Latest

    News

    Home News Page 15

    Federal Judge Dismisses Indictments Against James Comey and Letitia James

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5

    A federal judge on Monday threw out the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges had been improperly appointed.

    U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false-statements case against Comey and the bank-fraud case against James without prejudice, meaning federal prosecutors could seek new indictments in the future.

    In a sharply worded opinion, Currie wrote: “I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.”

    Judge Rules Prosecutor Was Not Legally Installed

    The ruling centers on Lindsey Halligan, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi tapped as interim U.S. attorney in one of the Justice Department’s most influential districts. The appointment raised immediate questions because Halligan had no prosecutorial experience and assumed the position just days after the removal of the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert.

    Halligan personally presented both cases to the grand jury and was the sole lawyer to sign the resulting indictments—an unusual move given the high-profile nature of the cases and the absence of career prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia.

    Defense attorneys for Comey and James argued that Halligan had no lawful authority to act. Abbe Lowell, representing Letitia James, said Halligan was effectively a “private person” when she entered the grand jury rooms and “completely unauthorized to be in them.”

    DOJ Attempted to Ratify the Indictments

    The Justice Department has defended Halligan’s installation, and Bondi attempted to ratify the indictments retroactively, an action Currie noted would not have been necessary had the appointment been legally valid.

    During a recent hearing, DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker characterized the controversy as “at best a paperwork error.” Currie was not persuaded, signaling skepticism about Halligan’s standing even before issuing Monday’s order.

    Currie, a Clinton-era appointee now based in South Carolina, was assigned to the case after Virginia’s federal judges recused themselves due to the unusual procedural issues raised by Halligan’s appointment. The challenges brought by Comey and James were consolidated because they involved identical questions of authority.

    High-Profile Cases Scrapped, For Now

    The dismissals mark a significant development in two of the most closely watched prosecutions targeting officials long viewed unfavorably by conservatives for their roles in investigations and legal actions against former President Donald Trump. Comey has been a lightning rod for criticism over the FBI’s handling of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation, while Letitia James led New York’s aggressive civil case against Trump and his business empire.

    The DOJ could appeal Currie’s ruling or choose to bring the charges again—this time through a properly appointed U.S. attorney.

    Don Jr. has prepared the November Party Platform Audit, and he needs it completed before MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. Top responses may even be shared with President Trump. COMPLETE YOUR AUDIT NOW.

    Conservative Activist Punched In Face Files Lawsuit After Manhattan DA Admits Mistake

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    A conservative pro-life activist who went viral earlier this year after being punched repeatedly during a street-interview segment in New York City has now filed a civil lawsuit against her alleged attacker.

    Savannah Craven Antao — a pro-life advocate and host of the YouTube channel Her Patriot Voice — says she was gathering on-camera interviews on April 3 for the pro-life organization Live Action when she was physically assaulted by Brianna J. Rivers, 30, of the Bronx. The incident, captured on video, spread widely across social media and conservative news outlets, sparking outrage among free-speech and pro-life advocates.

    Details of the Lawsuit

    According to the complaint filed Nov. 18 in Bronx Supreme Court, Craven Antao required emergency medical treatment after the attack and received stitches, amassing more than $3,000 in medical expenses. Attorneys with the Thomas More Society allege Rivers has “knowingly, willfully and maliciously continued to mock [Savannah] and her views online in order to further inflict emotional distress.”

    The suit further states that Rivers mocked Craven Antao’s Christian faith and even created merchandise celebrating the assault. One alleged online post displayed a T-shirt design reading “BAM!” with an image of a fist hitting a face — reportedly created by Rivers and a cousin to raise money for Rivers’ legal defense.

    Craven Antao’s attorneys say their client has experienced symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder and has received hundreds of violent threats since the incident. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    Criticism of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg

    Rivers was initially charged with second-degree assault — a felony — but the case fell apart in July after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office failed to turn over discovery materials by the legal deadline. The office then downgraded the charge to a misdemeanor before the entire case was dismissed.

    Bragg, a frequent target of criticism from conservatives for his handling of violent crime and his perceived leniency toward offenders, later acknowledged his office’s failure.

