s.”

    Because statements of opinion cannot be proven true or false, the court determined CNN’s phrasing did not meet the legal threshold for defamation.

    “CNN’s subjective assessment of Trump’s conduct is not readily capable of being proven true or False,” wrote Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, joined by Trump appointees Kevin Newsom and Elizabeth Branch.

    Trump now has the option to request a rehearing by the full 11th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team indicated he plans to continue challenging the ruling, saying he “will pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion.” CNN declined to comment.

    The appeals court’s decision affirms a July ruling by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal—also appointed by Trump—who dismissed Trump’s $475 million lawsuit last year. That lawsuit argued that CNN used the phrase “Big Lie” to intentionally evoke Nazi comparisons, but Singhal found that even harsh or offensive opinions are protected unless they include false statements of fact.

    The appellate judges agreed, writing: “Trump’s argument is unpersuasive. Although he concedes that CNN’s use of the term ‘Big Lie’ is, to some extent, ambiguous, he assumes that it is unambiguous enough to constitute a statement of fact. This assumption is untenable.”

    This decision represents another setback in Trump’s broader effort to challenge major media outlets he says have misrepresented him. While he has secured some favorable settlements—including from ABC and CBS’s parent company—his lawsuits against the New York Times and CNN have faced significant resistance in court. Most recently, Trump criticized and threatened legal action against the BBC over edits made to his January 6, 2021, speech on the Ellipse.

    America thrives under conservative leadership — help Turning Point PAC save America, one precinct at a time! Help elect America First leaders! [Support Turning Point PAC HERE]

    BBC Officially Apologizes To Trump For Deceptive Edit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    The British broadcaster BBC has formally apologized to the White House for the way it edited a clip of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 — the day before the Capitol attack. The apology comes just days after President Trump’s legal team threatened the BBC with a $1 billion lawsuit over the segment, which appeared in a documentary.

    According to a BBC spokesperson, “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.” The BBC added: “Chair [Samir Shah] has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.” The BBC also confirmed that there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any of its platforms.

    The broadcaster acknowledged that “the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action,” and referred to it as “an error in judgement.” The BBC nonetheless stated that it strongly disagrees there is a valid defamation claim.

    The specific clip in question showed Trump saying to his rally crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” A fuller official transcript and video, however, show that Trump also told his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol.

    President Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of defamation, alleging the broadcaster caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” with the editing. With this apology, the BBC has taken a step toward mollifying the matter — but the threat of litigation remains.

    President Trump has a well-documented history of filing lawsuits (or threatening them) against major media outlets. Here are a few notable examples:

    • Trump’s legal team recently filed a $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, four of its journalists, and publisher Penguin Random House. He accuses them of publishing false allegations about his business and political career, saying they harmed his brand and business interests.
    • Earlier in 2025 he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner (including Rupert Murdoch) over an article about alleged ties between Trump and the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
    • In 2024, a settlement was reached when parent company Paramount Global (of CBS) paid $16 million to resolve a suit Trump brought over purportedly misleading editing of a 2024 interview on 60 Minutes.
    • Legal-watchers note that by mid-2025 Trump was involved in as many new media and defamation lawsuits as he was in all of 2024 — reflecting a significant escalation of his willingness to use litigation in his media disputes

    Socialism is the Left’s new blueprint… Don’t let it spread to your city, your streets, your Congressional seat. Support Alea Nadeem and help FLIP OH-09! [DONATE HERE]

    Tucker Carlson Says He Was Attacked By A Demon, Sparking Debate Over His Fitness For Leadership

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    0

    Leaving him with bleeding claw marks and…

    Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson says he was the victim of what he describes as a “demonic attack,” an incident he claims left him with bleeding claw marks and struggling to breathe. The account, shared publicly for the first time during a Megyn Kelly Live Tour event in New York, has prompted concerns about his mental health and overall fitness for leadership.

    Carlson’s Account

    Carlson said the episode occurred about 18 months ago, around 2:30 a.m., while he and his wife were asleep with their four hunting dogs. He said he woke up unable to breathe and felt as though he was “graying out.” Moments later, he experienced sharp pain under his arms and along his ribs, “as if ripped with a knife.”

    When he turned on the light, Carlson said, he saw bleeding claw marks on both sides of his chest. His wife awoke and, according to Carlson, immediately concluded that “something attacked you.” None of the dogs stirred during the incident, a detail he said made it even more unsettling.

    Aftermath and Reflection

    Carlson described feeling an overwhelming urge to read the Bible before falling asleep for a few minutes and waking to believe it had been a dream — until he discovered blood on the bedsheets and noticed the same marks again.

    He told Kelly that an assistant later suggested the incident was a form of “spiritual warfare,” echoing his wife’s interpretation. Carlson said he does not expect skeptics to believe him but remains convinced that “something real” took place.

    “I can’t explain it, but it was not a dream,” he told Megyn Kelly. “It was something that happened in the physical world.”

    Reaction and Ridicule

    Critics, including Project 2025 contributor and The Origins of Woke author Richard Hanania, questioned Carlson’s mental state and credibility. “This is not the kind of thing a stable person says publicly,” Hanania wrote on X.

    Observers suggested the incident described by Carlson is consistent with a “nocturnal panic attack,” a phenomenon that occurs during deep sleep and can cause sudden awakenings marked by intense fear and physical distress. Unlike nightmares, these episodes are not typically tied to a specific dream or outside stimulus.

