Random

    Politics

    Home Politics

    GOP Senators Stand Firm Behind Stephen Miller Amid Party Tensions

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    Republican senators are rallying behind senior White House aide Stephen Miller as some GOP lawmakers privately grumble that his blunt style and hardline immigration messaging could complicate the party’s midterm prospects.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) dismissed the idea that Miller is in trouble inside Trump’s inner circle, calling him a key architect of the administration’s aggressive border agenda.

    “People can disagree with Stephen on rhetoric or policy,” Graham told The Hill, “but the question is, is he in jeopardy in Trump World? Absolutely not.”

    Graham argued Republicans should stop hand-wringing over internal personality clashes and instead focus on going on offense against what he called the failures of the Biden years. He pointed to an upcoming Senate vote targeting sanctuary city policies, saying Miller played a central role in shaping the effort.

    Miller’s defenders say he has been instrumental in delivering on the promises Trump made to voters — from tougher immigration enforcement to cracking down on fentanyl trafficking. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), who represents a major battleground state, credited Miller with helping advance priorities that matter to working families.

    Other prominent Republicans, including Senate GOP Conference Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), also praised Miller’s long-standing role in border security and law enforcement policy.

    Still, the controversy highlights growing tension inside the Republican conference as lawmakers head into an election cycle. Some senators, including Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have criticized Miller’s demeanor and influence, arguing the White House should broaden its circle of advisers.

    The debate comes as Washington faces a looming Homeland Security funding deadline, with Democrats threatening to block extensions unless the administration agrees to restrictions on ICE operations. Democrats have also escalated calls for investigations, impeachments, and removals of Trump officials tied to immigration enforcement — part of a broader effort to portray the administration as extreme.

    Miller has also drawn attention for his unapologetic stance on Greenland and U.S. strategic power in the Arctic, which critics say risks alienating allies. Supporters counter that Trump’s tougher posture has strengthened America’s defensive position and forced long-overdue conversations about national security.

    For many Trump allies, the bottom line is simple: Miller remains one of the president’s most trusted advisers — and Republicans who want to win should focus less on palace intrigue and more on policy fights Democrats are increasingly out of step on.

    As Graham put it, Miller is “Karl Rove to MAGA,” and anyone betting on his downfall, he suggested, doesn’t understand how Trump’s White House works.

    Hero policeman Salvatore Oldrati was named Officer of the Year after stopping an armed suspect and now liberals want to ruin his life. His family is facing an uphill battle and crushing legal bills. Stand with the men and women who protect us. [Help Police Officers HERE]

    Potential Cabinet Shifts As Trump Approaches One Year Back In Office

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    As President Donald Trump approaches the one-year mark of his second term, the White House is preparing for the possibility of limited Cabinet adjustments — a normal process in any administration and one that officials stress is not indicative of instability.

    Unlike Trump’s first term, which saw high turnover across many departments, the president’s current Cabinet has been deliberately steady. Senior officials say this has been intentional to reinforce continuity and reliability during the administration’s first year. While internal discussions about potential future changes have occurred, the White House maintains that no decisions have been made and no changes are expected before early next year.

    White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt dismissed speculation about looming resignations, saying: “The cabinet is not changing no matter how much CNN wishes that it would because it thrives off drama.”

    Department of Homeland Security: Praise for Noem, Scrutiny of Lewandowski

    One of the departments that has drawn attention is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem. Trump has made immigration enforcement a central focus of his second-term agenda, and DHS has been central to carrying out those policies.

    Multiple sources emphasized that the president remains pleased with Noem’s leadership. A senior White House official reiterated Trump’s confidence, saying: “The President loves Kristi. He loves the job she’s doing.”

    However, internal friction has emerged around Corey Lewandowski, a longtime Trump ally who joined DHS as a special government employee with temporary status. His close working relationship with Noem has prompted speculation that the pair might eventually depart together if changes were made.

