Tag: politics

Hillary Clinton Blasts Joe Biden After Endorsing Him Twice

Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appears to be suffering from buyer’s remorse about the 2024 race.

After repeatedly praising former President Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign, Clinton now says his decision to seek re-election was a “terrible mistake.”

“He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country,” Clinton said Monday of Biden’s decision to run for a second term.

She made the scathing remarks during an interview with a New York Times editor in Manhattan.

The comments are at odds with Clinton’s repeated endorsements of both Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris during the election cycle.

A Headline USA review of Clinton’s social media found that she spent much of 2024 urging voters to back Biden.

“I’ll be voting Biden,” Clinton wrote on June 28, 2024.

Clinton quickly endorsed Harris, Biden’s chosen successor, after he exited the race later that summer.

“Here’s what I know: We need to defeat Donald Trump. We need to elect Kamala Harris,” Clinton wrote on Sept. 10, 2024.

Adding to her rebuke on Monday, Clinton said that a different Democratic nominee “would have beaten Donald Trump” if the party had a competitive race.

“I think it was a terrible miscalculation on the part of President Biden,” Clinton continued.

She further suggested the nominee could have been Harris, a governor or a senator. She also said Biden triggered a “terrible dilemma” after he claimed he had never signaled in 2020 that he would be a one-term president.

Her comments come as Biden and former first lady Jill Biden expand their longshot efforts to defend their political legacy amid criticism from Democrats who blame the Bidens for propelling Trump’s grand return to power in 2025.

Biden exited the race only after mounting pressure within his own party following his disastrous performance in the first debate with Trump.

Outlets like Headline USA had long covered the evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline throughout his presidency.

By contrast, Legacy media organizations and Clinton herself downplayed or shielded him from scrutiny.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Accuses Far Left Philly DA Larry Krasner of Misrepresenting Cases – Imposes Embarrassing New Rule on Him

Larry Krasner is the Soros-backed district attorney of Philadelphia who loves to threaten ICE agents with arrest while letting dangerous criminals out of jail.

In a stunning turn of events this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accused Krasner of misrepresenting the facts of cases in his quest to dismiss charges against criminals.

They also imposed an embarrassing new rule on him. Going forward, when Krasner wants to dismiss charges and let someone out of jail, the case is required to be reviewed by the state attorney general’s office.

This is way overdue, but it’s great to see Krasner get his comeuppance.

KYW News Radio reports:

Pa. attorney general must review cases Philly DA wants to overturn, state Supreme Court rules

In an extraordinary ruling from Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, if the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office wants to overturn a conviction in state court, the state Attorney General’s Office must be given the chance to review the case and make sure a proper investigation was done.

The order comes as a King’s Bench petition, which is basically a mechanism for the high court to take over a case and review it. The case at hand involved Lavar Brown, a man convicted of killing two men in the early 2000s and sentenced to death row.

In their opinion, the five Democratic and two Republican justices said District Attorney Larry Krasner has “numerous instances of untrustworthy concessions, lack of candor, misrepresentations of fact, lack of adequate investigation, and avoidance of hearings” and is “unreliable.”

They said when a district attorney fails to follow through on their duties it “does not minister justice, it facilitates injustice.”

The high court said because “the problems are poised to continue,” it’s now requiring the Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the commonwealth.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom solicited $340M in ‘behested payments’ from special interests, filings reveal

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s bid to seize control of the narrative around multiple federal investigations is backfiring, with critics using the governor’s accusations of Trump-led ‘lawfare’ to revive long-running questions about pay-to-play politics in California.

State records show Newsom has solicited more than $340 million in donations from wealthy donors and special interests — some of which have received preferential treatment and millions of dollars in state contracts — while also taking pains to prop up the political activities of his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

A review of state disclosure records shows Newsom has reported 1,325 behested payments totaling $347,240,506 since 2011, when he was serving as lieutenant governor.

The payments — legal under California law, but a controversial if not illegal practice in some other states — are reported once they hit $5,000 from a single source in a calendar year, and they must be for a charitable, governmental or legislative purpose.

Criticism and memes of Newsom’s habit of soliciting donations have been gaining steam since the governor announced on Monday he and wife are the focus of multiple federal probes.

Keep reading

How Deep Are the Newsoms in It? THIS Deep.

It seems impossible — or just too revolting — to keep up with the financial hanky-panky of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner (gag) Jennifer Siebel Newsom. But thanks to a couple of investigative reporters with stronger stomachs than I have, let’s see if I can’t put everything you need to know into one easily digestible column.

I love it when other people do my dirty work for me, so let’s get started.

