Peter Strzok, once a central figure in the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, wiped his X account clean on Monday, as the Daily Caller reports. His digital purge comes as the incoming Trump administration sharpens its focus on Obama-era intelligence officials. The timing raises eyebrows, suggesting a man with something to hide.
Strzok, fired from the FBI in 2018, was a key player in the now-discredited Russia collusion narrative. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently exposed what she calls a “years-long coup” against Donald Trump, starting after his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. Her July 18 memo points fingers at Strzok and others for their roles.
In 2016, Strzok pushed to keep open an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security advisor. This move, now under scrutiny, fueled allegations of a politicized probe. Gabbard’s documents paint a picture of a concerted effort to undermine Trump’s presidency from the start.
Strzok’s involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation wasn’t just professional -- it was personal. Text messages to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, revealed his disdain for Trump, calling into question his impartiality. Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report confirmed the FBI couldn’t substantiate the Steele Dossier’s claims, which Strzok championed.
Durham’s report, released May 15, 2023, exposed Strzok and then-FBI official Andrew McCabe’s “hostile feelings” toward Trump. These weren’t just casual gripes but documented biases that tainted the investigation. The report shredded the credibility of the dossier used to surveil Trump associates.
Strzok’s texts, dripping with contempt, became his undoing. Fired on August 13, 2018, he was criticized by then-FBI deputy director David Bowditch for damaging the agency’s reputation. Bowditch called Strzok’s actions a series of “missteps” that shook public trust in the FBI.
Gabbard’s July memo didn’t just name Strzok -- it called for a Justice Department “strike force.” She referred documents implicating former FBI Director James Comey and ex-CIA Director John Brennan for criminal investigation. The memo alleges a coordinated effort to sabotage Trump’s first term.
Strzok’s X account purge aligns suspiciously with Gabbard’s revelations. Why scrub your digital footprint now, unless the heat’s getting too close? It’s a move that screams damage control, not innocence.
Currently, Strzok pontificates as an MSNBC contributor and teaches counter-intelligence at Georgetown University. His academic perch and cable news gigs suggest he’s still shaping narratives, just not under oath. Yet his silence on Gabbard’s allegations, via Georgetown’s communications office, speaks louder than his usual commentary.
In November 2022, Strzok told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that Trump’s “coziness” with Vladimir Putin raised national security concerns. He questioned whether Trump’s base would align with Russia’s strategic interests. Oh, the irony -- Strzok accusing others of foreign collusion while his own probe fell apart under scrutiny.
Strzok’s claim that Trump’s “mistrust” of NATO and hesitation on Ukraine aid aligned with Russia’s goals was pure projection. Durham’s report showed Strzok’s investigation relied on unverified gossip, not evidence. His MSNBC hot takes now look like desperate deflections from his failures.
“I have not seen a more impactful series of missteps,” Bowditch wrote in Strzok’s termination draft, per the Washington Examiner. Those missteps didn’t just cost Strzok his badge -- they eroded trust in the FBI’s integrity. His X purge only deepens the suspicion he’s running from accountability.
Gabbard’s push for a Justice Department probe signals Trump’s team isn’t playing games. Naming Comey and Brennan alongside Strzok suggests a reckoning for Obama-era intel antics. The “strike force” sounds like a promise to root out bureaucratic bias.
Strzok’s X cleanse might delay scrutiny, but it won’t erase history. His role in pushing the Russia hoax, now debunked, leaves a stain no social media scrub can remove. The public deserves answers, not deleted posts.
As Trump’s administration gears up, Strzok’s past is catching up fast. Gabbard’s memo and Durham’s report have laid bare a pattern of politicized overreach. For a man who once wielded immense power, Strzok’s digital retreat looks like a last-ditch dodge.
Sen. Adam Schiff’s mortgage dealings are under fire as the DOJ digs into allegations of fraud. The probe centers on Schiff’s paperwork for a Maryland home purchase from the early 2000s, raising questions about his integrity, as Fox News reports. This isn’t just a paperwork snafu -- it’s a potential legal quagmire for a vocal Trump critic.
In 2003, Schiff bought a Potomac, Maryland, home for $870,000 with a $610,000 Fannie Mae-backed mortgage at 5.625% over 30 years, while later claiming a California condo as his primary residence, sparking accusations of falsifying documents to secure better loan terms. The FHFA flagged this to the DOJ in 2023, citing “multiple instances” of alleged document fraud from 2003 to 2019. It’s a classic case of trying to game the system, and now the paper trail might bury him.
