Trump calls Epstein files ‘irrelevant’ as Massie petition picks up steam

President Donald Trump on Wednesday cast the Jeffrey Epstein controversy as “irrelevant” amid an effort on Capitol Hill to force a vote to release all files related to the deceased sex offender.

“This is a Democrat hoax that never ends,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked about the push for more transparency in the Epstein matter.

“From what I understand, I could check, but from what I understand, thousands of pages of documents have been given,” the president said. “But it’s really a Democrat hoax because they’re trying to get people to talk about something that’s totally irrelevant to the success that we’ve had as a nation since I’ve been president.”

The comments came as a group of survivors joined House members in a push to compel the Justice Department to release records so far withheld from Congress.

ABC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Jay O’Brien asked the victims for their reaction to Trump’s characterization that it is a “hoax.”

Keep reading

Department of War?

Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too… As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”

At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.

As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.

With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefited the American people.

Keep reading

The Case for an Interim Agreement With North Korea

Striking a nuclear deal with North Korea is the most courageous foreign policy project left unfinished from President Donald Trump’s first term. The arc from war scare and “fire and fury” to détente and “love letters” stretched over three years until its engagement phase was derailed by the failed Hanoi summit and the onset of Covid-19. Six years on, statements by the White House and the Kim regime indicate a willingness to return to talks. That is welcome, because progress toward establishing a stable U.S.–DPRK relationship remains in the interests of both sides, even accounting for the dramatic improvement in the North’s international position since 2021. 

The South Korean president Lee Jae Myung’s visit to Washington last week would have been a good opportunity for the White House to begin to adopt a new approach. Frontloading heavy demands on denuclearization foreclosed progress on other worthy issues in 2018–2019. To make headway in 2025, the U.S. must shift from “denuclearization first” to “regular engagement first,” and accept that complete denuclearization is a long-run aspiration. Trump should pitch the North on an interim deal that couples three public unilateral U.S. concessions with a private offer of sanctions relief calibrated to verifiable limits on the North’s fissile material production.

Kim Jong Un’s reciprocation is never guaranteed, but it is in America’s interests to broaden his horizons beyond fighting Russia’s war against Ukraine, international cybercrime, and untrammeled development of nuclear missiles that can strike the United States.

The 2019 Hanoi summit, the last substantive high-level U.S.–DPRK meeting, was meant to implement the four aspirations of the 2018 Singapore Joint Statement: establishing a new U.S.–DPRK relationship, building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, working toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and repatriating the remains of American soldiers who died in the Korean War. Pending a leader-level accord on denuclearization, both sides were reportedly ready to make unprecedented progress on the other three goals by signing agreements declaring a symbolic end to the Korean War, establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals, facilitating economic investment, and repatriating remains of more U.S. soldiers.

But talks on denuclearization quickly collapsed. Trump walked away from a DPRK offer to dismantle at least part of its Yongbyon plutonium and enriched uranium facility and formally halt nuclear and missile testing in exchange for the lifting of all post-2016 UN sanctions on its civilian economy. The U.S. position began with a demand for the North to freeze and dismantle all its nuclear production facilities—not only Yongbyon—in a definite period in exchange for relief from the UN sanctions. At some point the U.S. side reportedly increased its demand to include total relinquishment of North Korea’s nuclear program, including all facilities and all weapons. This “Libya model” offer bore the imprint of John Bolton, Trump’s then-National Security Advisor, and was probably designed to sabotage the talks, since Kim certainly knew of Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly death less than a decade after he relinquished his nuclear program.

Trump and Kim both gambled that the magic of a leader-level summit would allow them to achieve sweeping goals. Each devalued pre-summit talks that could have produced a more incremental, more achievable deal. Kim refused to even authorize his working level diplomats to discuss denuclearization. And the White House went ahead with the summit knowing a viable deal was not on the table. 

What is unclear from the public record is the extent to which either side, facing maximalist requests, toned down their own position to try bridge the gap. That incremental approach, which tends to de-emphasize the goal of complete denuclearization, is the best path forward.

North Korea’s willingness and capacity to harm U.S. interests is now greater than ever. Its arsenal of warheads has reportedly grown from 15 to 50 since 2016 and it is estimated to have sufficient fissile material for 40 more. It continues to test and refine ICBM designs that can strike the continental U.S., including solid-fueled models that can be dispersed and launched at short notice. North Korea’s geopolitical ambit has also spread to Europe. It has sold Russia billions of dollars’ worth of ammunition to support its war effort in Ukraine. In June 2024 Russia and North Korea signed a mutual defense treaty, and 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to fight in Russia’s Kursk region. In return, Russia has granted the country access to advanced missile and reconnaissance technologies. At the same time, Russia and China have relaxed their enforcement of the post-2016 UN sanctions, reducing pressure on the North’s civilian economy.