    “Every victim deserves their day in court, and our office has reached out to apologize to Ms. Craven Antao for the unacceptable error of missing the discovery deadline,” a spokesperson wrote in September. “We are taking immediate internal steps in light of this case.”

    But for Craven Antao, the damage was already done.

    “I have to look over my shoulder and worry about if somebody who supports her actions … is going to try to do something else,” she told Fox News Digital. “Because what the DA Alvin Bragg himself has shown to people, with letting this case be dropped, is that they can go assault somebody and hurt them if they disagree with them and nothing is going to happen.”

    Fears for Conservative Journalists and Activists

    Craven Antao said she ultimately filed the civil suit to hold Rivers accountable and to send a message about political violence: “First, I’d really appreciate my over $3,000 in medical bills to be paid off, because I should not be responsible for those. Second, it’s to send a message — hopefully to show her that she can’t do this again.”

    She also connected her concerns to broader safety issues for conservative figures, referencing the recent killing of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

    “If they could do it to somebody like him, who has the resources to have the security and the checks and all the people surrounding him, what does this say for just average journalists … who don’t have the means to hire a whole security team and be armed?” she said.

    Craven Antao added that online threats and encouragement of Rivers’ behavior have left her uncertain about what could happen next. “With all the threats online and the comments she ‘likes,’ encouraging her behavior, it makes me wonder if the wrong person is going to find me next time and something worse will happen.”

    Defense from Rivers

    Rivers previously issued a public apology on Facebook on April 5, though she also accused Craven Antao of provoking the incident.

    “I am sorry,” Rivers wrote, “but cannot sit around and allow you to continue pushing this one-sided narrative. I understand hands being put on someone is never the answer, but throwing rocks and hiding hands is worse. Savannah is a professional antagonist, not a ‘reporter,’ and the truth will be told.”

    Legal Team Responds

    Thomas More Society attorney Christopher Ferrara sharply criticized Bragg’s office, saying their inaction forced Craven Antao to pursue civil remedies.

    “Savannah was violently assaulted for peacefully expressing her pro-life beliefs and then humiliated all over again when the attacker went online to glorify it,” Ferrara said. “The D.A.’s office had every opportunity to pursue justice and, due to their incompetency or lack of will, failed to prosecute this vicious assault. Their refusal left us with no choice but to file civil action to hold Rivers accountable.”

    For Craven Antao, the lawsuit is not just about compensation — it’s about setting a precedent.

    “Honestly, I hope that she eventually finds God,” Craven Antao said. “That’s what I pray for, because it’s obvious that she’s got a lot of deep trauma rooted, and she takes it out on other people.”

    Don Jr. has prepared the November Party Platform Audit, and he needs it completed before MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. Top responses may even be shared with President Trump. COMPLETE YOUR AUDIT NOW.

    DOJ Confirms Comey Grand Jury Didn’t See Final Indictment

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    The Justice Department admitted in federal court Wednesday that the grand jury which charged former FBI Director James Comey never reviewed the final version of the indictment that prosecutors ultimately filed.

    During questioning by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, prosecutors conceded that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan failed to bring the revised indictment back to the full grand jury after jurors declined to approve one of the original counts. Instead of resubmitting the updated charges, Halligan took the altered document directly to a magistrate judge’s courtroom, where only the grand jury foreperson and one additional juror signed it, according to CNN.

    Judge Nachmanoff ordered the Justice Department to file a detailed response by 5 p.m. Wednesday addressing the revelations.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons attempted to justify the process, claiming “the new indictment wasn’t a new indictment.” Nachmanoff, however, swiftly dismissed that explanation.

    Comey’s attorney, Michael Dreeben, seized on the government’s admission, arguing that because the full grand jury never considered the altered charges, “no indictment was returned.” He also noted that the statute of limitations has now run out on the allegations that Comey lied to Congress—meaning prosecutors may no longer have any valid path to pursue the case.

    Prosecutors further revealed they were instructed by the deputy attorney general’s office not to disclose whether career DOJ lawyers had prepared a memo recommending against indicting Comey before Halligan presented the case to the grand jury, Politico reported. Multiple outlets have indicated that DOJ career staff believed the evidence was too weak to justify charges.