Schiff’s 2009 purchase of a Burbank, California, condo added fuel to the fire. He claimed a $7,000 homeowner’s tax exemption on the condo, listing it as his primary residence, while simultaneously reaffirming the Maryland property as his principal residence in mortgage refinancing documents from 2009 to 2013. Double-dipping on primary residences? That’s a bold move for a supposed public servant.
The FHFA’s 2023 letter to the DOJ alleges Schiff falsified banking and property documents to secure favorable loan terms. Mortgage companies, scarred by the 2008 financial crisis, keep meticulous records, giving investigators a clear path to follow. If Schiff thought he could outsmart the system, he underestimated the long arm of those records.
In 2020, Schiff refinanced his Maryland mortgage, finally listing the property as a secondary residence. This shift came after years of allegedly playing fast and loose with residency claims. The timing smells like a convenient course correction once scrutiny loomed.
CNN broke the story in 2023 during Schiff’s Senate campaign, thrusting his mortgage discrepancies into the public eye. Schiff’s campaign weakly claimed both properties were listed as primary residences “for loan purposes” since they were occupied year-round. That excuse sounds like a flimsy attempt to dodge accountability.
President Donald Trump didn’t hold back, blasting Schiff on Truth Social for alleged mortgage fraud. “I have always suspected Shifty Adam Schiff was a scam artist,” Trump posted, pointing to the Maryland refinance in 2009 as the start of the alleged fraud. Trump’s not wrong to call out a politician who’s built a career on sanctimonious lectures while potentially bending the rules himself.
Trump doubled down, accusing Schiff of defrauding banks, insurance companies, and the federal government through mortgage loan fraud. “He has a lot of other things far worse than that,” Trump added at a White House event. The former president’s knack for spotlighting his rivals’ missteps keeps Schiff squirming.
Schiff’s response? He dodged Fox News Digital’s questions, refusing to address the allegations head-on. His silence speaks volumes -- when cornered, Schiff clams up faster than a bureaucrat hiding bad news. It’s not the look of an innocent man.
The DOJ, now under Trump’s “no shrinking violets” leadership, is likely combing through Schiff’s paper trail but hasn’t confirmed an investigation. “The one thing they don’t want to do is to bring a case that fails,” said Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson. A botched prosecution against a high-profile figure like Schiff would be a political disaster, so the DOJ is playing it smart.
Jacobson expects the DOJ to focus on documents, not hearsay, given the robust records mortgage companies maintain. “There will be many things that are documentable, and not ‘he said, she said,’” he noted. Schiff’s paper trail could be his undoing, as every refinance and tax exemption is etched in black and white.
Schiff’s team insists his primary residence is in Burbank and will stay that way if he wins his Senate seat. Yet, claiming two homes as primary residences for financial gain reeks of hypocrisy for a politician who led Trump’s first impeachment in 2020. Schiff’s moralizing doesn’t hold up when his own house is out of order.
Schiff cried foul on X, calling the allegations “baseless” and Trump’s “latest attempt at political retaliation.” “This smear will not distract from his Epstein files problem,” Schiff sniped. Nice try, but deflecting to Trump’s controversies won’t erase Schiff’s paper trail.
Jacobson sees irony in Democrats’ complaints about Trump weaponizing prosecutors. “They have used every tool available to try to destroy him,” he said, noting a decade of lawfare against Trump. Schiff’s indignation rings hollow when he’s been a ringleader in that crusade.
The DOJ’s next moves remain unclear, but Schiff’s history as House Intelligence Committee chair and his 2023 House censure for promoting Trump-Russia collusion claims make him a prime target. With Trump’s DOJ circling, Schiff’s mortgage mess could haunt his Senate tenure. Karma has a way of catching up, and Schiff might soon learn that lesson the hard way.
Roy Black, the Miami legal titan who defended the elite and notorious, has died at 80, leaving a legacy of courtroom victories that reshaped criminal defense, as NBC News reports. His knack for outsmarting prosecutors made him a conservative icon in a world increasingly swayed by progressive narratives. Yet, his defense of figures like Jeffrey Epstein raises questions about where justice ends and showmanship begins.
Black, a prominent Miami defense attorney, gained fame by securing an acquittal for William Kennedy Smith in a 1991 rape trial that gripped the nation. The trial, broadcast live with the accuser’s face obscured behind a blue dot, showcased Black’s ability to turn high-profile cases into legal triumphs. His death at 80 marks the end of a career that championed the accused against a system often eager to convict.
Black’s law partner, Howard Srebnick, mourned, “For more than 30 years, Roy was my teacher, mentor, and friend.” Srebnick’s grief reflects the reverence Black commanded, but his defense of controversial figures like Epstein suggests a blind spot for moral accountability. Black’s courtroom prowess often outshone the progressive push for collective guilt.