Keep reading

Trump’s Attack On The Federal Reserve Reminds Us Why The Fed Shouldn’t Exist At All

President Trump’s relentless attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve help remind us why the Constitution established a totally different monetary system than the one under which we have all been born and raised.

The reason that the Federal Reserve — or central bank — was established as an independent federal agency was because it’s a very bad idea to have a president deciding monetary policy. That’s because presidents inevitably want to use the monetary system to benefit themselves politically, which ordinarily means expanding the money supply to create an artificial sense of economic prosperity, which then enables a president to exclaim, “Do you see how beneficial my tariffs and other economic policies are?” Then, when prices of things start rising in response to the expanded quantity of devalued money in the system, a president can easily blame the rising prices on such things as greed, profiteering, Big Oil, and so forth, with hardly anyone realizing that the president’s monetary policies are the reason for the price rises.

By making the Fed independent of presidential control, the idea is that the people at the Fed would manage the money supply in a responsible, non-political way. Of course, this is pure nonsense. Throughout the long history of the Federal Reserve, there have been instances where Federal Reserve officials have responded and reacted to political events, oftentimes with the intent to benefit one political party over another.

But the most important thing to understand about America’s central bank is that it is based on the socialist principle of central planning, which, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, produces “planned chaos.” That’s what we have had during the entire existence of the Federal Reserve — planned monetary chaos. That’s because no one, no matter how smart, can centrally manage something as complex as money, especially in a very complex market economy like that of the United States.

Thus, the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was a bad idea from the very start. While the ostensible purpose was to have a governmental entity that would stabilize money and the banking system, the result has been the exact opposite.

The Framers established a totally different monetary system — one that had no central bank as well as no paper money. Our American ancestors knew that if they established a paper-money system, the president or the central bank would end up printing vast quantities of paper money to finance their schemes and their wars. They knew that the inflation of the money supply would end up going on forever. The government would be able to plunder and loot the citizenry through monetary debasement — i.e., the indirect tax of inflation.

So, the Constitution established a monetary system based on the official money being gold coins and silver coins rather than paper money. The federal government was only given the power to coin money, not print money. Moreover, the states were expressly prohibited from making anything but gold coins and silver coins legal tender or official money.

In this way, presidents would not be able to play political games to benefit themselves by printing up more money because gold and silver cannot be printed. While the Constitution authorized the federal government to borrow money by issuing debt instruments such as bills, notes, and bonds, everyone understood that these debt instruments were not money but instead promises to pay money, with the money being gold coins or silver coins.

That monetary system, which lasted for more than 100 years, was one of the important factors (along with no income taxation, welfare state, Social Security, Medicare and economic regulations and minimal immigration controls) that contributed to the extraordinarily high level of economic prosperity in the late 1800s. In fact, people were actually using their savings to invest in 100-year bonds issued by corporations because they knew they would retain their value since they were payable in gold coins.

It all came to an end with President Franklin Roosevelt’s extraordinary “emergency” decree in 1933 that effectively amended the Constitution by ending America’s gold-coin/silver-coin monetary system in favor of a monetary system based on irredeemable paper money. Combined with the Federal Reserve, which had been launched in 1913, FDR’s paper money system put America on the road to planned monetary chaos, including booms and busts, ever-expanding quantities of money, and constant debasement of paper money.

Keep reading

Trump Orders U.S. Military Strike on Drug Boat, Killing 11 Tren de Aragua Terrorists in Warning to Traffickers

On direct orders from President Donald Trump, U.S. military forces launched a precision strike on a drug-laden vessel in international waters, killing 11 Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists en route to the United States. Trump declared the operation a clear warning to traffickers that those who smuggle poison toward American shores will face swift and lethal consequences.

“Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” President Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.

The president included a video showing an aerial view of the panga boat. At the 20-second mark in the video, the boat explodes and bursts into flames. The boat quickly sank.

The commander-in-chief added, “The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!!!!!!”

Breitbart News contacted the Pentagon for additional information regarding what type of munitions and delivery platforms were utilized in the attack. A senior U.S. Defense official responded, saying, “As the President announced today, we can confirm the U.S. military conducted a precision strike against a drug vessel operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization. More information will be made available at a later time.”

