Trump’s Greenland push gives Putin ammo, threatens NATO and global order: analyst
Donald Trump’s attempt to claim Greenland has alarmed global observers, with commentator Sabrina Haake arguing that the former president’s rhetoric is empowering authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin. Writing on her Substack, Haake warned that Trump’s threats against Greenland and disregard for NATO undermine the “rule-based global order,” giving Russia leverage in its war against Ukraine and emboldening other rogue actors. She said Trump’s actions send a signal that sovereignty and international law are negotiable, weakening decades-long alliances across Europe and NATO and creating real-world consequences far beyond Greenland — with Ukrainians already paying the price for the precedent Trump set.
Watch the video below.
Trump’s Greenland push gives Putin ammo, threatens NATO and global order: analyst Trump’s Greenland push gives Putin ammo, threatens NATO and global order: analyst
Laughter erupts as James Comer blanks in House hearing: ‘I wasn’t paying attention’
A hearing room for the House Oversight Committee erupted into laughter Wednesday after the committee chair, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), blanked on a question asked by a Democratic committee member.
Wednesday’s hearing saw the committee fiercely debate whether to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Challenging the measure was Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who pressed Comer on whether the committee had already been informed that the Clintons were willing to testify on the record.
“It's my understanding that you guys have received correspondence by phone, email and a written letter from the attorneys from the Clintons offering to [testify] on the record, with you, with the staff... is that correct?” Stansbury asked.
“I didn't... I wasn't paying attention to your question,” Comer admitted, sparking an eruption of laughter in the room, including from Stansbury, who moved to ask her question again, albeit more slowly.
“Okay – we're pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt, and the claim is that you have made reasonable accommodations and that [the Clintons] have not been responsive,” Stansbury repeated.
“But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee – including yourself – including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone, by email to meet with you, on the record, to give sworn statements. Is that correct?”
Comer’s first reaction was to speak of how the Clintons had been given “five months” to appear before Congress before being pressed by Stansbury again: “yes or no,” she asked.
“You all are trying to create a false narrative!” Comer fired back. “You've had five months, you should have gotten to the Clintons before the contempt vote!”
Stansbury asked once more for Comer to answer her question, but was met with silence as Comer’s aides could be seen speaking with him quietly.
“Just to be clear for the public, his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question,” Stansbury alleged.
Comer fired back at Stansbury once more.
“No, the staff said they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying because you blabbered for three minutes!” Comer said.
The Clintons have, in fact, refused to testify before Congress, and despite having been issued congressional subpoenas. Both have challenged Comer’s authority to demand they testify, and have accused the lawmaker’s request of being politically motivated.Trump attacks ‘people I can’t stand’ in crowd at speech: ‘I would screw them if I could’
President Donald Trump lamented that he couldn't "screw" people whom he didn't like during a rant at the World Economic Forum.
While speaking to CEOs in Davos on Wednesday, Trump bragged that companies were building plants in the U.S.
"It's amazing what's going on. Look, it's amazing. We've never had anything like it or close. Nobody else has it," he remarked. "I don't even ask anybody how you're doing now. It's like everybody is making so much money."
"And we have so many people in this room that have done a job," he continued. "I said, you've doubled your net worth since I've been president, right? He said, yeah, even more than that. They would say even more. We're doing even better than that."
But Trump's remarks took a turn as he spotted a few perceived enemies in the room.
"In a way, I'm jealous. In a way, I'm upset. There are a couple of people in the room," he said. "I can't stand them, and they've become very rich. There's nothing I can do about it."
"I would screw them if I could, but I can't do it, right?" he added. "I can't do it. I would have had a chance, or I could just take them and say, you can't do what Apple's doing, but you're not allowed to do that, Newt Gingrich, right? We can't do it."
"But I would love to do it, really, you know? It's one of those things, but everybody's making a lot of money."
John Fetterman poised to flip and become Republican ‘majority-maker’: ex-chief of staff
Sen. John Fetterman's increasingly independent political moves are drawing concern from Senate colleagues and raising questions about whether the Pennsylvania Democrat might eventually leave his party.
