Tag: trump derangement syndrome

Trump’s FBI says ‘Epstein’ prison postcard to pedophile Larry Nassar is FAKE

The prison postcard released in the Epstein files, allegedly written by Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar before his suicide, has been ruled as fake by the FBI. 

Allegedly written before Epstein’s 2019 jail cell suicide, the contents included a claim that ‘our president’ loves ‘young, nubile girls.’ Donald Trump was the president at the time, although there was no named references to him. 

It was released as part of the immense trove of files relating to the disgraced financier’s crimes and subsequent death. The DOJ has been releasing more documents since the deadline last Friday.

Included in today’s drop was the purported postcard – which referenced that Epstein took the ‘short route home’ and wished the former USA Olympic doctor, responsible for the biggest sexual abuse scandal in the history of American sports, well.

But despite being part of the official government document release, the FBI have said that the postcard is bogus, citing handwriting and stamping discrepancies.  

The Department of Justice posted just before 3.30pm on Tuesday: ‘The FBI has confirmed this alleged letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar is FAKE. 

‘The fake letter was received by the jail, and flagged for the FBI at the time. The FBI made this conclusion based on the following facts.

‘The writing does not appear to match Jeffrey Epstein’s. The letter was postmarked three days after Epstein’s death out of Northern Virginia, when he was jailed in New York. 

Keep reading

Democrats renew government shutdown threat as tensions flare with Trump

Senate Democrats are raising the threat of another government shutdown in late January as tensions with President Trump escalate over a series of recent maneuvers by the White House that Democrats say need a forceful response from Capitol Hill.

Senate Democrats walked away from a potential deal to fund a broad swath of the federal government, including the departments of Defense, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, which make up roughly two-thirds of the discretionary budget, before Congress adjourned for the Christmas recess.  

Democrats cited Trump’s threat to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a leading government-funded center for atmospheric and climate research, as the reason they couldn’t advance a five-bill spending package before Christmas.

Had the legislation passed the Senate this past week, it would have given Congress a good chance of funding up to 85 percent to 90 percent of the federal government through September of next year and taken the threat of another shutdown off the table.

Instead, the shutdown threat remains very much alive, even though Democrats aren’t yet revealing their strategy ahead of the Jan. 30 government funding deadline.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who was involved in negotiations to get the spending package through the Senate, said that Democrats want to preserve their “leverage” by keeping the threat of another shutdown on the table.

“They want some leverage for the end of January,” Hoeven told The Hill, adding that he got the sense that Democrats weren’t ready to pass the funding package, even if funding for the atmospheric and climate center in Colorado didn’t blow up into a major issue.

Senate Democratic progressives aren’t ruling out the possibility that they will attempt to use the next funding deadline to demand major concessions from Trump.

“I’m not going to speculate,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who added that Democrats want to pass the regular appropriations bills but will wait to see what happens over the next several weeks.

A Democratic senator who requested anonymity to talk about the likelihood of a shutdown said that passing the five-bill spending package, which stalled in the Senate Thursday, would be critical to avoiding a shutdown.

The failure to advance the measure is a red flag warning that the chances of a shutdown are growing, lawmakers say.

Keep reading

“I Have a List in My Head” – Anonymous Deep State Prosecutor Admits DOJ will Retaliate Against Trump Admin Officials as Soon as Democrats Take Back the White House

A DOJ prosecutor admitted the Justice Department will retaliate against Trump Administration officials as soon as Democrats take back the White House.

The New York Times gave sixty disgruntled DOJ lawyers a platform to attack the Trump appointees who have overhauled the Department.

The piece, titled “The Unraveling of the Justice Department,” describes the ‘turmoil’ in the DOJ after Trump appointees took over.

“President Trump’s second term has brought a period of turmoil and controversy unlike any in the history of the Justice Department. Trump and his appointees have blasted through the walls designed to protect the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency from political influence; they have directed the course of criminal investigations, openly flouted ethics rules and caused a breakdown of institutional culture. To date, more than 200 career attorneys have been fired, and thousands more have resigned. (The Justice Department says many of them have been replaced.)” The New York Times said.