The 1991 trial of William Kennedy Smith, a nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, was a cultural flashpoint, exposing the media’s obsession with sensationalism. Black’s defense dismantled the prosecution’s case, proving his skill in navigating a televised legal circus. His victory underscored a conservative distrust of media-driven narratives.
Then-Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, implicated but uncharged in the 1991 Palm Beach incident, largely escaped scrutiny, highlighting the era’s uneven justice standards. Black’s ability to secure Smith’s acquittal cemented his reputation as a defender of the powerful against a system tilted by public opinion. Today, Smith works to ban land mines, a noble pivot Black likely admired.
Black’s client list read like a tabloid headline: Justin Bieber, Rush Limbaugh, Hélio Castroneves, and more. He navigated Bieber’s DUI and drag-racing charges down to misdemeanor pleas, showcasing his deal-making finesse. His defense of Limbaugh and others reflected a conservative stand against overreaching legal crusades.
Black’s acquittal of Castroneves in a tax evasion case saved the racing star from progressive prosecutors’ overreach. Likewise, his defense of Amid Khoury in the “Varsity Blues” scandal exposed the absurdity of criminalizing parental ambition. Black’s victories challenged a system quick to vilify success.
William Lozano’s acquittal for the 1989 shooting of a Black motorcyclist, which sparked Miami riots, stirred debate over police accountability. Black’s defense argued the shooting was justified, a stance that resonates with conservative calls for law and order. Yet, it fueled tensions in an era of heightened racial scrutiny.
Black’s role in Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team, alongside Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, remains his most controversial chapter. Epstein’s plea to lesser charges for abusing girls as young as 14 sparked outrage, and Black’s later efforts to block victims from reopening the deal drew fire. His defense of Epstein clashes with conservative values of protecting the vulnerable.
In 2019, Black fought to uphold Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement after his client died in a New York jail cell. This move, seen as shielding a predator, tarnished Black’s legacy among those who prioritize justice over legal wins. It’s a reminder that even conservative heroes can stumble in the pursuit of victory.
“He worked harder than any lawyer I know,” said David O. Markus, a fellow attorney. Markus’ praise highlights Black’s relentless drive, but hard work doesn’t erase the ethical questions surrounding Epstein’s case. Black’s victories often came at the cost of public trust in the system.
Black’s wife, Lea, a juror in the Kennedy Smith trial, later starred in “Real Housewives of Miami.” Their marriage, born from a courtroom connection, added a colorful footnote to Black’s larger-than-life persona. He is survived by Lea, his son RJ, and daughter Nora.
“This generation and many to come stand on his shoulders,” said law partner Jackie Perczek, praising Black’s fight for the underdog. Yet, defending the powerful often overshadowed his underdog battles, complicating his conservative legacy. Perczek’s words ring true, but Black’s choices spark debate over who the real underdogs are.
Black’s frequent articles in national publications shaped legal discourse with a conservative bent. His television appearances brought his wit and wisdom to millions, countering progressive legal narratives. His voice, now silenced, leaves a void in the fight against woke overreach.
Funeral arrangements remain unannounced, but Black’s death closes a chapter in American legal history. His career, a blend of brilliance and controversy, defended the accused against a system swayed by political tides. Roy Black’s legacy endures as a conservative bulwark, flawed yet formidable.
President Donald Trump just scored a major win against bureaucratic overreach. On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court greenlit his authority to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), swatting down a lower court’s attempt to shield three Biden-appointed commissioners, as NBC News reports. This ruling is a gut punch to the left’s obsession with insulating unelected officials from accountability.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order allows Trump to remove CPSC members, overriding a federal judge’s ruling. The decision leaves the CPSC without a quorum, halting its ability to protect consumers from defective products. It’s a bold move that prioritizes executive power over bureaucratic entrenchment.
Congress created the CPSC in 1972 to operate independently, with staggered seven-year terms and protections against arbitrary firings. The agency, tasked with ensuring consumer product safety, is meant to be free from political pressure. Yet, the Supreme Court’s ruling suggests those protections are more flexible than progressives would like.
In May, Trump fired three CPSC commissioners -- Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. Existing law limits removals to cases of “neglect of duty or malfeasance,” but Trump didn’t bother with such niceties. His move was a clear signal: the executive branch calls the shots.
These three commissioners were Biden appointees, confirmed by the Senate for their expertise. Their dismissal left the five-member CPSC unable to function, as it lacks the quorum needed for decisions. The left cries foul, but Trump’s supporters see it as draining the swamp.