    Halligan—appointed interim U.S. attorney in 2025 after working in insurance law and serving as a personal lawyer and White House aide to President Donald Trump—had no prior experience leading federal criminal prosecutions. She served as the sole prosecutor presenting the case to the grand jury.

    Earlier this week, a federal magistrate judge criticized the handling of the investigation, citing “profound investigative missteps” and raising serious concerns about the integrity of the grand jury process under Halligan’s oversight.

    “The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote. “However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

    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.

    Report: US Planning Prisoner Swap With Russia

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Kremlin.ru, via Wikimedia Commons

    The United States and Russia are reportedly quietly reopening talks on a possible prisoner-exchange that could determine the fate of at least eight Americans still held in Russia. According to Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev—who visited Washington in late October—discussions with U.S. officials were “humanitarian in nature, such as possible exchanges of prisoners that the U.S. side has been working on.” A senior U.S. official confirmed the outreach and described the atmosphere as constructive, though emphasized that no agreement has yet been reached.

    “The U.S. will welcome the release of any detained American,” the official said, underscoring that Washington views this strictly through the lens of American lives, not political grandstanding.

    During Dmitriev’s trip he met U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. A source familiar with the conversations told Axios that Moscow hopes such a swap would “create more trust between the countries.” From a Republican perspective, this is exactly the kind of outcome our diplomacy should be pursuing: Americans held abroad should be brought home, and Russia should see we are serious, not passive.

    While a handful of Americans were released earlier this year under separate agreements, these talks focus squarely on the eight who remain behind bars—several caught up in cases the U.S. describes as politically tinged or based on contested evidence. According to Axios, the names sent to Moscow earlier by the U.S. include:

    • Stephen James Hubbard, 73, accused of fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine
    • David Barnes, serving a 21-year sentence after a cross-border custody dispute
    • Robert Gilman, former Marine convicted of assaulting a police officer
    • Eugene Spector, sentenced on bribery and espionage charges
    • Michael Travis Leake and Robert Romanov Woodland, jailed on drug offenses
    • Daniel Joseph Schneider, convicted of abducting his son
    • Gordon Black, a U.S. soldier imprisoned for theft and alleged threats

    U.S. officials haven’t confirmed whether these eight are the focus of the current discussions—but with Moscow signalling interest, and Washington keen to show it can deliver for detained Americans, the groundwork for a high-stakes swap is clearly in motion.

    Why this matters

    For the Republican-minded audience, this is about America first: no American left behind, accountability for Russia’s malign practices, and the restoration of American strength in diplomacy. Critics of past Democratic administrations argue that Russia has often treated U.S. citizens as bargaining chips—and the fact that Washington is now engaging quietly, but seriously, signals a turn toward a tougher posture.

    What have we achieved so far under Trump?

    It’s worth remembering that under the Trump administration, significant steps were taken to bring Americans home:

    • In February 2025, the U.S. secured the release of Marc Fogel, an American schoolteacher imprisoned in Russia for possession of medical cannabis (a 14-year sentence), in what was acknowledged as a prisoner exchange.
    • In April 2025, another U.S. citizen, dual-national ballet dancer Ksenia Karelina, was freed from Russia in a swap described by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio as secured through Trump’s efforts.

    These releases underscore a Trump-era focus on returning Americans held by adversarial powers, not leaving them forgotten. While this upcoming swap is not yet finalized, the very fact that Moscow and Washington are in active dialogue is a sign the U.S. is not passive when its citizens are wrongfully detained.

    The road ahead

    There are still major questions to resolve: who exactly will be part of the swap? What will the U.S. give up?

    Time’s almost up! Don’t miss your chance to join the MAGA Advisory Board — accept your invitation before 9:30 PM TONIGHT!

    Trump Calls Greene A ‘Traitor’ Amid Fight For Epstein File Transparency

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    President Trump pushed back Sunday evening against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) warnings about her personal safety, escalating an already tense dispute within the GOP over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Speaking to reporters on the tarmac before departing Palm Beach, Fla., the president reiterated his criticism of Greene, again referring to the outspoken conservative as a “traitor” when asked about her claim that Trump’s rhetoric could endanger her life.