More than 200 Deep State prosecutors have been fired this year, and thousands have resigned.

The New York Times interviewed 60 disgruntled former DOJ lawyers who got axed by the Trump Administration.

Keep reading

Tinfoil Haturday: Was Rob Reiner a Deep State Spook? Roll the Tape…

Rob Reiner did for Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) what Ray Kroc did for hamburgers, what Henry Ford did for the automobile, and what Genghis Khan may have done for sexually transmitted diseases; he brought it to the masses.

Reiner’s tweets weren’t informative, clever, or funny; they were over-the-top insulting and, more importantly, accusatory, so much so that an acne-besotted incel from Butler, Penn., might want to take a shot at Trump.

Why would a “legendary” Hollywood actor/director spend his time vomiting hate online toward Trump (rather than attending to his own drug-addled/mentally ill/occasionally homeless son Nick)?

The password is: [psyop] 

Maybe….. allegedly…

Keep reading

California Expected To Defy Federal Pressure, And Reissue 17,000 Non-Domiciled CDLs

California is expected to begin reissuing approximately 17,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses that the state had planned to revoke following federal enforcement pressure. The decision comes despite ongoing corrective action requirements from FMCSA and raises fundamental questions about federal enforcement authority when a state openly defies compliance directives.

State transportation officials confirmed to sources that the Department of Motor Vehicles will begin restoring the contested licenses to immigrant drivers who received 60-day cancellation notices on November 6. The state has not clarified the specific process but points to the D.C. Circuit Court’s November 13 emergency stay of FMCSA’s interim final rule restricting non-domiciled CDL eligibility.

What California apparently misunderstands, or is choosing to ignore, is that the court stay addressed only the September 29 interim final rule. It did not address the separate compliance failures FMCSA documented during its 2025 Annual Program Review, which found that approximately 25% of California’s non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued under regulations that existed before the emergency rule was ever published.

The federal government threatened to withhold more than $150 million in highway funding from California over these pre-existing violations. Those threats remain fully in effect regardless of the court’s stay of the new rule.

Two Separate Problems California Is Conflating

Understanding California’s legal exposure requires separating two distinct issues that the state appears to be deliberately merging.

Problem One: The Interim Final Rule. On September 29, 2025, FMCSA issued an emergency interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers’ Licenses.” This rule dramatically restricted the eligibility of non-domiciled CDL holders to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas, excluding asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients. The D.C. Circuit Court stayed this rule on November 13, finding petitioners were “likely to succeed” on claims that FMCSA violated federal law, acted arbitrarily, and failed to justify bypassing standard rulemaking procedures. With this rule stayed, states can theoretically continue issuing non-domiciled CDLs under pre-September 29 regulations, except for states under corrective action plans.

Problem Two: Pre-Existing Compliance Failures. FMCSA’s 2025 Annual Program Review found California had been violating federal regulations that existed long before the interim final rule. The agency documented systemic failures: CDLs issued with expiration dates extending years beyond drivers’ lawful presence authorization, licenses issued to Mexican nationals who are prohibited from holding non-domiciled CDLs (unless under DACA), and inadequate verification procedures. These violations triggered a preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance under 49 CFR 384.307, a process entirely separate from the stayed interim final rule.

California remains subject to a corrective action plan addressing these pre-existing violations. The court stay doesn’t change that. FMCSA’s November 13 guidance was explicit: states “subject to a corrective action plan” must maintain their pauses on non-domiciled CDL issuance until demonstrating compliance with pre-rule regulations.

The Nuclear Option: Decertification

Under 49 U.S.C. § 31312, FMCSA has authority to decertify a state’s entire CDL program if the state is found in “substantial noncompliance” with federal requirements. Decertification would prohibit California from issuing, renewing, transferring, or upgrading any commercial learner’s permits or commercial driver’s licenses, not just non-domiciled credentials, until FMCSA determines that the state has corrected its deficiencies.