“Today, my wife & I joined Donald Trump’s hit list,” Newsom practically boasted on Monday. “He has directed his Department of Justice to investigate us. They have not found a crime — they are simply trying to find one.”

Well, let’s see what Fox Business anchor Liz MacDonald and my old friend and Red State colleague Jen Van Laar have to say about that.

MacDonald said Tuesday that the DOJ probe “is about California Democrats’ modern-day machine politics,” which she described as a “feedback loop of Sacramento-corporate lobbyists-governor/wife nonprofit-behested nonprofit donations-lucrative state contracts-Sacramento.”

Don’t bother writing all this down — there won’t be a quiz at the end of today’s column. You’re welcome.

“The modern Sacramento machine trades corporate compliance and nonprofit funding/donations for policy access and state business,” MacDonald added, and then explained how that grift (allegedly!) worked for the Newsoms:

According to IRS Form 990 disclosures, her nonprofit frequently buys from Siebel Newsom’s for-profit film company—Girls Club Entertainment LLC—writer, producer and director services and the licensing and production rights for her documentaries. Then it sells the docs to the state and public schools. 

 IRS records show that her nonprofit has paid her Girls Club Entertainment LLC roughly $1.64 million for these production and licensing rights since 2012, which includes a steady annual contracting fee of $150,000 since 2018.

TL;DR: Siebel Newsom produced unwatchable propaganda videos for children, for which Democrat-dominated schools then paid her handsomely. Or as MacDonald summed it up, “Over the past decade, Siebel Newsom has collected over $3.7 million in combined personal salary and LLC payouts funded by the nonprofit.”

Then there are behested payments, which MacDonald explained are “a unique mechanism in California politics where an elected official asks a corporation, labor union, or wealthy individual to donate money to a specific charity, nonprofit, or government program.” Unlike campaign donations, there are no caps.

As governor, Newsom requested a record $226 million in behested payments in one year. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars went to the California Partners Project,” MacDonald wrote, “a nonprofit founded by his wife.”

Keep reading

DOJ Probes JPMorgan, Bank of America, Over Political Account Closures

Federal subpoenas hit JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo this week, ordering the banks to name every customer they cut off and to say why.

The legal fight is about fraud statutes and prosecutorial reach. A blunter question sits underneath it. When a bank shuts your account over your politics, where are you supposed to go?

The demands came from the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., run by Jeanine Pirro.

Her prosecutors asked the banks for lists of people who were “debanked” and for the reasons behind shutting them out. Some of the subpoenas reach back more than a year.

The investigation tests whether the account closures violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, a law built to chase bank fraud.

Debanking amounts to financial exile. A private institution decides your views, or your line of work, make you a liability, and your access to checking accounts, payroll, and credit can vanish.

There’s no hearing, no judge, and often no warning beyond a card that stops working. The power to do this sits with the bank, and the person on the other end rarely gets to argue back.

Last August, President Trump signed an executive order telling banking regulators to root out “politicized or unlawful debanking” and to penalize it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency later reviewed the nine largest banks and reported it had found early signs of the practice. Pirro’s office went further on its own, opening the criminal probe without waiting for a referral from those regulators.

The banks’ defense is the one you’d expect. They say they shut accounts only over legal, regulatory, or financial risk, never over belief. That explanation is convenient and hard to check because the standards live inside the banks and the people affected almost never see them. When the threshold for losing your account is “risk” defined by the institution that benefits from defining it loosely, almost any disfavored customer can be folded in.

For the crypto industry, the probe puts a name to a years-old grievance. Digital-asset firms watched their accounts close across 2022 and 2023 and called it “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a nod to a 2013 Obama-era program that pushed banks to drop industries the government disliked. The pattern repeats because the method works. You don’t have to outlaw an activity if you can cut off the money that keeps it alive.

That is the chilling effect in its purest form. People and businesses learn that the wrong affiliation can cost them a bank account, so they grow careful about what they say, fund, or build. The punishment never needs a courtroom to land, and it teaches everyone watching to keep their heads down.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo have mostly declined to comment on the subpoenas. JPMorgan has disclosed that it faces “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings” tied to the executive order.

The records Pirro wants would show, customer by customer, who the banks decided to drop and why. People shut out of the financial system for their views have spent years being told it never happened.

Keep reading

Trump Turns the Tables, Says He Will Not Approve FISA Extension Without Save America Act – Pulte Will Remain as Acting DNI Until US Attorney Pick is Approved

President Trump checkmated the Democrats and RINOs early on Wednesday morning, announcing that the Senate hearing on Jay Clayton to serve as Director of National Intelligence will be canceled, and that Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte will remain in place to serve as acting DNI. 

This comes amid the ongoing debate over FISA Section 702, which the Intelligence Community uses for warrantless surveillance on national security threats– as well as innocent Americans.