    Lewandowski, who previously helped run Trump’s 2016 campaign, has taken an active role inside the department. Sources told CNN he has directed personnel changes, overseen administrative leave requests, and pushed senior leaders to accelerate deportation-related programs. While supporters view him as an enforcer of the administration’s priorities, others within the White House believe his management style has caused tension.

    A person close to the White House noted that concerns have been raised internally: “Yes, he likes [Noem], but it has been brought to his attention that [Lewandowski] is a problem, and the agency is being mismanaged because of it.”

    The White House and DHS pushed back strongly on that interpretation. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson highlighted DHS’s results under Trump and Noem, saying:
    “The tremendous results coming from the Department of Homeland Security … speak for themselves.”

    A DHS spokesperson added that Lewandowski “has a reputation of reprimanding officials who impede or slow down the administration and undermine the will of the American people.”

    In September, Trump met with Noem and Lewandowski to discuss DHS operations. According to two people familiar with the meeting, the conversation became tense at times — particularly between Lewandowski and the president — though Noem’s standing with Trump was not affected.

    Department of Energy: Questions Around Secretary Chris Wright

    The Department of Energy, led by former Colorado energy executive Chris Wright, is another agency where speculation has surfaced. Sources say some White House officials believe Wright has been reluctant on certain campaign-promised initiatives and that his department has faced senior-level turnover.

    Energy Department spokeswoman Taylor Rogers defended Wright’s performance, saying:
    “Secretary Wright has been working lockstep with President Trump since day one to restore America’s energy dominance.”
    She added that U.S. oil production hit a record high in July under Trump’s policies.

    Past Discussions About Other Cabinet Members

    This is not the first time internal debate about Cabinet roles has surfaced. Earlier discussions took place around Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after an accidental sharing of sensitive information, and Trump had expressed frustration over Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s stance on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Both remained in their posts.

    An upcoming Pentagon inspector general report on Hegseth’s messaging incident could renew attention but is not expected to carry formal consequences.

    Youngkin Seen as a Potential Future Administration Pick

    With Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin leaving office in January due to term limits, several Republicans close to Trump believe he may be considered for a future Cabinet position if an opening arises. Although the two men have not directly discussed a role, Youngkin has been publicly supportive of the president.

    During a call with supporters, Youngkin told Trump:
    “Mr. President, I want to thank you… I know that you will always put America first.”

    Trump returned the praise, calling Youngkin “one of the great governors in our country.”

    Sources say Youngkin would be interested in a position with an economic or business focus, while likely avoiding an immigration-first role such as DHS.

    Routine Evolution in Any Administration

    Cabinet adjustments are not unusual. During President Biden’s term, changes occurred at the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Labor. Trump officials emphasize that any future changes would be part of routine administrative alignment, not broader turmoil.

    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.

    Nikki Haley Hits Back At Trump Cabinet Snub

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    6
    The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley responded President-elect Donald Trump’s social media post over the weekend…

    Haley replied on X by highlighting her previous service, saying, “I was proud to work with President Trump defending America at the United Nations. I wish him, and all who serve, great success in moving us forward to a stronger, safer America over the next four years.” The reply received harsh criticism from Trump critics, which Haley noted as she said her family was frustrated that she didn’t make clear at the time she had told Trump aides she was not interested in a job.

    “I had no interest in being in his cabinet. He knew that,” Haley said on her SiriusXM show, Nikki Haley Live, adding:

    But to go a little further, his best friend, Steve Witkoff, came to our house in South Carolina, spoke to me and my husband, and basically wanted a truce between me and Donald Trump. And I told him at the time, there was no truce needed, that I had, that Trump had my support, there was no issue on my end.

    And at that point he was like, ‘What do you want? Tell me what you want. Is there anything you want?’ And I said, ‘There’s nothing I want.’ And there wasn’t anything I wanted. And then several weeks back I talked to Howard Lutnick, his transition director, and he asked, you know, if I knew of people that would be good in the cabinet, if there was any insight. And what I said is, I think it’s really important that Trump surround himself with people that are going to tell him the truth.

