Featured Stories:
‘Hellbent on hiding truth’: Dem leader pounces as DOJ official hints at holding back files
The top Democrat in the Senate has directly responded to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche after he said that "thousands" of Jeffrey Epstein files would be withheld by the Department of Justice despite a law requiring "all" documents to be released by Friday.
"I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. So today, several hundred thousand. And then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more," Blanche told Fox News on Friday.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer responded by indicating that Democrats would not stand for the Trump DOJ flouting the law.
"The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be - the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth," Schumer insisted. "Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out."
"People want the truth and continue to demand the immediate release of all the Epstein files. This is nothing more than a cover up to protect Donald Trump from his ugly past," he added.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) suggested that Bondi would be "prosecuted" if the DOJ does not release the full Epstein files on Friday.
‘Service members died!’ CNN host schools GOP lawmaker in heated scrap
CNN's Briana Keilar on Monday got into a heated exchange with Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) over the Biden administration's Middle East policy, which he said was emboldening Iran to sign off on proxy attacks on American soldiers.
During an interview, Keilar argued to Waltz that figuring out how to deter Iran-backed proxies had plagued multiple administrations, including Trump's whose policies Waltz touted as a better alternative.
"I know you're critical of President Biden, that you think he is emboldening Iran, but how should the U.S. respond when even former President Trump -- I mean, you said that peace broke out [under his watch], but his direct and controversial action like taking out [late Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani] did not stop the deadly attacks on U.S. troops," she noted.
READ MORE: Big Trump secret about to be revealed
Waltz replied that Trump ordered the assassination of Soleimani after Iran-backed proxies had launched multiple strikes on the U.S. and its allies, and he claimed that those strikes single-handedly fixed the problem.
"They launched some missiles and that was it!" he claimed.
"Service members died!" Keilar interjected.
"Who died, post-Soleimani strike?" Waltz demanded to know.
"March 2020, service members died," she said. "You had Iranian-backed proxies... the one in March was determined that it likely was [Iran] and you had service members, two Americans and one Brit, who were killed... So if we're talking realistically on what deters and what does not deter the proxies, then let's use those facts to talk about what might actually be a way to... get them to stop."
Watch the video below or at this link.
Keilar gets into heated exchange with GOP lawmaker www.youtube.com
‘By far the dumbest’: Right ruthlessly ridiculed for new Taylor Swift conspiracy theory
A new conservative conspiracy theory that the Super Bowl will be rigged to prop up Taylor Swift’s imminent endorsement of President Joe Biden is being torn to shreds by critics who call it “by far the dumbest.”
The Bulwark’s Sonny Bunch Monday took to X to vent frustrations over the strange theory — centered on Swift’s relationship with Kansas City Chiefs tight-end Travis Kelce — detailed in a new Rolling Stone report.
“Of all the dumb things the nascent nouveau right has tried over the years, attempting to turn conservatives against the NFL is by far the dumbest,” Bunch wrote.
While Rolling Stone takes time to detail how Swift’s perceived liberal politics and Kansas City’s AFC victory Sunday have created an NFL “scriptwriting” narrative, Bunch doesn’t pull the punch of his summary.
"Two hot celebrities dating is a psyop culminating in the Illuminati fixing the Super Bowl so you'll have to get vaccinated," he writes. "Get people to say the dumbest s--- imaginable ... and they'll believe anything."
The conspiracy theory has been shared by people including former President Donald Trump ally Laura Loomer, failed presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, reports and social media show.
ALSO READ: Trump’s spell is broken — no wonder he’s mad
“Thinking about when Taylor Swift called out the Soros family in 2019 for buying the rights to her music and then how she came out a super liberal in 2020,” Posobiec told X followers Sunday.
“I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall,” Ramaswamy replied.
Rolling Stone’s Nikki McCann Ramirez wasn’t impressed by the conclusions drawn, which she argues ignore some pertinent information.
“One must really stretch the depths of credulity to convince oneself that Swift’s success isn’t a result of her record-breaking songs, albums, tours, movies, and a career that has redefined the music industry, but rather a government psyop that forced her to date an NFL star and take up entertainment as a career,” she writes.
“It’s all really stupid.”
Several X users following news of the theory agreed.
“Taylor Swift endorsed Biden in 2020 but this time it’s definitely a psy op,” wrote Noam Blum. “Amazing that people buy this grift horses--- and ask for seconds.”
"Trump’s insecure brand of fascism requires constant attention and seeks to insert itself into every situation,” wrote GQ editor Luke Zaleski. “Like a kindergartener acting like he doesn’t like the girl he’s crushing on in hopes he’ll to trick her into liking him."
E. Jean Carroll jury just delivered a big ‘message’ to Trump with its huge verdict: expert
A legal expert said Friday that the jury in Donald Trump's defamation trial wanted to deliver a very clear message when it hit him with a massive amount of damages.