“The Republicans agreed with Dumocrats to remove very fair, and talented, William Pulte, from serving as Acting DNI in return for getting FISA approved by the Dumocrats,’ Trump said in a statement this morning.

“However, the Republicans moved so fast with the hearings of the Great Jay Clayton, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, that Pulte would be gone before the Dumocrats would vote on FISA. Now, the Dumocrats are saying they will vote against FISA — So, the Republicans wound up having fulfilled their commitment, but Dumocrats broke the Deal.”

Keep reading

The Fragile US-Iran MOU and the Limits of the Trump-Netanyahu Partnership

As the fragile ceasefire hangs over the Middle East, two longtime allies who once seemed inseparable are now locked in a tense standoff. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, launched this war with what looked like perfect coordination. But roughly a hundred days later, it has become a messy arena of personal friction, clashing strategies, and a very public tug-of-war over how – and when – it should end. Trump wants a quick victory and a deal he can sell as a historic win back home. Netanyahu sees the conflict as a once-in-a-generation chance to crush Iran’s threats for good and is in no mood to back down easily.

It all began in late February 2026. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes hammered Iranian targets with waves of missiles and airstrikes. In his first statements, Trump spoke of the “death of Iran’s Supreme Leader” and urged Iranians to rise up against the regime. Netanyahu set even more ambitious goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, weakening its proxy forces across the region, and perhaps even regime change. In those early days, the two leaders appeared completely aligned. Trump pictured the operation as something short and decisive, reminiscent of his past “maximum pressure” campaigns. He hoped it would drive down oil prices, boost the American economy, and deliver him a major political trophy.

The battlefield, however, refused to cooperate with the script. Iran proved far more resilient than expected. Fighting spilled into Lebanon, Hezbollah got involved, and Trump’s diplomatic back-channel talks with Tehran suddenly looked shaky. Almost overnight, the early harmony gave way to visible strain. Trump quickly began looking for an honorable off-ramp. For him, war was always a tool for negotiation – a means to an end. Netanyahu, however, faced intense domestic pressure in Israel. With critics nipping at his heels and a fragile right-wing coalition to maintain, he viewed the conflict as a historic opportunity to deliver decisive blows against Iran’s infrastructure and cut off support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Reports from Israeli security cabinet meetings suggest Netanyahu even warned that Israel might continue alone if necessary, without full American backing.

The rift turned sharply personal in recent days. After Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward northern Israel. Israel responded by hitting Iranian defensive sites and missile fuel facilities. Trump was openly furious about the escalation. In an interview with the Financial Times, he declared, “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.” He claimed to have warned Netanyahu that if the fighting continued unchecked, Israel could soon find itself standing alone.

Accounts of a heated phone call between the two leaders have since leaked. Sources describe Trump using strong language, reportedly calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and accusing him of undermining American diplomacy. People close to the White House say Trump shouted that he was saving Netanyahu, that without him Israel would be isolated and hated internationally. Netanyahu apparently postponed a planned new round of strikes on Tehran following that conversation. Back in Israel, his critics accused him of caving to Washington. Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot even released a campaign-style video featuring Trump’s voice, implying that Netanyahu does whatever the American president wants.

Trump later tried to soften the story in interviews with the BBC and various podcasts. He admitted he had been “a little upset” about the continued fighting in Lebanon because it was disrupting his negotiations with Iran. Yet multiple American and Israeli sources confirm the pressure from Washington was real and effective. Using America’s leverage – military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover – Trump has leaned hard on his counterpart.

The motivations driving each man run deep and differ sharply. Trump, mindful of war fatigue among American voters, is hunting for an agreement that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, frees hostages, and brings down gas prices at American pumps. He approaches foreign policy like a businessman: apply maximum pressure, strike a deal, and exit with something to show for it. This culminated in the recent U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which extends the ceasefire for 60 days, includes provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, provides for sanctions relief and release of frozen assets tied to compliance, and sets the stage for further nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu operates in a different reality. For him, anything short of severely degrading Iran’s capabilities would leave the job half-done. Any agreement reached too quickly, he believes, would be temporary and dangerous. In private sessions, he has stressed that Israel must be prepared to act in its own defense even without complete U.S. support.

The disagreement is particularly clear in Lebanon. Israeli operations in the south have complicated Trump’s diplomatic track with Tehran. Netanyahu insists that without a heavy blow to Iran’s proxies, the Islamic Republic will simply regroup and threaten Israel again. Trump, on the other hand, sees every extra week of fighting as an obstacle to the deal he wants to close. The MOU has further highlighted these tensions, with Israel expressing reservations and continuing certain operations while the U.S. pushes the broader framework forward.