    And I, you know, mentioned someone that I thought would be good for Commerce Secretary and mentioned that I thought the UN Ambassador should be a cabinet pick. But I did not ask anything for me. And I have made it clear to everyone that I was not interested in the administration. So my husband and son were upset and said, ‘Why didn’t you say that in the tweet? Instead of just wishing him well?’

    Haley concluded by noting Trump’s social media post was nothing new to her, “And the truth is, I know the game he was playing. I don’t need to play that game.”

    “But more importantly, we have to look at the bigger picture. It is time to move on. It is time for us to focus on what America needs to do to be strong again, what America needs to do to be safe. The American people have spoken and spoken very loudly, and at this point, we should pray that President Trump does well. We should pray that everyone that he appoints does well. We should hope for the sake of our kids and generations to follow us, that all of this goes forward. So, you know, do I take it personally? No. That’s who he is. He can be shallow at times and I think he showed that. But I don’t have to be shallow. And at the end of the day, I’m very comfortable with where I am, and I’m comfortable with what happened,” she added.

    Watch:

    Florida Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Eliminate Democrat Party

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    14

    A Republican lawmaker is trying to change the political landscape of the Sunshine State.

    Following Democrats’ widespread losses in Florida during the 2020 midterms, Republican state Sen. Blaise Ingoglia has filed a bill to eliminate the party entirely.

    According to The Hill, “The Ultimate Cancel Act” (SB 1248), sponsored by Ingoglia (R-Spring Hill), would cancel the filings of any political party that supported slavery during the Civil War.

    “The Democrat party adopted pro-slavery stances in their party platforms and this bill says that if you have done that in the past, then the Secretary of State shall de-certify and get rid of the party,” Ingoglia said. 

    Any “canceled” party would have the opportunity to register again, however, the name of the organization must be substantially different from the name of any other party that was previously registered with the department.

    The proposal is expectedly drawing widespread criticism from Democrats.

    “Shame on the Republican Party for initiating legislation of this magnitude. This is what a dictator does,” newly elected Florida Democrat Party chair Nikki Fried said. 

     “It’s a complete and absolute abuse, and it’s unconstitutional. This bill will go nowhere. It is meritless. It deserves zero airtime and frankly, it’s a distraction from the Republicans’ failed policies,” House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell said.

    Ingoglia said he has not spoken to the governor or legislative leaders about the bill.

    The governor’s office has not commented on the bill. Legislative leaders in the House and Senate have also yet to express interest in taking up the bill during the upcoming session. If this were to become law, it would take effect in July 2023.

    “Florida Democrats are lucky I’m not asking them to return all the political contributions that they got in years past for their Jefferson Jackson dinners since they want to cancel everything. They were raising money based upon two people that, by their own admission, should have been canceled,” Ingoglia said.

    On Wednesday, the Florida Democrat Party issued the following statement:

    “Presenting a bill that would disenfranchise 5 million voters is both unconstitutional and unserious. Under Ron DeSantis, Senator Ingoglia is using his office to push bills that are nothing more than publicity stunts instead of focusing on the issues that matter most to Floridians, such as reforming property insurance, addressing housing affordability and combating climate change.

    “The sooner DeSantis and his puppets in the legislature learn that Florida is a Democratic Republic and not a Banana Republic, the better it will be for all Floridians.”

    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.

    Judge Criticizes DOJ and FBI as He Rejects Argument to Keep Affidavit Under Wraps

    By
    admin
    -
    5
    Marine One lifts-off after returning President Donald J. Trump to Mar-a-Lago Friday, March 29, 2019, following his visit to the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike near Canal Point, Fla., that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. The visit was part of an infrastructure inspection of the dike, which is part of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee Everglades system, and reduces impacts of flooding for areas of south Florida. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian) [Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

    A federal judge criticized the FBI and DOJ as he rejected a DOJ argument to keep the affidavit for the search warrant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago under wraps.

    U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said the DOJ did not meet the government’s required burden of proof to keep the document sealed, The Daily Caller reports.