The consequences would be immediate and severe. Every new driver in California’s CDL pipeline would freeze. CDL schools would halt operations. Testing would stop. Carriers would face weeks or months of disruption in recruiting new drivers. The ripple effects would devastate one of the nation’s most critical freight corridors.

FMCSA recently threatened Pennsylvania with decertification after an Uzbek terror suspect was found holding a Pennsylvania-issued CDL. The agency gave the state 30 days to respond and warned that failure to correct deficiencies could result in losing issuance authority entirely. California’s defiance appears far more egregious; the state is not merely failing to correct problems but actively moving to restore licenses that federal auditors determined were improperly issued.

Keep reading

BBC Vows to Fight Trump’s $10 BILLION Defamation Lawsuit After Splicing J6 Speech to Depict Trump Calling for Violence

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has vowed to fight Trump’s $10 million lawsuit against the broadcaster for defamation and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act after they were caught deceptively editing Trump’s January 6 speech to make it appear he was calling for violence. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, President Trump told reporters on Monday that he would imminently be filing a defamation lawsuit against the BBC after announcing his intention to do so last month.

“In a little while, you’ll be seeing, I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth,” Trump said in the Oval Office.

“They actually have me speaking with words that I never said, and they got caught because I believe somebody at BBC said this is so bad it has to be reported. That’s called fake news.

Keep reading

FBI repeatedly warned DOJ didn’t have probable cause to raid Trump home: ‘Not been corroborated’

he FBI in summer 2022 raised repeated objections to raiding Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, warning agents did not believe the Biden Justice Department had enough evidence to establish “probable cause” that the then-former president had broken the law in handling classified documents, according to bombshell memos turned over Tuesday to Congress.

“WFO [FBI’s Washington Field Office] has conducted approximately [Redacted] interviews related to this matter. Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents,” a June 1, 2022 FBI memo declared. “From the interviews, WFO has gathered information suggesting that there may be additional boxes (presumably of the same type as were sent back to NARA [National Archives] in January) at Mar-a-Lago.”

“WFO has been drafting a Search Warrant affidavit related to these potential boxes, but has some concerns that the information is single source, has not been corroborated, and may be dated. DOJ CES [Counterintelligence and Export Control Section] opines, however, that the SWs [search warrants] meet the probable cause standard,” that memo read.

Over a month later, FBI agents raised more concerns, including about the legality of searching Trump’s personal residence at the Mar-a-Lago residence, the memos show.

“DOJ has inquired as to an Ops Plan for a SW of MAL [Mar-a-Lago]. I let them know we are not in agreement for PC [probable cause] on the SW [search warrant] and that we already had an Ops Plan in place that will [sic] can be quickly updated between FBI/MM [Miami Field Office] and FBI/WF [Washington Field Office],” a redacted FBI agent in the nation’s capital wrote in a July 12, 2022 email. “However, WF-[Redacted] does not believe we have PC for the 45 Office or the bedroom due to recency and issues of boxes versus classified information. Therefore, as we are in disagreement on the SW and its scope, we are not yet finalizing a SW as we are missing relevant logistics and details.”

Just the News obtained a copy of the memos after Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel declassified them and turned them over to Congress.

“Received shocking new docs 2day from DOJ & FBI showing FBI DID NOT BELIEVE IT HAD PROBABLE CAUSE to raid Pres[ident] Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, but Biden DOJ pushed for it anyway,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley tweeted on Tuesday afternoon. “Based on the records, Mar-a-Lago raid was a miscarriage of justice.”

The emails were turned over to the Senate and House Judiciary committees, ahead of a planned deposition Wednesday from ex-special prosecutor Jack Smith, who inherited the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case just months after the August 2022 raid of Trump’s home that rocked the political world ahead of the 2024 election.