In June, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Maddox in Maryland ordered the trio reinstated. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause Maddox’s ruling, letting the commissioners return temporarily. But the Supreme Court’s swift intervention shows who’s really in charge.
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday order cited its own May decision, which allowed Trump to fire members of other agencies like the National Labor Relations Board. That earlier ruling tossed out a 1935 rule from the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld protections for independent agency members. The Court’s conservative majority isn’t playing games with presidential authority.
Justice Elena Kagan whined, “This court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency.” Her dissent, joined by the other liberal justices, reeks of desperation to cling to outdated bureaucratic safeguards. Sorry, Justice Kagan, but the Constitution doesn’t bow to your feelings.
The CPSC’s structure -- five members, no more than three from one party -- was designed to resist political influence. But the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, including those against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2021, make it clear: presidential power trumps congressional micromanaging.
The Supreme Court acted on an emergency basis, with minimal briefing and no oral arguments. This mirrors its July 14 decision allowing mass layoffs at the Education Department. The Court’s efficiency in backing Trump’s agenda is a refreshing change from judicial dawdling.
Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar griped that Trump’s firings “undermined the independent structure of the Commission.” Her hand-wringing ignores the bigger picture: unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t have more power than the president. The progressive agenda of shielding agencies from accountability just took a hit.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Maddox’s ruling caused “chaos and dysfunction” at the CPSC. He’s not wrong -- reinstatement of fired commissioners only muddies the waters. Clarity in leadership is what agencies need, not judicial meddling.
Kara Rollins of the New Civil Liberties Alliance cheered the Supreme Court’s order, saying it “puts an end to the chaos” from Maddox’s ruling. Her optimism reflects a growing sentiment: the judiciary shouldn’t hamstring a president’s ability to govern. Trump’s backers see this as a step toward restoring order.
The CPSC, now crippled without a quorum, oversees critical safety standards and injury prevention research. While liberals lament the agency’s temporary paralysis, conservatives argue that an overreaching bureaucracy deserves a timeout. Streamlining government starts with cutting dead weight.
The Supreme Court has hinted it may fully overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent soon. For now, its July 23 ruling reaffirms that the president’s constitutional powers take precedence. This is a victory for those who believe in a strong executive, not a bloated administrative state.
President Donald Trump’s explosive treason accusations against former President Obama have ignited a firestorm, with Obama’s team firing back hard, as Breitbart reports. A recent report from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard alleges Obama’s national security crew cooked up intelligence to sabotage Trump in the wake of the 2016 election The claim, bold as brass, has conservatives cheering while progressives clutch their pearls.
Gabbard’s report, dropped Friday, alleges that Obama’s team twisted intelligence to undermine Trump’s 2016 win over Hillary Clinton. Trump seized on it, branding Obama “guilty” of treason and hinting at legal retribution. This isn’t just political theater -- it’s a high-stakes clash over truth and power.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report, cited by The Hill’s Niall Stanage, claims “overwhelming evidence” of Obama’s team politicizing intelligence. It alleges a calculated effort to lay groundwork for a coup against Trump. Sounds like a spy novel, but conservatives say it’s the smoking gun they’ve long suspected.
Trump didn’t mince words, declaring, “He’s guilty,” hours before Obama’s camp responded. He accused Obama of trying to “steal” and “obfuscate” the election, calling it treason plain and simple. To conservatives, this is a rallying cry against a weaponized deep state.
Obama’s spokesman, Patrick Rodenbush, clapped back, calling the claims “outrageous” and a “weak attempt at distraction.” He argued the allegations are baseless nonsense from a White House drowning in misinformation. But conservatives scoff -- same old deflection from the progressive playbook.
Rodenbush’s statement dripped with disdain: “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous.” He insisted Obama’s office rarely responds to White House “nonsense,” but this was too far. Yet, to Trump’s base, it’s just another elite dodging accountability.
The ODNI report doesn’t dispute Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, a point backed by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee led by Marco Rubio. However, it stresses Russia didn’t alter votes, focusing instead on Obama’s alleged post-election scheming. This nuance fuels conservative suspicions of establishment overreach.
Trump’s rhetoric escalated as he claimed Obama’s “orders are on the paper.” He suggested it’s time to “go after people” for what he calls a direct attack on his presidency. Supporters nod, seeing this as justice long overdue.
Rodenbush’s defense hinges on dismissing the report as a distraction, but conservatives aren’t buying it. They argue Obama’s team is scrambling to cover tracks exposed by Gabbard’s findings. The truth, they say, is finally clawing its way out.