    Reinhart wrote in his ruling that the government had a to show if it has a compelling governmental interest and the denial of access is “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” 

    The DOJ argued that the unsealing “would jeopardize the integrity of its ongoing criminal investigation,” and that there were privacy concerns with unsealing it.

    In response, unsealing the document would “unsealing the Affidavit would promote public understanding of historically significant events. This factor weighs in favor of disclosure.”

    However, Reinhart has the government did show a compelling interest in not unsealing the whole affidavit but that there was an alternative between unsealing the whole thing or not unsealing anything.

    Reinhart has given the agency until August 25th to propose the redactions of the document they would like.

    [READ NEXT: Trump Makes Fun of Failed CNN Host and Liz Cheney]

    Hunter Biden Issues Blistering Response To $1 Billion Lawsuit Threat

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4
    First Lady Melania Trump participates in the Senate Spouses Luncheon at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, May 21,2025. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)

    Things are about to get ugly…

    First Lady Melania Trump is threatening to sue former President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, for $1 billion over “defamatory” claims linking her to late financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

    Melania’s attorney Alejandro Brito demanded that Biden “immediately retract the false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory statements made about Mrs. Trump,” which were contained in a video interview with Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan and posted to Youtube in early August. 

    Read the full letter:

    “Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer,” Brito wrote.

    In the video interview, titled “Hunter Biden Returns” video earlier in August, the former first son claimed “Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep.” 

    file_7119Download

    Biden also claimed that “Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, and that’s how Melania and the first lady and the President met.”

    “If you do not comply with the above by August 7, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. EST, Mrs. Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce her legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for over $1 Billion Dollars in damages,” Brito wrote. “You are on notice.”

    A source close to the matter told Fox News that Biden did not comply with the requests by the set deadline. 

    After Fox News published the piece, however, Melania Trump got Biden’s reply addressing the attorney’s letter when Callaghan posted a further interview with him to YouTube on Thursday.

    Callaghan, holding up a copy at the interview’s opening, declared: “The day of presidential litigation has arrived!”

    “We’re here, maybe, to give you the platform to apologize to the first lady for your statements that you made about her possible connection to Jeffrey Epstein,” the host said to Biden.

    “F*ck that! That’s not going to happen,” Biden laughed.

    Defending his comments as citation, Biden continued:

    First of all is that, what I said was what I have heard and seen reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff but also dating back all the way to 2019 when the New York Times – I think Annie Carney and and Maggie Haberman – reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time.

    Biden added that he would not bow down to pressure or lawsuit threats: “I also think they’re bullies and they think that a billion dollars is going to scare me.”

    I have this to say to them: If they want to sit down for a deposition and clarify the the nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein, if the president and the First Lady want to do that and all of the known associates around them at the time of whatever time that they met, I’m more than happy to provide them the platform to be able to do it.

    The letter comes after the Daily Beast pulled the article detailing allegations by journalist Wolff that Melania Trump was introduced to her husband Donald Trump via a modeling agent connected to Epstein, after a challenge from the first lady’s lawyers.

    “Editor’s Note. After this story was published, The Beast received a letter from First Lady Melania Trump’s attorney challenging the headline and framing of the article. After reviewing the matter, the Beast has taken down the article and apologizes for any confusion or misunderstanding,” The Daily Beast posted in place of the article. The url for the article appears to have been amended to remove the original headline and now reads: thedailybeast.com/epstein-this-story-has-been-removed.

    It also comes after famed Democrat strategist James Carville apologized to the first lady after repeating the same claim. 

    Carville opened his latest episode of the Politics War Room podcast with a legal note. 

    “In last week’s podcast episode, we spoke with Judd Legum,” he said. “After the episode, we received a letter from Melania Trump’s lawyer. He took issue with our title of one of those YouTube videos from that episode and a couple of comments I made about the first lady. We took a look at what they complained about, and we took down the video and edited out those comments from the episode. I also take back these statements and apologize.”