    “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene,” Trump said, correcting a reporter who used the congresswoman’s actual name. “I don’t think her life is in danger. I don’t think — frankly, I don’t think anybody cares about her.”

    A short time later, Trump doubled down on Truth Social, taking aim at Greene as tensions continue to rise over her calls for the full release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “Wacky Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown (Remember, Green turns to Brown where there is ROT involved!) is working overtime to try and portray herself as a victim when, in actuality, she is the cause of all of her own problems,” Trump wrote. “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”

    Greene, who has long portrayed herself as one of Trump’s staunchest allies, had posted earlier on X that “the hoax pizza deliveries have started now, to my house and family members,” and said her family’s construction business had received a pipe bomb threat. She argued that Trump’s attacks on her were “a dog whistle to dangerous radicals that could lead to serious attacks on me and my family.”

    Responding to Trump labeling her a traitor, Greene wrote that the accusation is “absolutely untrue and horrific” and said such language “puts blood in the water and creates a feeding frenzy. And it could ultimately lead to a harmful or even deadly outcome.”

    “I am not a traitor,” she insisted. “However, when the President of the United States irresponsibly calls a Member of Congress of his own party, traitor, he is signaling what must be done to a traitor.”

    Watch:

    Greene defended her record and her long-standing loyalty to Trump. “I fought harder than anyone to help President Trump get elected and I support his administration and the promises we made on the campaign,” she wrote. “My voting record is one of the most conservative voting records in Congress and I’m very proud of that. The toxic and dangerous rhetoric in politics must end and we need healing in this country for all Americans.”

    The dispute comes as Greene has intensified her criticism of Trump’s earlier reluctance to endorse the full release of the Epstein files—documents many Republicans argue should be made public to expose potential wrongdoing and eliminate politically motivated speculation. The House is expected to vote this week on a measure compelling the Department of Justice to release those records. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who initiated the discharge petition to force the vote, said he expects significant Republican support.

    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

    Republican pressure on Trump increased last week after Democrats selectively released new emails, including one allegedly written by Epstein claiming Trump “knew about the girls.” Many conservatives view the move as a partisan attempt to smear Trump and distract from Democratic figures who were associated with Epstein. In response, and just minutes before his latest Truth Social post criticizing Greene, Trump urged House Republicans to back full transparency.

    Lawmakers “should vote to release the Epstein files,” Trump said, arguing, “we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party.”

    Still, Massie cautioned that the Justice Department—now conducting new probes into Epstein’s alleged connections to Democrats—might use those investigations to justify withholding certain materials even after Congress acts. Republicans warn that bureaucratic resistance could undermine the effort for full disclosure, a point fueling frustration both inside and outside the party.

    Time’s almost up! Don’t miss your chance to join the MAGA Advisory Board — accept your invitation before 9:30 PM TONIGHT!

    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]

    Special Prosecutor Assigned To Trump 2020 Election Case

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

    A new twist has emerged in the Fulton County election interference case against President Donald Trump. On Friday, a special prosecutor was appointed to replace embattled District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who was disqualified after a court found her romantic relationship with a top prosecutor created an appearance of impropriety.

    Peter Skandalakis, executive director of Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (PAC), announced that after failing to find another willing candidate, he would step in personally to oversee the case.

    “Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment,” Skandalakis said in a statement. “Out of respect for their privacy and professional discretion, I will not identify those prosecutors or disclose their reasons for declining.”

    The move came just as a judge-imposed deadline loomed for PAC to name a new prosecutor—or risk seeing the entire case dismissed.

    Skandalakis explained that while “it would have been simple” to let the deadline expire, he believed “that was not the right course of action,” citing the public’s interest in ensuring the matter is resolved properly.

    The Georgia court’s decision to remove Willis cast major doubt on the future of the case, which accuses Trump and several allies of racketeering and other charges related to challenging the 2020 election results. Trump and most of his co-defendants have pleaded not guilty, maintaining that they did nothing wrong in questioning the outcome of the election. Four others accepted plea deals.