Trump reflected on his 2017 decision not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton over her email scandal. He noted he held back because she was “the ex-wife of a president.” Conservatives see this as Trump’s magnanimity, now betrayed by Obama’s alleged schemes.
“I let her off the hook,” Trump said, recalling his choice to avoid prosecuting Clinton. He now regrets that restraint, believing Obama’s actions demand accountability. Supporters cheer this shift, tired of perceived double standards.
The ODNI report’s allegations of a “years-long coup” resonate with conservatives who have long distrusted Obama’s legacy. They view it as proof of a rigged system protecting its own. Progressives, meanwhile, call it a baseless conspiracy theory.
Trump’s base sees Gabbard’s report as vindication of their long-held grievances. They argue Obama’s team weaponized intelligence to cling to power, a betrayal of democratic principles. The progressive outrage only fuels their resolve.
Rodenbush’s claim that the allegations are “ridiculous” falls flat for conservatives. They point to the report’s evidence as too damning to dismiss. The left’s denial, they say, is just noise to drown out the truth.
Trump’s call to action -- “it’s time to go after people” -- has conservatives buzzing. They’re ready for a reckoning, believing that Obama’s alleged overreach must face consequences. The battle lines are drawn, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Red paint and rage greeted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx campaign headquarters Monday morning. The Boogie Down Liberation Front, a group of far-left activists, defaced the office with accusations of “funding genocide” in Gaza, as the Daily Mail reports. This betrayal reveals the fractured loyalty within the progressive camp.
Vandals doused AOC’s Bronx office with red paint, obscuring a photo of her face and leaving a scathing note. The act followed her vote against an amendment to cut $500 million for Israel’s air defense systems. The message was clear: her base feels betrayed.
The vandalism, captured in a video circulating on X, shocked the political sphere. A note pinned to the gate screamed, “AOC Funds Genocide in Gaza,” a jab at her recent congressional vote. The NYPD’s evidence collection team swooped in to investigate and remove the sign.
The Boogie Down Liberation Front proudly claimed responsibility for the attack. “The Bronx is sick and tired of people like AOC,” they declared, accusing her of using the community as a political stepping stone. Such rhetoric exposes the hypocrisy of radicals who demand purity but deliver chaos.
AOC’s vote against the amendment, proposed by Marjorie Taylor Greene, fueled this backlash. The amendment, part of the National Defense Appropriations Act, aimed to slash funding for Israel’s “golden dome” air defense systems. Only six House members, including Greene, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, supported it.
The timing of the vandalism was no coincidence. Days earlier, AOC defended her vote in a Saturday statement, arguing it “does nothing” to stop offensive aid to Israel. Her attempt to thread the needle only inflamed her progressive allies.
AOC insisted she remains focused on “cutting the flow of US munitions” used in Gaza. Yet protesters said her vote against the amendment suggests otherwise, alienating those who expected unwavering anti-war conviction. The red paint symbolized their boiling frustration.
“I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive,” AOC said. Her words ring hollow when her vote ensures continued funding for Israel’s defense systems. Actions, not rhetoric, define a politician’s legacy.
The Boogie Down Liberation Front didn’t mince words, cursing AOC and accusing her of enabling “Israel’s ongoing genocide.” Their crude outburst reflects the left’s obsession with performative outrage over practical solutions. Vandalism achieves nothing but headlines.
X users piled on, with @nikhil0582 gleefully noting, “Finally, the crazy lefties come after her.” The sentiment captures the schadenfreude of watching progressives devour their own. AOC’s betrayal, it seems, was only a matter of time.
Another user, @NaMesoAtta, mocked the vandals as “allergic to actual power,” criticizing their preference for social media stunts over real influence. The left’s penchant for symbolic gestures, such as splashing paint, reveals a movement more interested in clout than change.
@OriginalBad called the vandals “nutjobs who want to do nothing but lose elections.” Their point cuts deep: radical posturing may feel righteous, but it alienates voters and weakens the progressive cause. AOC’s critics are their own worst enemies.
In 2020, AOC’s office reposted a Marie Claire article praising her support for defunding the police. She argued that affluent communities thrive with fewer police and more social resources. That stance now contrasts sharply with her vote to fund foreign defense systems.
“These communities have lower crime rates not because they have more police, but because they have more resources,” AOC said in 2020. Her pivot to supporting military aid while preaching domestic reform exposes a contradiction her base won’t forgive. Consistency is a politician’s currency -- she’s running low.