    An aide to the first lady, Nick Clemens, told Fox News in a statement, “First Lady Melania Trump’s attorneys are actively ensuring immediate retractions and apologies by those who spread malicious, defamatory falsehoods. The true account of how the First Lady met President Trump is in her best-selling book, ‘Melania.’”  

    Tulsi and Trump just exposed Obama’s SECRET DIARY: a blueprint for the Radical Left’s war on America. President Trump will NEVER give up on his fight to Make America Great Again. We Need MAGA patriots to stand and fight [DONATE NOW]

    Report: SCOTUS Rejects Kari Lake’s Voting Machine Suit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem’s lawsuit over the use of voting machines in Arizona elections.

    The Hill reports Lake and Finchem asked the Supreme Court to review a federal appellate judge’s decision to dismiss their case last October. The suit sought to block electronic voting machines from being used in the state, questioning their accuracy and reliability.  

    Lawyers for Lake, who is running for a Senate seat in Arizona this cycle, and Finchem, who is seeking a state Senate seat, argued in a court filing to the Supreme Court that they had sufficiently argued that “[a]ll Arizona-certified optical scanners and ballot marking devices, as well as the software on which they rely, have been wrongly certified for use”; Arizona’s voting machines had been “hacked” and “manipulated”; and that there were apparent discrepancies in the Maricopa County’s vote count after the 2020 election. 

    The lawsuit was filed ahead of the November 2022 midterms while Lake was running for governor.

    The Supreme Court’s decision to decline to revisit the federal court’s decision puts a cap on Lake’s and Finchem’s lawsuit.

    “We are obviously disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the decisions of the Arizona district court and the Ninth Circuit, and order that our challenge to the 2022 election procedures be heard on the merits,” said Kurt Olsen, one of the attorneys that sought to get the Supreme Court to consider the case, in a statement, who argued new information came to light after their case was dismissed by the  circuit court. 

    “Although the Supreme Court grants review in less than 1 percent of cases presented on petition, we believe we presented a case.”

    “The Kari Lake and Mark Finchem case was dismissed based on a purported lack of standing to assert an injury,” Olsen wrote. “Therefore, the courts, even now, have not ruled on the merits of our case. We will continue to raise these issues especially in light of the upcoming 2024 election.”

    Trump Names Two People When Asked About Potential VP Picks

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    Trump is narrowing down his search for his next running mate…

    During a weekend interview, former President Donald Trump said he has two potential candidates in mind.

    Trump mentioned Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem when asked during a Sunday interview with Maria Bartiromo

    “Well, I have a lot of good people. We have a lot of really good people,” Trump said. “I have a lot of good ideas, but I haven’t — and there’s no reason to do that quickly.”

    “I speak to everybody,” he said. “I called Tim Scott … and I said, ‘you’re a much better candidate for me than you are for yourself.’ When I watched Tim, he was fine, he was good, but he was very low-key, et cetera, et cetera.”

    However, Trump admitted he’s still a ways off from making any final decisions on a running mate. The GOP frontrunner told Bartiromo that his priority in choosing a running mate will be choosing “someone who would be a good president.”

    “I watched him in the last week defending me and sticking up for me and fighting for me,” he continued. “I said, man, I said, ‘you’re a much better person for me than you are for yourself’, because, for himself, he was low-key. For me, he’s been a real tiger. He’s been incredible. And others have too.”

    “Kristi Noem has been incredible fighting for me,” Trump added. “She said, I’d never run against him because I can’t beat him. That was a very nice thing to say.”

    On Monday, former Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway advised the President to consider choosing a person of color for VP during an op-ed published in The New York Times.

    “With a crisis on the border, economic dissatisfaction, fears about crime, a parents’ rights renaissance and multiple wars and threats across the globe, Mr. Trump’s deputy must be able to navigate chaos and challenges at home and abroad,” Conway wrote.

    “Taking all of this into consideration, if I were advising Mr. Trump, I would suggest he choose a person of color as his running mate, depending on vetting of all possibilities and satisfaction of procedural issues like dual residency in Florida,” Conway wrote. “Not for identity politics a la the Democrats, but as an equal helping to lead an America First movement that includes more union workers, independents, first-time voters, veterans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans.”