    With Willis out, Skandalakis now has full discretion over whether to continue pursuing the case or to drop the charges entirely.

    “My only objective is to ensure that this case is handled properly, fairly, and with full transparency—discharging my duties without fear, favor, or affection,” he said.

    This isn’t the first time Skandalakis has been involved in a high-profile matter stemming from Willis’s conduct. After she was previously barred from investigating Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R) due to her involvement in a political fundraiser against him, Skandalakis also took over—and ultimately declined to bring charges.

    Citing that past experience, he said his familiarity with similar issues makes him the best candidate to take over the Trump case.

    The original indictment accused Trump and more than a dozen associates of an “unlawful conspiracy” to challenge President Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia. The case is one of several politically charged prosecutions targeting Trump during his campaign to return to the White House—the first criminal cases ever brought against a then-former U.S. president.

    Trump was previously convicted in New York on business record charges tied to a 2016 hush money payment. Meanwhile, his two federal prosecutions—for alleged election interference and mishandling classified documents—were dismissed following his reelection to a second term.

    PAC officials had confirmed as late as Thursday that no replacement had been found, suggesting the decision came together quickly.

    On Monday, Skandalakis addressed Trump’s recent presidential pardons for several allies charged in the Georgia case, saying his office had “diligently” worked on the matter since Willis’s removal and would continue to do so “without being influenced by matters outside the scope of our assigned task.”

    He also clarified that Trump’s pardons apply only to federal charges, not state cases.

    “Therefore, the task before my office remains unchanged,” Skandalakis said.

    New York is at a breaking point. Join the fight to stop Hochul and the radical Left — add your name to endorse Elise Stefanik now!

    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!

    Trump Appeals To Supreme Court To Overturn E. Jean Carroll Case Verdict

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    President Donald Trump has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll, marking the latest chapter in a years-long legal battle that has shadowed his political comeback.

    In a petition filed with the Court, Trump’s attorneys argued that the $5 million jury verdict was “propped up” by “a series of indefensible evidentiary rulings” that allowed Carroll’s lawyers to introduce what they called “highly inflammatory propensity evidence.” The filing claimed that these rulings unfairly prejudiced the jury and violated federal evidentiary standards.

    “President Trump has clearly and consistently denied that this supposed incident ever occurred,” attorney Justin Smith and his co-counsel wrote in the filing. “No physical or DNA evidence corroborates Carroll’s story. There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation.”

    Carroll first sued Trump in 2019, after publishing a memoir alleging that he raped her in a department store dressing room in New York City in the 1990s. Trump denied the accusation outright, saying he had never met Carroll, that she was not his “type,” and that she fabricated the story to promote her book. His forceful denials led to Carroll’s defamation claims, resulting in two separate trials.

    Trump’s lawyers now assert that U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who oversaw the trial, “warped federal evidence rules” to support Carroll’s “implausible, unsubstantiated assertions.” They further contend that by upholding the verdict, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals created a conflict with other appellate courts over how such evidence should be treated.

    When Trump’s legal team first announced in September that they would appeal to the Supreme Court, Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, dismissed the move. “We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court,” she said at the time.

    A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team characterized the Supreme Court filing as part of a broader effort to fight what they describe as politically motivated legal attacks. “The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” the statement said.

    The appeal follows a series of defeats for Trump in the lower courts. In December 2024, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict, rejecting claims that trial errors had tainted the outcome. In June 2025, the same court denied Trump’s request for a full rehearing by all active judges, leaving him with the Supreme Court as his last legal option.

    Trump did not attend the original 2023 trial but briefly testified at a second defamation trial in 2024, which resulted in a separate $83.3 million damages award for Carroll. That verdict was also upheld in September by a 2nd Circuit panel, which described the jury’s damages as “fair and reasonable.” Trump has since asked the full appellate court to reconsider that decision as well.

    You’ve been chosen for the MAGA WINNER’S CIRCLE! Share your advice to help defend our majority — take the survey NOW!
    1...141516...131Page 15 of 131
    © Great America News Desk 2022