The Bronx vandalism underscores a broader truth: the progressive movement is fracturing under its own dogma. AOC, once a darling of the left, now faces the wrath of purists who demand ideological perfection. Her office’s red paint is a warning -- conform or be cast out.
A federal judge has tossed President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against journalist Bob Woodward and publishing giants Simon & Schuster and Paramount Global, as Deadline reports. The case, a bold swing at claiming copyright over audio interviews, crumbled under scrutiny. Trump’s legal team is now scrambling to salvage its argument by Aug. 18.
Trump filed a lawsuit asserting ownership over audio recordings from interviews he granted Woodward, later used in the 2022 audiobook The Trump Tapes. Details of the recordings first appeared in Woodward’s 2020 book Rage, intended as a scathing exposé of Trump’s presidency. The president’s claim hinges on his spoken responses, not the questions posed by Woodward.
Judge Paul Gardephe ruled that Trump’s claim to joint authorship or copyright in The Trump Tapes lacks plausibility. “The author is the party who actually creates the work,” Gardephe declared, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. His ruling slices through Trump’s argument like a hot knife through progressive talking points.
Trump’s legal team insists that his recorded words grant him a copyright stake. Yet Gardephe found it “unlikely” Trump could plead a plausible copyright interest. The judge’s skepticism exposes what he says is the flimsy foundation of Trump’s case, which he believes seems more about headlines than legal merit.
Woodward and Simon & Schuster secured a copyright registration for The Trump Tapes on Feb. 23, 2023. Trump, not to be outdone, obtained his registration five days later, claiming joint authorship. This clash of registrations is a legal cage match, but courts, not the Copyright Office, settle such disputes.
“Where there are conflicting copyright registrations, courts make an independent determination of ownership,” Gardephe noted. His words underscore the judiciary’s role in untangling this mess. Trump’s attempt to muscle into authorship smells to critics like a desperate bid to control the narrative.
Paramount Global, a defendant in the lawsuit, sold Simon & Schuster to KKR in 2023 but remains entangled in the case. The media titan also faced a separate Trump lawsuit over a CBS News 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. That dispute, settled for $16 million, highlights Trump’s knack for keeping lawyers busy.
Paramount’s attorneys once called the 60 Minutes lawsuit baseless, a claim that didn’t age well given the hefty settlement. Now, they’re navigating this copyright clash while seeking Trump administration approval for a merger with Skydance. The timing raises eyebrows, but that’s politics as usual.
Trump’s lawsuit against Woodward and company hinges on interviews conducted years ago. The audio, repurposed for The Trump Tapes, became a flashpoint when Trump cried foul over its use.
Gardephe’s ruling gives Trump until Aug. 18 to amend his complaint. This deadline looms like a guillotine over his legal team’s efforts to reframe the case. Without a stronger argument, Trump risks another courtroom embarrassment.
The judge’s dismissal isn’t just a legal setback; it’s a reminder of the left’s obsession with controlling Trump’s voice. Woodward’s Rage and The Trump Tapes thrive on portraying Trump as unhinged, yet the former president’s responses were willingly given.
Trump’s copyright registration was a bold move to assert control. But Gardephe’s ruling suggests it’s more symbolic than substantive. The court’s refusal to buy Trump’s joint authorship claim exposes the legal overreach.
Woodward, a darling of the establishment media, used Trump’s words to fuel his anti-Trump narrative. Now, Trump is fighting back, arguing he deserves a cut of the profits from his voice. The judge’s dismissal, however, suggests the law isn’t swayed by MAGA bravado.
Paramount Global’s role in this saga adds another layer of intrigue. Their $16 million settlement in the 60 Minutes case shows they’re willing to pay to avoid prolonged legal battles. Yet their involvement in this copyright dispute feels like a sideshow to their broader corporate maneuvers.
Trump’s lawsuit, while dismissed, isn’t dead yet. The Aug. 18 deadline offers a slim chance to salvage his claim, but the odds are stacked against him. In a world where the left weaponizes words, Trump’s fight to own his own is a battle worth watching.
Kristi Noem, Donald Trump’s Homeland Security secretary, has swapped her swanky Navy Yard condo for the fortified Coast Guard Commandant’s quarters at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, as the Daily Mail reports.
A Mail report from April revealed Noem’s cozy setup with senior adviser and rumored paramour Corey Lewandowski living across the street in D.C.’s Navy Yard, prompting her relocation to a military base for “security concerns."
Noem’s Navy Yard condo, rented for $3,750 monthly, boasts panoramic views, while Lewandowski’s luxury building offered a lap pool and spa. The optics of their proximity raised eyebrows among conservative watchdogs. “Public safety is her concern here? That’s rich,” scoffed an insider, hinting at staged photo-ops over substance.