    Conway listed Sen. Tim Scott, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) among the potential options.

    This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

    Trump Calls To Impeach Democrat Leader Over Supreme Court Comments

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

    President Donald Trump is turning up the heat on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — and floating a move that isn’t even constitutionally possible.

    In a fiery Truth Social post Sunday night, Trump demanded to know why the New York Democrat isn’t being impeached after branding the U.S. Supreme Court “illegitimate” over its latest Voting Rights Act ruling.

    “Hakeem Jeffries, a Low IQ individual, said our Supreme Court is ‘illegitimate.’ After saying such a thing, isn’t he subject to Impeachment?” Trump wrote. “I got impeached for A PERFECT PHONE CALL. Where are you Republicans? Why not get it started? They’ll be doing this to me! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

    The post quickly ignited backlash — and confusion — since members of Congress aren’t subject to impeachment under the Constitution. Instead, lawmakers can only be expelled by a two-thirds vote of their chamber.

    Still, Trump’s message was clear: he wants Jeffries gone.

    The clash comes days after the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision striking down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district, ruling it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    Chief Justice John Roberts described the district as a “snake” drawn along racial lines, while Justice Samuel Alito called the map an “unconstitutional gerrymander” and framed the ruling as an “update” to how courts interpret the Voting Rights Act.

    Trump praised the decision, calling it the “kind of ruling I like.”

    Jeffries, meanwhile, unloaded on the high court.

    “Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice,” he said.

    “It’s an unacceptable decision, but not an unexpected decision,” Jeffries added. “Because this isn’t even really the Roberts Court. It’s the Trump Court.”

    He also accused the ruling of helping Trump “scheme to suppress the vote and rig” upcoming elections.

    Trump wasn’t having it — and fired back with his impeachment call, even as constitutional reality undercuts the demand.

    Jeffries brushed off the attack with a short jab of his own on X: “Jeffries Derangement Syndrome,” a play on Trump’s long-used “Trump Derangement Syndrome” line.

    The ruling has sparked outrage across liberal media circles, with commentators like Al Sharpton, Abby Phillip, and legal analyst Paul Butler slamming the decision and arguing it shows the court does not “respect” the rights of minority voters.

    But for Trump, the focus isn’t the ruling — it’s the rhetoric.

    And he’s making it clear he wants Republicans to escalate the fight.

    Trump’s demand — even if constitutionally misplaced — comes at a time when expulsion threats are no longer theoretical on Capitol Hill.

    Just weeks ago, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) resigned from Congress as sexual misconduct allegations mounted and colleagues began weighing an expulsion vote.

    “I am aware of efforts to bring an immediate expulsion vote against me and other members,” Swalwell said at the time. “Expelling anyone in Congress without due process… is wrong. But it’s also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Therefore, I plan to resign my seat in Congress.”

    Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) stepped down the same week under similar pressure, with both lawmakers facing potential removal by their colleagues.

    Most recently, Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) announced she is resigning from the House of Representatives after Republicans vowed to force a vote to expel her from the chamber for committing a bevy of violations involving financial misconduct. 

    “Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away so I can devote my time to fighting for my neighbors in Florida’s 20th District,” she wrote on social media. “I hereby resign from the 119th Congress, effective immediately.”

    “This fight is far from over,” Cherfilus-McCormick, who was indicted by a grand jury last year for allegedly stealing COVID-19 emergency funds, added in her statement. 

    The House Ethics Committee found “clear and convincing evidence” in March that the Florida Democrat misused federal disaster relief money that was improperly paid to her family’s healthcare company, among other misconduct. 

    She is facing 53 years in prison as part of a separate criminal indictment.

    Turning Point is funding the largest ballot-chasing operation in U.S. history to win key battleground states. Our grassroots army is already in the field for 2026 and beyond. But they can’t stay there without your support. Donate today to help win the midterms, protect the America First movement, and keep conservatives in power.
    123...57Page 1 of 57
    © Great America News Desk 2022