Fetterman said last week he would formally switch his party affiliation if Democrats make opposition to Israel part of their official platform — the first time he's laid out specific conditions for departing – and he pointed to recent contested primaries as evidence the party is shifting toward candidates who are "intensely anti-Israel," not just critical of its policies.
One Democratic senator, speaking anonymously to NOTUS, said, "I am concerned" about the prospect of Fetterman switching parties unexpectedly.
Fetterman has also set up a joint fundraising committee with Republican Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), an arrangement that struck colleagues as unusual. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said he'd "never seen it before." Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), a progressive who has left open the possibility of challenging Fetterman in 2028, called the move "crazy stuff," arguing it helps Republicans in battleground Pennsylvania races.
Fetterman brushed off the arrangement as "nothing sinister," rooted in shared state interests, and fired back at Deluzio over the congressman's earlier campaign donation to Graham Platner, the Maine Senate candidate who dropped out amid a sexual assault allegation he denies.
The senator has increasingly clashed with his party over Israel, the Iran war, and border security, and recently expressed regret for once calling to eliminate the filibuster, praising former Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for opposing its removal.
His standing among Pennsylvania Democrats has slipped sharply — a Quinnipiac poll found his approval at just 19% among Democrats, with 52 percent of voters overall saying they want him to leave the party.
Adam Jentleson, Fetterman's former chief of staff, said he believes Fetterman might switch parties "in order to stay relevant," particularly if Democrats win a narrow Senate majority in November and Fetterman could become a decisive vote. Jentleson also warned Fetterman could side with Republicans on a future Supreme Court nomination.
“I think, if he is the majority-maker, he will flip, because it would give him a massive amount of attention,” said Jentleson, who last year expressed concerns about Fetterman's mental health.
Other Democrats pushed back on the switching narrative. Sen. Peter Welch noted Fetterman "votes Democratic all the time," while Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) urged him to stay, saying his positions still align more with Democrats than Republicans on balance.
“I would just encourage him to stay,” Heinrich said. “I think you can have policy differences, but on balance, with the exception of one or two issues, when you look at what he cares about, I think that looks a lot more like the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. He’s always, always welcome in our caucus.”
Ex-Trump official pinpoints exact moment Trump’s ‘mentality changed’ — for the worse
Joe Kent, the former senior intelligence official who resigned from the Trump administration in protest of the Iran war, made a stunning claim Monday that “something” happened to President Donald Trump that “changed” him from that point forward.
“Something in the late spring, early summer time frame happened – I don’t know what happened,” Kent said during an appearance on the “Julian Dorey Podcast” published on Monday.
“I can’t tell you why his mentality changed, but it went from, ‘we’re gonna create the most space we can for [Iran] negotiations and we’re not interested in the war,’ to, ‘okay, we’re gonna support the Israelis, do Midnight Hammer and we’re gonna continue to entertain this.’”
A key pledge of Trump during his 2024 campaign was that he would not send Americans “to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end,” reiterating that promise during his victory speech: “I’m not going to start a war,” he said.
And yet, in late February, Trump launched Operation Epic Fury with a large-scale attack on Iran that months later now risks sparking a broader war.
Kent, who's long championed Trump's anti-interventionist rhetoric, said he was confused by the president's apparent shift, and while he could narrow down roughly when it happened, he still couldn't say what caused it.
“I don’t know what happened. And so for me, when something like that happens, from an intelligence background, you do have to step back and look at what else could be influencing the president,” Kent said.
“Did he just change his mind? For him to go through with [launching the Iran war], ultimately, I do think there’s potentially other factors there: so what could those other factors be? Why would a president make decisions that he doesn’t agree with?”
Other conservative figures have speculated as to why Trump launched a war against Iran despite his frequent anti-war rhetoric, including prominent conservative figure Tucker Carlson, who in April floated a disturbing theory that a “blackmail” operation perpetrated by the Israeli government could potentially have forced the president’s hand.