Noem’s move followed the DailyMail.com exposé, which included photos of her residence, allegedly sparking threats and doxing. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claimed an 830% spike in assaults on ICE agents justified Noem’s larger security detail. Yet, critics see this as a convenient excuse to dodge scrutiny over her ties to Lewandowski.
Lewandowski, 51, a former Trump campaign manager and 2024 senior adviser, remains a frequent visitor to Noem’s new military base home. “They are connected at the hip,” an administration official noted. This closeness fuels whispers of an affair, which both, married, have denied.
The Mail report didn’t just expose addresses; it spotlighted Noem and Lewandowski’s joint appearances at high-profile events. From ICE raids in New York to anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles, their tag-team approach feels more like a reality show than governance. “It’s a couples’ retreat,” an insider quipped, slamming their focus on optics.
Noem’s new digs at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling come rent-free, a perk not extended to other Cabinet members such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Critics question why taxpayers foot the bill for her military housing while she still pays rent for her Navy Yard condo. This double-dipping smells like privilege, not necessity.
DHS insists Noem’s relocation was driven by safety, not scandal. “It’s a shame that Daily Mail chooses sensationalism over the safety of people,” McLaughlin said. But conservatives aren’t buying it, seeing her move as a dodge to keep Lewandowski’s visits under wraps.
Lewandowski’s role as a “special government employee” at DHS raises further red flags. Exempt from many ethics rules, his influence troubles administration officials. His cozy access to Noem undermines trust in her leadership.
In the Navy Yard, a hotspot for Hill Republicans and Trump staffers, Noem and Lewandowski were often spotted together in elevators and common areas. “Don’t forget D.C. is a small town and people talk,” a resident remarked. Their visibility fueled gossip long before the Mail story broke.
The April report didn’t just spill the tea; it allegedly put Noem at risk. McLaughlin claimed the published photos of Noem’s condo led to doxing and threats. Yet, conservatives argue that Noem’s high-profile antics invited scrutiny, not just the media.
Noem’s nickname, “ICE Barbie,” reflects what some say is her penchant for treating her Cabinet role like a reality TV gig. Her frequent trips with Lewandowski -- to Mexico’s border, an El Salvador prison, and beyond -- seem more about branding than border security. Critics demand that she focus on policy, not pageantry.
While Noem cites security, her continued rent payments for an empty Navy Yard condo raise questions about fiscal responsibility. “She wanted to move so photographers couldn’t show what’s going on,” an official claimed, suggesting privacy, not safety, drove her decision. Conservatives expect better from their leaders.
Lewandowski’s murky role only deepens the distrust. As a special employee, he wields influence without accountability, a setup that arguably clashes with MAGA’s push for transparency. Noem’s reliance on him risks alienating her base, in the estimation of some.
Noem’s leadership at DHS demands scrutiny, not sympathy. Her relocation may shield her from cameras, but it won’t quiet the conservative call for accountability. The “ICE Barbie” saga is a reminder: public service should trump personal drama.
Republicans are turning up the heat on a probe of Joe Biden’s mental capacity, questioning whether he was truly in charge during his final days as president. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is leading the charge, suggesting subpoenas for Kamala Harris and Jill Biden to explain what they knew about the former president’s fitness to lead, as ABC News reports. This investigation is revealing what smells like a cover-up, and conservatives are right to demand answers.
The probe centers in part on the Biden administration’s use of the presidential autopen for clemency actions, with Republicans, spurred by President Donald Trump, demanding to know if Biden’s staff acted alone or under his direction. Comer’s committee is digging into whether Biden was mentally sharp enough to call the shots -- or if his inner circle was quietly pulling the strings.
“Well, I think they should,” Comer told ABC, pushing for Harris and Jill Biden to face subpoenas. His call for transparency is a jab at the Democrats’ silence, who seem content to dodge questions rather than face the music on CNN or FOX. The American people deserve more than evasive PR stunts.
The committee’s investigation kicked off by questioning lower-level staff believed to have operated the autopen. Now, they’re moving up the chain to senior aides who may have given the orders. Comer’s methodical approach suggests a no-stone-unturned effort to expose potential misconduct.
“So we’re going to bring in everyone,” Comer said, signaling a relentless pursuit of the truth. His promise to climb the ladder of responsibility is a bold move, but Democrats are already dismissing it as a witch hunt. Their defensiveness only fuels suspicion.
Last week, Biden’s former White House physician, Kevin O’Connor, clammed up, invoking patient-doctor confidentiality and invoking the Fifth Amendment. His refusal to spill the beans on Biden’s health raises red flags about what the administration was hiding. If there’s nothing to conceal, why the stonewalling?