Keep reading

Pentagon Escalates Investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly for ‘Serious Allegations of Misconduct’

The Department of War (DOW) is escalating its review of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a retired Navy captain, to an official command investigation into his participation in a video dubbed “seditious” by President Donald Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

DOW officials announced the preliminary review on November 24 in response to a video he published with fellow Democrat lawmakers calling on military service members and intelligence officials to “refuse illegal orders” from the Trump administration.

Hegseth called the video “despicable, reckless, and false,” calling Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Jason Crow (D-CO) the “Seditious Six” in a social media post.

While four of the other participants in the video are former military, Hegseth explained that they are not “retired” so they “are no longer subject” to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The video made by the “Seditious Six” was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of “good order and discipline.” Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion, which only puts our warriors in danger.

“However, Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ — and he knows that,” the secretary stated. “As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation — lending the appearance of authority to his words. Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”

The investigation could result in further actions, including recalling Kelly to active duty status to initiate “court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” the DOW said. 

Keep reading

Russia hoaxer Marc Elias just humiliated himself in front of Clarence Thomas…

Marc Elias has spent years masquerading as a serious legal mind, even though everyone who actually practices law knows the truth: he’s a clown. If it wasn’t for the Clintons, he’d be chasing ambulances in some podunk town. Instead, Elias is a political fixer. A Clinton-world errand boy. The kind of guy who speaks loudly to cover the fact that his arguments collapse the moment any competent person pushes back.

Also, remember, this is the same Marc Elias who helped inject the Russia hoax into the bloodstream of American media. The same Marc Elias who turned opposition research into a national mental illness. Cable news loves him because he talks fast, says scary things about Trump, and never has to face cross-examination.

So naturally, for reasons known only to the left’s most overconfident strategists, everybody decided that Marc Elias was the guy to take his act to the Supreme Court of The United States.

That decision didn’t go well…

Instead of friendly fake news anchors nodding along, Elias ran straight into a brick wall called Clarence Thomas. Elias had no script to fall back on. He wasn’t getting those lovely, gentle softball lobs. This guy went into the lion’s den with zero protection. So, when Marc had to face a competent Justice, quietly asking him to explain what the heck he was arguing and why any of it made constitutional sense, Marc crumbled.

It was painful.

And Elias wasn’t arguing some random fringe case. He was trying to sell the Court on this convoluted theory that coordinated political spending was some “First Amendment” speech issue. Basically, he wanted the justices to believe that paying campaign bills and coordinating expenses somehow magically transforms into “protected expression.”

Justice Thomas was not buying it.

As you listen to the audio, pay attention to what keeps happening. Thomas asks a simple question. Elias responds with a fog machine of confusion. Thomas asks again. Elias keeps circling the drain, repeating phrases like “symbolic speech” and “the act of giving,” without ever landing a coherent answer. Eventually, Thomas flat-out says he does not understand what Elias is even arguing.

Keep reading

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Argues Presidents Should Not Be Able to Fire Government Experts

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the president of the United States should not be able to fire government experts such as scientists, doctors, economists, and PhDs, and she claimed it is “not in the best interest” of American citizens.

During oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter, while talking to U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Jackson said she did “not understand” why “agencies aren’t answering to Congress.” Jackson pointed out that “Congress established them and can eliminate them.”

The oral arguments come after the Supreme Court, in September, allowed President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

“I really don’t understand why the agencies aren’t answering to Congress,” Jackson said. “Congress established them and can eliminate them. Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that we’re concerned that there’s some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I don’t understand that argument.”

“We would say the Constitutional actor on the hypothetical who is controlling these agencies is Congress, and that is a huge separation of powers,” Sauer argued, as Jackson informed him that she understood.

Jackson continued to point out that Sauer’s arguments “seem to revolve around” the idea that there is “some kind of thing happening with the independent agency, that the reason why the president needs to control it is because they don’t answer to anybody.”

Keep reading