Tag: donald trump

Mysterious new statue of Epstein and Trump holding hands appears in DC

A massive statue depicting Donald Trump and late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein holding hands has appeared on the National Mall as the months-long Epstein Files saga continues to haunt the administration.

The 12-foot statue — a combination of foam, resin, wood and wire — shows Trump and Epstein standing on pedestals, holding hands and smiling at one another as they appear about to frolic through the park toward the Washington Monument in Washington, DC.

Below the statue, there are three plaques, two of which contain excerpts from the bawdy birthday letter Trump allegedly wrote Epstein for his 50th birthday.

A copy of the letter, featuring a hand-drawn figure of a naked woman along with the president’s reported signature, was made public this month by the House Oversight Committee. Trump has denied any involvement with the letter, even suing the Wall Street Journal, which first published a report about it for $10 billion, claiming that “no authentic letter or drawing exists.”

The statue appeared early Tuesday morning in honor of Friendship Month. It will remain there until Saturday, a spokesperson for The Secret Handshake, an anonymous group of fewer than five individuals who put up the statue, told The Independent. The statue is about “celebrating the friendship of these real men.”

A White House spokesperson denounced the National Mall’s new addition, telling The Independent in a statement: “Liberals are free to waste their money however they see fit – but it’s not news that Epstein knew Donald Trump, because Donald Trump kicked Epstein out of his club for being a creep. Democrats, the media, and the organization that’s wasting their money on this statue knew about Epstein and his victims for years and did nothing to help them while President Trump was calling for transparency, and is now delivering on it with thousands of pages of documents.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Vision of Broadcast Regulation Is a Threat to Conservatives

“When 97 percent of the stories are bad,” President Donald Trump declared on Friday, “it’s no longer free speech.” When TV networks “take a great story” and “make it bad,” he added, “I think that’s really illegal.”

Trump was wrong on both points. And in groping toward a justification for the regulatory threats that preceded Jimmy Kimmel’s expulsion from his late-night slot on ABC, Trump embraced a principle that historically was bad for conservatives—one they are apt to regret reviving.

“You have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump,” the president complained. “They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”

Trump made similar noises during his first administration, saying “network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” But Ajit Pai, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), rejected that suggestion in no uncertain terms.

“I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment, and under the law the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

The difference this time around is that the FCC’s current chairman, Brendan Carr, clearly has no such constitutional compunctions. When Carr said broadcasters could face “fines or license revocation” if they continued to air Kimmel’s talk show, he preposterously invoked the FCC’s policy regarding “broadcast news distortion.”

That policy applies to a “broadcast news report” that was “deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners” about “a significant event.” Whatever you think of Kimmel’s intent when he erroneously suggested that the man accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk was part of the MAGA movement, a comedian’s monologue is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “broadcast news report.”

Carr and Trump also alluded to broadcasters’ vague duty to operate in “the public interest.” Because broadcasters are “getting free airwaves from the United States government,” Trump thinks, they have a legal obligation to be fair and balanced.

That notion is reminiscent of the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine, which required that broadcasters present contrasting views when they covered controversial issues. The FCC repudiated that policy during the Reagan administration, precisely because it impinged on First Amendment rights.

The Kennedy administration, for example, had deployed the Fairness Doctrine against the president’s political opponents. “Our massive strategy,” former Assistant Secretary of Commerce William Ruder acknowledged a decade later, “was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

Nixing the Fairness Doctrine allowed an efflorescence of political speech on talk radio, enabling the rise of influential conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Exhuming and extending that policy, as Carr and Trump seem to favor, would be short-sighted as well as constitutionally dubious.

Keep reading

Would-be Trump assassin Ryan Routh guilty on all charges, tries to stab himself in neck when verdict read

Ryan Routh has been found guilty on all charges in the assassination attempt of President Donald Trump. The decision was reached after two and a half hours of deliberation by a Florida jury. As the verdict was being read, Routh attempted to stab himself in the neck with a pen. 

Fox News reported that when the verdict was being read, Routh attempted to stab himself in the neck with a pen. The assassination attempt took place when Trump was out golfing in Florida last September, only a few weeks after a bullet had hit his ear when he was speaking to a crowd in Butler, Pennsylvania.

According to NBC News, Routh is facing life in prison when he is sentenced. The trial had lasted for around two weeks under the direction of US District Judge Aileen Cannon. Routh served as his own attorney in the case and delivered a closing argument claiming that there was no crime committed because he never fired a shot. 

Routh was found guilty of attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and assaulting a federal officer.

Keep reading

White House announces Trump admin to investigate ‘who is funding Antifa’

The Trump administration will be probing who is funding radical left-wing group Antifa, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday. Leavitt made the comments during a press conference after being asked about the organization set to be designated as a terror group. 