The former president was ordered to pay $83.3 million after a civil jury sided with writer E. Jean Carroll as her lawyers described how the former president defamed her. Of that, $65 million was in punitive damages, which are meant to punish the defendant.
The substantial amount comes after Carroll had already been awarded damages of $5 million in an earlier defamation and sexual abuse trial last year.
In Friday's decision, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig believes the amount they came to — far greater than the $10 million her legal team initially sought — was intentionally high to send a strong message.
"This is a massive number, far in excess of anything I think anyone really expected —18 times the amount of the verdict in the first trial. ... [Her] lawyers explicitly asked the jury to send a message and that is what they have done," he said during an appearance on CNN's "The Lede" with Jake Tapper minutes after the verdict was reported.
Honig continued: $60 million dollars in punitive damages — that is a message to a person who essentially the jury says we don't think you can be deterred for anything less than this massive amount of money."
Trump has already vowed he will appeal.
"Absolutely ridiculous," he posted on Truth Social. "I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party. Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"
His attorney Alina Habba also appeared before a scrum of reporters saying "there was no proof" and complained that her "experts were denied".
"We are seeing a violation of our justice system," she said.
ALSO READ: Few Trumpers who embrace political violence understand its endgame
Honig also pointed out that, historically, Trump's success legally in the Empire State has been touch and go.
"The broad notion is that New York juries are not friendly to [former] President Trump, I think that's pretty clear," he said.
The sexual assault revelations came during Trump’s presidency when Carroll, now 80, claimed she was in a dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman in 1996 when he attacked her.
She claims Trump since went on to publicly defame her, telling reporters “She’s not my type” and “Totally lying. I don’t know anything about her." “I know nothing about this woman. I know nothing about her. She is — it’s just a terrible thing that people can make statements like that.”
The latest trial involved defamatory comments he made while president, and are separate from the comments he was found liable for in his first trial. The judge had already found him liable the second time, and the jury was solely considering damages.
‘Absolutely ridiculous!’: Trump reacts after being hit with $83.3M verdict
Donald Trump on Friday reacted to the news that he was being ordered to pay more than $80 million in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Trump, who testified in the trial but was limited in what he could say because it was solely about determining damages and not liability, said it is "absolutely ridiculous" that he was hit with such a high damages verdict. That amount is on top of the $5 million Trump was previously ordered to pay after the first Carroll trial last year.
ALSO READ: 'Chaos': Fired Highland Park rec director details trauma of July 4 mass shooting
Trump posted his response on his own social media site, Truth Social.
"I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party," Trump wrote on Friday. "Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"
Pastor accused of $3M scheme to rip off parishioners says perhaps he ‘misheard God’
A pastor says he may have misunderstood his divine instruction after being accused of a scheme to defraud his parishioners out of $3.2 million, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Eligio Regalado, who goes by Eli, and his wife, Kaitlyn Regalado, are being charged by the Colorado Securities Commissioner.
According to the legal filing, the Regalados invented their own Christian cryptocurrency which they sold through the Kingdom Wealth Exchange, an online body they also created. The cryptocurrency went under the name INDXcoin.
"The action, filed in Denver District Court, seeks preliminary and injunctive relief, damages for investors and for a constructive trust to be placed on the Defendants’ property," described the release from Commissioner Tung Chan.
From June 2022 to April 2023, INDXcoin scored nearly $3.2 million thanks to investments by more than 300 people in the "Christian community," the legal filing states. Regalado, who is based in Denver, said that God directly told him investors would be wealthy if they threw all of their money into INDXcoin.
"The Lord said: I want you to build this,” Regalado told individuals, according to the filing. “We took God at his word and sold a cryptocurrency with no clear exit.”
ALSO READ: Autocracy and democracy are on a collision course
“Either I misheard God, and every one of you who prayed and came in — you as well. Or two, God is still not done with this project,” Regalado said, implying that it would still deliver.
The couple had no experience in cryptocurrency, the Washington Post reported. A third-party audit called the effort "unsafe, unsecured and riddled with serious technical problems." The legal filing called it practically worthless.
“We allege that Mr. Regalado took advantage of the trust and faith of his own Christian community and that he peddled outlandish promises of wealth to them when he sold them essentially worthless cryptocurrencies,” said Commissioner Chan. “New coins and new exchanges are easy to create with open source code. We want to remind consumers to be very skeptical.”
‘Pure, uncut Trumpism’ now infects GOP so much there’s ‘nothing he can do to lose’: report
Republican voters have already shown they overwhelmingly prefer to keep Donald Trump in control of their party.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis dropped out Sunday after falling short in Iowa, and Nikki Haley could be out of the race soon unless she surprises in New Hampshire, showing that GOP voters don't want Trump "lite" when the real deal is running for his third nomination, reported Wall Street Journal columnist Molly Ball.