    Medical experts note that while panic attacks do not usually cause self-harm, people may inadvertently injure themselves if they move violently or attempt to “escape” a perceived threat while half-awake and disoriented.

    Other scientific explanations for self-inflicted marks during sleep include severe anxiety, night terrors, and REM behavior disorder — in which people act out dreams — and coexisting mental health conditions such as obsessive-compulsive or trauma-related disorders.

    Other conservative critics were equally bemused, relying on the principle of Ockham’s Razor — the idea that the simplest explanation is usually correct.

    Supporters, many of them evangelical Christians, framed Carlson’s experience as evidence of the spiritual conflict they believe lies at the heart of America’s cultural and political divide. They praised his willingness to speak openly about faith, calling it a sign of moral courage.

    Implications for Carlson’s Role

    Even after the controversy surrounding his friendly interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes, Carlson remains one of the most influential figures in digital media, commanding a broad following across multiple platforms. However, critics argue that promoting claims of a demonic attack risks alienating mainstream voters and undermining the credibility of both the conservative movement and conservative journalism.

    Carlson also claimed in an interview during the final day before the 2024 election that demonic forces created nuclear technology, linking the dropping of the atomic bomb that forced Japan’s unconditional surrender to the rise of secularism.

    Carlson did not address how the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — combined with Russia’s declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria — eliminated the need for a costly invasion of Japan’s home islands (Operations Olympic and Coronet) or a prolonged blockade, actions that historians widely agree would have caused millions of additional deaths.

    He also did not mention that in the early 1900s, church membership and attendance were relatively modest. In 1890, the census found that 33% of Americans identified as belonging to a church.

    After World War II, however, the United States experienced a remarkable religious revival. Church membership grew from ~43% attended church before the war to “more than 55%” by 1950, rising to 69% by the end of the 1950s. Gallup polls from the era show about 45% of adults reported attending church or synagogue weekly, a sharp increase from earlier decades.

    The revival spanned denominations: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish congregations all saw dramatic growth. Many Americans tied this renewed faith to national identity — a Cold War-era contrast with “godless communism.”

    Despite the backlash, Tucker Carlson’s fans aren’t backing down. They say his openness about faith isn’t weakness — it’s courage.

    To them, his honesty reflects humility and conviction — the very traits America needs in an age that has grown increasingly secular in recent decades.

    What’s Next

    Carlson has not provided photos or medical documentation of the alleged injuries, and there is no verifiable evidence to support his account.

    Whether the story ultimately strengthens or weakens his influence may depend less on the broader electorate than on how conservative audiences interpret it — as a test of faith or a question of credibility.

    Help preserve America. Conservative grassroots candidates want to build a better America but they need YOUR help. Donate TODAY!

    Republicans Uncover Epstein’s Coordination With Reporters To Smear Trump

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    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.

    Read some of the emails below:

    michael-wolff-jeffery-epstein-emails-004Download

    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.
    Elise Stefanik just launched her campaign for Governor — and she’s leading Kathy Hochul! Add your name now to make your Day One Endorsement!

    Trump Ups The Ante On Imminent BBC Lawsuit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for at least $1 billion, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation after it aired a misleadingly edited clip in its pre-election documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance?”

    The film, which aired ahead of the November 2024 election, includes footage from Trump’s January 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally, just before Congress certified Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The BBC’s version of Trump’s remarks spliced together two separate parts of his speech to make it appear more inflammatory.

    The documentary quoted Trump as saying:

    “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

    However, in reality, Trump’s words were more measured. He told supporters:

    “We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”

    He continued:

    “You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”

    Trump also explicitly called for peaceful protest, adding:

    “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    It wasn’t until about an hour later in his remarks that Trump said the second part of the BBC’s edited clip:

    “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

    BBC Leaders Step Down Amid Backlash

    The controversy was first exposed by The Daily Telegraph, which published an internal BBC memo acknowledging the editing issue. Following the uproar, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness both resigned.

    In a message to staff, Turness admitted that “mistakes have been made” but denied claims that the BBC is “institutionally biased.”

    Trump’s Legal Response

    Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Britt, sent the BBC a legal letter demanding a full apology and retraction. The letter accuses the broadcaster of “defrauding the public” and misrepresenting Trump’s words to paint him in a negative light.

    “Well, I guess I have to,” Trump told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, confirming his intent to sue. “Why not? Because they defrauded the public, and they’ve admitted it.”

    A Pattern of Media Accountability

    This is not the first time the President has successfully taken on major media outlets.

    Last year, ABC News settled with Trump for $15 million after anchor George Stephanopoulos falsely claimed on-air that Trump was found civilly liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case. The jury had, in fact, found him liable only for sexual abuse.

    In July 2024, Trump won another $16 million settlement from Paramount, following claims that a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris was heavily edited to favor her during the election season.

    Trump also has an ongoing $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, accusing it of defamation after it published a supposed birthday note he allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein—a note Trump denies ever writing.

    They tried to destroy Trump with hoaxes, witch hunts, and lies — but he NEVER SURRENDERED. Show you won’t either: Donate $15 now to fuel MAGA’s comeback!
    123...16Page 2 of 16
    © Great America News Desk 2022