Leavitt was asked about how the administration would hold Antifa accountable after being asked a question by Turning Point USA’s Frontlines White House reporter Monica Baldwin. Leavitt then listed a number of violent attacks linked to Antifa, including the shooting of a police officer in Texas, assaulting officers in Portland, and firebombing a pro-life facility.

“That’s why the President will be signing this order, and we will also be most importantly, looking at who is funding Antifa and who is funding these other violent left-wing groups that we’ve seen perpetuate so much crime and mayhem across our country,” Leavitt added.

Leavitt said that Trump will be signing an executive order later on Monday to designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist group and that the order will include a portion dedicated to finding out when the group is able to get funding. 

The suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Tyler Robinson, allegedly inscribed Antifa-linked slogans onto the bullets that were used to shoot Kirk. One had the phrase, “Hey fascist! Catch!” and another had the lyrics of “Bella Ciao,” a song that is linked to the radical group. 

In a post to Truth Social last week, Trump announced, “”I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.”

Keep reading

DOJ Charges Man For Trying to Take Down Marine One with Red Laser Pointer While Trump Was Onboard

The Justice Department on Monday charged a man for trying to take down Marine One with a red pointer laser on Saturday.

According to a legal complaint filed on Monday, the suspect, Jacob Samuel Winkler, pointed a red laser at Marine One while President Trump was onboard.

“The red laser beam hit Officer Santiago’s eyes and briefly disoriented him. At this time, Marine One flew at a relatively low height and directly above Officer Santiago and [Winkler’s] location. Marine One was close enough that the rotor noise was loud, and the aircraft appeared large overhead. Officer Santiago approached [Winkler] after being flashed in the face with the red laser. Upon approach, [Winkler] looked up, oriented the same red laser pointer at the direction of Marine One and activated the red laser beam,” the legal complaint said.

“From Officer Santiago’s training and experience, Officer Santiago immediately identified [Winkler’s] action as a danger to Marine One and everyone on-board. [Winkler’s] conduct posed a risk of flash blindness and pilot disorientation, especially during low-level flight near other helicopters (U.S. Park Police, U.S. Marine Corps) and the Washington Monument. This placed Marine One at risk of an airborne collision,” the complaint said.

Winkler was immediately put in handcuffs.

According to the complaint, after Winkler was handcuffed, he got on his knees and said, “I should apologize to Donald Trump,” and “I apologize to Donald Trump.”

“The defendant, Jacob Samuel Winkler, did knowingly aim the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft,” the complaint read.

Winkler was charged with 18 U.S. Code § 39A, a law that prohibits aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.

Keep reading

U.S. Threats to Venezeula Are Ramping Up, Not Down

Reporting has recently emerged that the United States is considering direct strikes on Venezuela that could increase volatility in the region and the risk of war.

Under the pretext of disrupting the flow of drugs into the United States by Venezuelan drug cartels, the U.S. has militarized the waters off the coast of Venezuela, flooding them with Aegis guided-missile destroyers, a nuclear-powered fast track submarine, P-8 spy planes and F-35 fighter jets. On September 2, American forces fired on a small speed boat that the U.S. claims was running drugs for a Venezuelan cartel.

The Donald Trump administration is yet to offer evidence for its claim. They have neither publicly identified who the eleven people who were killed on the boat were nor what drugs they were carrying. Congress has still not been briefed.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the boat was “probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean.” Trump says it was bound for the United States. Turns out, it was headed back to Venezuela.

U.S. officials familiar with the operation have now told The New York Times that, having “spotted the military aircraft stalking it,” the boat has already “altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started.” The twenty-nine second video that Trump posted on social media spliced together several clips but edited out the boat turning around. Despite this lack of imminent threat, the aircraft, either an attack helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone, “repeatedly hit the vessel before it sank.”

The Trump administration has claimed the right to supplant the National Guard and law enforcement with the military and lethal force on the grounds that the drug cartels are terrorist organizations who pose a threat to the national security of the United States because the drugs they bring into the country to kill Americans. The U.S. has invoked the right to self-defense, and Rubio has insisted that the speed boat was “an immediate threat to the United States.” Except that if it had turned around, it wasn’t.

Keep reading

US Officials Say Regime Change in Venezuela Is the Real Goal of Military Action in the Caribbean

US officials have told The New York Times that the real goal of the US military buildup in the Caribbean, and the bombing of boats in the region, is regime change in Venezuela.

The policy is being largely driven by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has long wanted to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power. Back in 2019, when the first Trump administration attempted to back a coup against Maduro, Rubio posted a photo on Twitter of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in the moment he was being brutally murdered in an apparent threat to the Venezuelan leader.

The Trump administration claims that Maduro is the leader of a drug cartel, but has not produced any evidence for the charge. Maduro and other Venezuelan officials have forcefully rejected the accusation and have pointed to data that shows the majority of the cocaine that is produced in Colombia doesn’t go through Venezuela.