Their once-warm personal relationship has also grown complicated. For years, Trump called Netanyahu a “friend” and “great partner.” Now his tone carries a sharper, almost condescending edge. Netanyahu, who has always emphasized Israel’s independent decision-making, finds himself walking a tightrope between domestic political survival and the vital lifeline of American support. Analysts describe the dynamic as much psychological as political. Trump pushes with his trademark blunt force and threats. Netanyahu resists with iron will and careful calculations about his own political future.

The consequences of this split reach well beyond the two men. If Trump brokers a relatively soft deal with Iran via the MOU, Netanyahu might view it as betrayal and launch unilateral operations anyway. Conversely, if Netanyahu drags the war out, Trump could restrict logistical and intelligence support, leaving Israel in a difficult spot. Iran is already trying to exploit the visible daylight between Washington and Jerusalem to deepen the divide. Inside Israel, the public is tired of war but many still back Netanyahu’s hard line. In the United States, the conflict remains deeply unpopular, and Trump faces growing pressure to bring it to an end.

For now, a shaky ceasefire holds under the new U.S.-Iran MOU framework, but tensions simmer just beneath the surface. Trump insists he remains in control and that Netanyahu will ultimately do what he asks. Netanyahu, in public statements, continues to stress Israel’s readiness to defend its interests with or without full dependence on Washington. The history of the Middle East is littered with wars that were easy to start but agonizingly hard to finish. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu – once a symbol of ironclad solidarity – has become a mirror reflecting conflicting national interests and differing priorities.

What is decided in the Oval Office and in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem will shape not only the outcome of this war but potentially the future pattern of U.S.-Israel relations for years to come. The region waits, watching closely.

Keep reading

Schiff: Dems Will Subpoena Private Sector People that Worked with Trump

Tuesday on MS NOW’s “The Briefing,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said that if Democrats win the majority in the midterms, they will subpoena private-sector people who worked with President Donald Trump in his second term.

Host Jen Psaki asked, “Should the Senate be, should the Democrats be in the majority and decide to investigate or look into Patel? I mean, you are one of the many people who have been targeted by Trump’s Justice Department under Trump’s direction, as we’ve all seen it. One another person, who announced yesterday that he was being targeted is, of course, Governor Gavin Newsom. I know you spoke with some of my colleagues about that last night, but I wonder, as we’re thinking about because we’ve been talking about the Georgia races tonight, we’ve been talking about politics as we think about if Democrats have the majority next year, you’re on the Judiciary Committee. Trump is still going to target his political enemies. He’s not going to stop. He’s going to have people in the Department of Justice that does that. What changes what kind of Senate majority do to kind of hold them to account or even stop that?”

Schiff said, “Well, we’ll of course, to oversight of the administration. But judging from his first term, when we subpoenaed, for example, administration officials in the Russia Ukraine investigations, they basically stonewall the subpoenas. In fact, Trump was impeached in that first impeachment, not just for trying to extort Zelensky to get him to help cheat in the election, but also because he was stonewalling, congressional subpoenas. So I don’t think we can expect a whole lot from the administration, but we can subpoena the private sector and they will need to comply. So all of the crypto deals and meme coin deals, the UFC fight, all the back channeling on the Paramount SkyDance, and Warner Brothers mergers, whether there are promises made of changing editorial content, all of that kind of corruption, potential corruption, we will be able to look into.”

Keep reading

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

Keep reading

Senate Shoots Down Resolution to Limit Trump’s Military Authority Over Iran

By a single vote, the Senate shot down a proposal on Tuesday that would have reined in President Donald Trump’s ability to use military force against Iran without Congress’s approval.

The vote fell just one vote short of advancing with 48-47. Republican Senators Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul voted with the Democrats. On the flip side, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) crossed the aisle to vote alongside the Republican majority against the bill.

Introduced by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), the resolution sought to require congressional approval for continued U.S. military action involving Iran. Warnock had urged Republicans to vote for it, arguing that Congress shouldn’t just sit back and let the president make all the decisions on foreign wars.

The vote occurred as lawmakers pressed the White House for details about an agreement Trump announced Sunday between Washington and Tehran that he has promoted as a path toward ending months of fighting.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump declared on Truth Social.

Members of Congress are still completely in the dark about the agreement, leading to a push on the administration for transparency. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said lawmakers are demanding more details on how the arrangement actually works. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, agreements related to Iran’s nuclear program must be submitted to Congress for review before sanctions relief can take effect.

Although the measure did not advance, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats are continuing discussions surrounding a separate proposal sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and are attempting to secure additional Republican support before bringing it up again.

Keep reading