"What the GOP’s most loyal voters want, it seems, is pure, uncut Trumpism — with all the baggage and ideological divergence from traditional conservatism that entails," Ball wrote.
"Between DeSantis’s withdrawal and Haley’s having little apparent path forward barring a major upset, the race could well be effectively over by Wednesday, the party having passed up yet another opportunity to turn the page on a polarizing, multiply-indicted fabulist who lost the last election and has never won the popular vote."
ALSO READ: Uncivil war: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands
Both Haley and DeSantis tried to appeal to voters who liked Trump but would prefer an alternative, but the Iowa results and polls in New Hampshire and elsewhere make clear Republicans have no interest in turning the page on the former president, Ball wrote.
“The Republican Party we knew isn’t coming back,” the anti-Trump Republican Sarah Longwell posted on X. “GOP voters don’t want it back. They don’t want limited government, free markets, and American leadership in the world. They want isolationism, an authoritarian crackpot president, and a big government that enforces their worldview.”
The party's Reaganites thought they might wait for the fever to break and reclaim the party, but anti-Trump Republicans think that will never happen, she wrote.
“I’m never surprised — that went out the window six or seven years ago — but I can’t lie, I’m still profoundly disappointed,” said former GOP congressman Joe Walsh, who launched a long-shot challenge against Trump in 2020. “The fact that Trump incited and led an insurrection and they didn’t throw him into Siberia proved there’s nothing he can do to lose the base.”
Popular articles
‘Hellbent on hiding truth’: Dem leader pounces as DOJ official hints at holding back files
The top Democrat in the Senate has directly responded to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche after he said that "thousands" of Jeffrey Epstein files would be withheld by the Department of Justice despite a law requiring "all" documents to be released by Friday.
"I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. So today, several hundred thousand. And then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more," Blanche told Fox News on Friday.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer responded by indicating that Democrats would not stand for the Trump DOJ flouting the law.
"The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be - the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth," Schumer insisted. "Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out."
"People want the truth and continue to demand the immediate release of all the Epstein files. This is nothing more than a cover up to protect Donald Trump from his ugly past," he added.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) suggested that Bondi would be "prosecuted" if the DOJ does not release the full Epstein files on Friday.
‘The brink of illegitimacy’: Professors warn no turning back for ‘noxious’ Supreme Court
Two American university professors Friday warned the "noxious" Supreme Court can no longer be saved.
Harvard law professor Ryan Doerfler and Yale law professor Samuel Moyn wrote an opinion piece published by The Guardian about how the high court's legitimacy has been increasingly damaged under President Donald Trump's second term. Conservative justices have handed Trump and the MAGA movement a number of wins, including overturning of Roe v. Wade, "what remains of the Voting Rights Act," and losing its "nonpartisan image."
The role of the court has shifted and with the conservative majority, the liberal justices had previously "proceeded as if their conservative peers would continue to take their own institution’s legitimacy seriously."
But over the last several months, that has also changed.
"Yet with the conservative justices shattering the Supreme Court’s non-partisan image during Trump’s second term, liberals are not adjusting much," Doerfler and Moyn wrote. "The liberal justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – have become much more aggressive in their dissents. But they disagree with one another about how far to concede that their conservative colleagues have given up any concern for institutional legitimacy. Encouragingly, Jackson pivoted to 'warning the public that the boat is sinking' – as journalist Jodi Kantor put it in a much-noticed reported piece. Jackson’s fellow liberals, though, did not follow her in this regard, worrying her strategy of pulling the 'fire alarm' was 'diluting' their collective 'impact.'"
By now, Trump has used a "shadow docket" of emergency orders to his advantage and to advance his policies.
"Similarly, many liberal lawyers have focused their criticism on the manner in which the Supreme Court has advanced its noxious agenda – issuing major rulings via the 'shadow' docket, without full-dress lawyering, and leaving out reasoning in support of its decisions," according to the writers.
Critics have argued that the conservative-majority Supreme Court, including Trump's appointees, has used the shadow docket to issue consequential rulings on controversial issues like abortion, voting rights, and immigration with minimal explanation or public deliberation, effectively allowing the court to reshape law through expedited procedures that bypass traditional briefing and oral argument requirements.
Now, "progressives are increasingly converging on the idea of both expanding and 'disempowering' federal courts and looking to see how to shake up the status quo."
"Rather than adhere to the same institutionalist strategies that helped our current crisis, reformers must insist on remaking institutions like the US supreme court so that Americans don’t have to suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule that makes a parody of the democracy they were promised," Doerfler and Moyn wrote.
"In Trump’s second term, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court has brought their institution to the brink of illegitimacy. Far from pulling it back from the edge, our goal has to be to push it off," the writers added.