President Trump has also framed the military campaign in the region as a response to overdose deaths in the US due to fentanyl, but fentanyl isn’t produced in Venezuela, and it does not go through the country on its way to the US.

The Times report, which was published over the weekend, reads: “Several current and former military officials, diplomats, and intelligence officers say that while fighting drugs is the pretext for the recent US attacks, the real goal is to drive Mr. Maduro from power, one way or another.”

The US began bombing boats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean on September 2. According to numbers released by President Trump, at least 17 people have been extrajudicially executed by the US military since the campaign began. US officials have said the Trump administration is considering direct strikes on Venezuelan territory, which could lead to a full-blown war with the country.

Keep reading

Congress Must Not Rubber Stamp Trump’s Murder Spree

The Trump administration reportedly wants Congress to rubber stamp the president’s murder spree in the Caribbean and to endorse possible attacks on other countries:

Draft legislation is circulating at the White House and on Capitol Hill that would hand President Trump sweeping power to wage war against drug cartels he deems to be “terrorists,” as well as against any nation he says has harbored or aided them, according to people familiar with the matter.

When Congress approved the 2001 AUMF, it made the mistake of giving the president extraordinary, open-ended authority to wage war against Al Qaeda, which then morphed into a unending global campaign. Ever since then, every administration has abused that authority to target a number of armed groups that had nothing to do with the original attacks on the United States. The bill described in this report would be far worse than the 2001 AUMF by endorsing a much more wide-ranging campaign when there is absolutely no military threat to this country. Congress was wrong to endorse endless war in 2001. It would be insane to endorse an even worse version of endless war when there is no reason for it.

The Trump administration seeks to merge the “war on terror” with its new campaign against cartels by pretending that the latter are terrorists, but all of this is a lie. The drug trade is a serious problem, but it is not one that can be solved by the military. It is not terrorism, and drug traffickers aren’t terrorists. All that involving the military will do is kill a lot of civilians by design.

Drug traffickers aren’t lawful targets. Congress can’t give the president the authority to murder civilians. Trump’s barbaric boat attacks are illegal under U.S. and international law no matter what Congress does with this bill.

We need to reject the administration’s war framing in its entirety. While they may want to claim that there is an armed conflict that lets them kill these civilians, no such conflict exists. None of the groups that they have wrongly designated as terrorist organizations is engaged in an armed conflict with the United States. There is no war to be fought. When the administration uses force against alleged cartel members, they are just summarily executing suspected criminals outside the law. This is as illegitimate and despicable as it gets.

Keep reading

White House slashes medical research on monkeys and other animal testing, sparking fierce new debate

The Trump administration has canceled nearly $28 million of federal grants for animal testing as major federal health agencies are phasing out research on live animals in favor of new alternatives, a joint investigation by CBS News and The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, has found.

“We’re witnessing a watershed moment right now,” said Justin Goodman, the senior vice president of White Coat Waste, an animal rights nonprofit. “We have an administration that’s skeptical of spending, skeptical of establishment science. … We are trying to slash and burn as much animal testing funding as possible.” 

The pressure for change comes from an unlikely coalition of animal rights activists and bipartisan members of Congress who want to halt what animal rights groups estimate as $20 billion a year in federal spending for animal experiments. Long considered a cause of the left, the animal rights movement has expanded and gained steam under the Trump administration. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is leading the charge against high drug costs, vaccine safety and the grinding approval process required to bring innovations to market.

Keep reading

NASA is no longer a space agency. Its new official status is pretty shocking. Here’s what happened

A new order by the Trump administration issued late last month states that NASA will operate as a national intelligence and security agency. According to it, the space agency will now have a different set of primary functions, which includes “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.” The revelation was made by NASA Watch founder Keith Cowing, as the issue didn’t exactly make headlines at the time. Keith was once a scientist at the space agency, and now closely watches everything that happens there. So, does this mean that NASA will go forward and develop spycraft instead of spacecraft? According to reports, the order is more about labour concerns rather than about the work NASA does. A report from Futurism states that the order adds “NASA to the Federal Service Labour-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), excluding it from collective bargaining representation.”

This sparked discontent among NASA employees, who staged a protest outside NASA’s Washington, DC, headquarters earlier this week. The change in the status of the space agency came as the president eliminated the union rights for thousands of federal employees. Several lawsuits had been filed to stop the order. As this news made headlines, the thing about NASA becoming a spy agency was sidelined. However, that is expected to have labour implications for the people working at the agency. Government Executive quoted the vice president of the Goddard Engineers, Scientists and Technicians Association, Monica Gorman, as telling those gathered at the protest, “A huge part of the reason that I have that independence, and that my colleagues do, is that as a union-represented worker I know that I am protected from unfair retaliation.”

Keep reading