The White House reposted the president’s Truth Social comments, adding, “Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

Keep reading

‘Trump Zone’ Would See Southern Lebanon Occupied, Depopulated

The more information we get about the “Trump economic zone” proposal in southern Lebanon, the worse it seems for the people who live there. The latest reports reveal the plan to totally depopulate the south of the country, to place the whole area under US military control, and to grant Israel to right to build “permanent” bases in what are currently Lebanese towns and villages.

The plan first appeared a little over a week ago, with the US presenting it as their proposal while Israel maintains they came up with the idea. The broad strokes are that it is meant to replace border villages with Lebanese government-run industrial zones.

But the plan would involve no less than 27 villages being depopulated, spanning the Israel-Lebanon border from Naqoura to Marjayoun. Among those, Israel is demanding it be granted permission to construct permanent military sites within 14 of the former villages.

Keep reading

Trump shooting suspect offers round of golf to settle case and calls president a ‘baboon’ in deranged filing

The man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump near one of his golf courses has asked the president to consider settling the matter over an 18-hole match in a bizarre legal filing.

Ryan Wesley Routh filed a deranged motion requesting strippers and a putting green for his imagined extravaganza, just days before his criminal trial was due to begin.

‘A round of golf with the racist pig, he wins he can execute me, I win I get his job,’ Routh wrote in the motion filed on Tuesday. 

The 59-year-old’s motion comes as he faces life in prison on charges of attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer.

Routh was caught hiding in shrubbery at Trump International Golf Course in Palm Beach on September 15 armed with a rifle.

Prosecutors allege he had spent weeks planning his attempt to kill Trump while he was on the campaign trail.

But he was spotted by a Secret Service agent before he could get a clear shot on Trump. He allegedly raised his rifle to shoot, but the agent opened fire first and Routh ultimately fled without firing. 

The alleged assassination attempt came just eight weeks after Trump survived another attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Jury selection for his criminal trial is due to begin on September 8.

Routh is expected to represent himself at trial after his request was tentatively approved by US District Judge Aileen Cannon, who warned he would be kept on a tight leash during proceedings.

Court-appointed lawyers will be available to Routh should he need them.

Elsewhere in his extraordinary motion on Tuesday, Routh slammed prosecution efforts to introduce new evidence this close to trial.

‘If you would like to trade admitting the evidence for my subpoena of that baboon Donald J Trump, bring that idiot on; it is a deal,’ Routh wrote.

‘Give me shackles and cuffs and let the old fat man give it his worst. We must beat down crime in America. Carpet is red, isn’t it, no harm in blood.’ 

Routh also requested new housing arrangements for the trial, specifically a ‘far off, quiet room’ where he can access documents related to his case, as well as a phone, visitation rights, email access, a type writer and female strippers.

Keep reading

“Harsh Measures”? – President Trump Announces Space Command Will Move From Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama

Last month, President Donald Trump took to Truth to announce “harsh measures” in response to the persecution of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is serving a nine-year sentence in Colorado prison for making a forensic image of voting systems in her custody prior to a “Trusted Build” conducted by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office.

In his post to Truth Social, President Trump called Peters “a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians” and claiming that she did nothing wrong “except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election.”

According to Ashe Epp of the Colorado Free Press, Space Command employed 1,700 people in Colorado Springs and contributed around $1 billion annually to the local economy via direct spending, employee salaries, and patronage of local businesses by Space Command employees.

Colorado Springs is home to over 150 space, aerospace, and defense companies and is home to five major military installations with a significant Department of Defense presence, however, Huntsville, too, has a large presence surrounding the Redstone Arsenal, which serves as a major center for missile, rocket, and space systems development and testing, according to Army Technology.

“Rocket City” is home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, and several other military industrial complex companies.

According to the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, the aerospace and defense industry accounts for 44% of the total economy with 111,000 employees in the region.

Keep reading

Cartels are bad but they’re not ‘terrorists.’ This is mission creep.

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

Last week, the Pentagon sent three guided-missile destroyers to interdict drug cartel operations off the coast of South America, giving the U.S. Navy unprecedented counternarcotics authority and foreshadowing a potential military stand-off against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who is wanted by the United States on charges of narco-terrorism. This development is echoed by President Trump reportedly seeking authorization to deploy U.S. military forces on the ground against drug cartels in Mexico.

These efforts are not new. Trump and the GOP have increasingly called for U.S. military interdiction against Mexican drug cartels under the banner of counterterrorism. During his first administration, Trump seriously considered launching strikes at drug labs in Mexico in an effort that was successfully shut down by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

But there are no such guardrails in the new Trump administration, and the rhetoric has progressively crept toward the use of U.S. special operations, specifically. During an interview on Fox News in November, incoming Border Czar Tom Homan announced that, “[President Trump] will use the full might of the United States special operations to take [the cartels] out.”

If that is indeed the direction the administration wants to go, it appears to be taking action to set plans into motion, starting with an executive order on day one that designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — thus opening a Pandora’s box of potential legal authority to use military force. On signing the order, President Trump acknowledged, “People have been wanting to do this for years.” And when asked if he would be ordering U.S. special forces into Mexico to “take out” the cartels, Trump replied enigmatically, “Could happen … stranger things have happened.”

The executive order upholds that drug cartels “operate both within and outside the United States … [and] present an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” It declares a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The specificity of both “within and outside” the U.S. combined with the declaration of a national emergency is perhaps the first step toward the broader use of executive power to deploy military forces in counternarcotics operations not only within Mexico, but potentially the United States too.

To be sure, the Trump administration is already testing the limits of Posse Comitatus — the law that prevents presidents from using the military as a domestic police force — by invoking questionable authorities to use National Guard and active duty troops during the counter-ICE protests in California and, most recently, to declare a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C. federalizing the police force and deploying troops to patrol the district’s streets. Reports this week suggest the administration is preparing to do the same in Chicago.

Keep reading

First Friends: How the First Couple’s Consigliere Went From Modeling Mogul to Special Envoy

The Trump administration’s dramatic reversal with respect to the Jeffrey Epstein case continues to confuse and enthrall, with President Trump still doubling down that the entire “Epstein thing” is a “Democrat hoax.” While Democrats certainly have sought to take advantage of situation for partisan ends, the reversal in rhetoric –– particularly after transparency in the Epstein case was made an important part of Trump’s 2024 campaign –– has seemingly defied explanation. Indeed, the timing of the reversal, which occurred after a protracted delay and then final reneging on releasing files about the case, has been hard for many to swallow.

Amid the fall-out from the administration’s about-face, the Trump administration has sought to mitigate the failure to “release the files” by publishing interviews with Ghislaine Maxwell (who has been desperately seeking a pardon or commuted sentence) and by issuing subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton, a clear effort to divert “transparency” in the case into something more politically favorable to Republicans. 

However, as posited in Unlimited Hangout’s series “First Friends,” Trump’s effort to alter the narrative around the Epstein case may be aimed at shielding, not only potentially himself, but people in his close social circle, including at least one figure currently serving in his administration. That figure, Paolo Zampolli –– the administration’s current Special Envoy for Global Partnerships –– is the subject of this investigation. 

In Part I of this series, we met one of Trump’s closest friends from Italy: Flavio Briatore, a P2 lodge and Italian mafia-linked businessman with ties to prominent Victoria’s Secret Angels, at least one of whom he introduced to Epstein. In this second installment, the connections of Zampolli, another Italian close to both Trump and Briatore, are the focus. Zampolli has been in the news recently, not for the backdoor wheeling-and-dealing of his new, official U.S. government post, but because Trump and his wife Melania claim to have been first introduced by Zampolli amid assertions to the contrary that claim it had been Epstein.

As this investigation will show, Zampolli is deeply corrupt. From his beginnings as a protégé for the controversial modeling mogul John Casablancas, a man known for his appetite for what he called “child women,” Zampolli grew his modeling empire with money from Silvio Berlusconi, the corrupt Italian Prime Minister (and close friend of Flavio Briatore) who was forced to resign for his sexual escapades with minors while in office. Zampolli would later follow Casablanca’s example and marry his wife when she was 19, having met her not long after she had flown as an under-age teen on Epstein’s “Lolita Express.” 

After leaving the world of modeling to work for Donald Trump in the early 2000s, Zampolli would become closely affiliated with the Clintons as well as the United Nations, where he worked on their climate change initiatives and on the development of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs. In particular, Zampolli was part of the team that developed SDG 14 “Life Under Water” alongside Stuart Beck, a figure closely tied to CIA regime change operations in Palau, as well as none other than Ghislaine Maxwell and her TerraMar project. 

Yet, that is not all Zampolli would accomplish at the UN, as he would figure prominently in a major UN financing scandal and also boasted close ties to suspect citizenship-by-investment schemes that would later see one of his close colleagues arrested and another dead under exceedingly bizarre circumstances. Those colleagues had been taking bribes from an organized crime and CCP-linked Chinese billionaire who was once at the center of the scandal that directly intersects with most of Jeffrey Epstein’s seventeen visits to the Clinton White House.

Keep reading