Anthony Bernal, a longtime Democratic Party aide and former chief of staff to Jill Biden, followed O’Connor’s lead, invoking the Fifth Amendment twice during a closed-door deposition on Wednesday. Bernal’s silence speaks volumes, especially given his proximity to the Bidens during critical moments. It’s hard to see this as anything but a dodge.
“It is entirely appropriate,” Bernal’s lawyer claimed, defending his client’s refusal to answer questions. The lawyer’s lofty appeal to constitutional rights feels like a convenient shield for avoiding accountability. Conservatives aren’t buying it, and neither should the public.
Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, didn’t mince words, calling Bernal’s silence “just crazy.” “You can’t answer a simple question about the former president’s ability to discharge duties,” Donalds said, highlighting the absurdity of a top aide’s refusal to clarify Biden’s capacity. His frustration echoes what many Americans feel about this opaque administration.
Bernal, who served in the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, was at Biden’s Delaware beach home last July when the former president bowed out of his reelection bid. That decision, prompted by Democratic pressure after a shaky debate performance against Trump, raises questions about who was really running the show. Was Biden in control, or was he a figurehead?
“He wouldn’t even read his own statement,” Donalds noted, pointing out that Bernal’s lawyer read his prepared remarks during the deposition. This odd detail only deepens the perception of a White House allergic to transparency. If Bernal can’t even speak for himself, what else is being hidden?
Democrats, meanwhile, are circling the wagons, with Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas sneering that Republicans “still look like losers.” Her juvenile jab does little to counter the serious allegations at hand. Dismissing oversight as a political stunt won’t make the questions go away.
Comer’s committee is now scheduling depositions with higher-level Biden aides, signaling that the probe is far from over. “We’ve started with the lower-level staffers,” Comer explained, detailing the committee’s plan to work up to those who may have directed the autopen’s use. This escalation could lead straight to the Biden family’s doorstep.
“This is the second witness that we’ve brought in via subpoena for a deposition that has pleaded the Fifth,” Comer said, underscoring the pattern of silence from Biden’s inner circle. The repeated use of the Fifth Amendment suggests a coordinated effort to stonewall. It’s a tactic that reeks of guilt, even if no wrongdoing is proven yet.
The Oversight Committee’s push for accountability is a necessary check on a Democratic Party machine that seems more interested in protecting its own than serving the public. With Harris and Jill Biden potentially in the crosshairs, this investigation could expose uncomfortable truths about who really held power in Biden’s White House. Republicans are right to keep pressing, and Americans should demand nothing less than the full story.
Socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s father, a Columbia University professor, has sparked controversy with his radical anti-Israel views. Mahmood Mamdani, 79, has used his X account to push narratives that critics say fuel division and antisemitism, as Fox News reports. His posts, uncovered by Fox News Digital, raise questions about the influence of such ideologies in New York City’s political landscape.
Mahmood Mamdani, a professor of anthropology at Columbia, has a history of anti-Israel rhetoric, including posts praising a “Third Intifada” against what he calls “settler colonialism.” His son, Zohran, running for mayor, faces scrutiny for not condemning similar calls for intifada, which Jewish groups argue endorses violence. This father-son duo’s stance has become a lightning rod in the mayoral race.
In October 2014, Mahmood Mamdani posted a tribute on X to Ali Mazrui, a controversial activist known for inflammatory remarks about Jews. Mazrui once likened Jews to “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” claiming they carried “a certain kind of impurity.” Such associations raise eyebrows about the elder Mamdani’s judgment, especially for a prominent academic.
Mamdani’s tribute to Mazrui, with whom he co-hosted a panel, suggests a troubling alignment with divisive figures. The Middle East Forum flagged Mazrui’s history of antisemitic tropes, yet Mamdani celebrated him without reservation. This choice fuels concerns about the professor’s ideological leanings.
In May 2021, during a violent Israel-Hamas conflict, Mamdani posted on X, declaring Israel’s actions a “colonial occupation.” He framed Palestinian actions as a “right to resist,” a stance critics argue sanitizes violence. Such rhetoric, blasted as one-sided, ignores the complexities of the conflict.
“When all ranks of the Occupation … claim ‘the right of self-defense,’ what language is left … but the right to resist?” Mamdani wrote on May 21, 2021. This quote, dripping with anti-Israel sentiment, dismisses Israel’s security concerns while glorifying resistance. It’s the kind of academic wordplay that critics say stokes division.
Mamdani’s X posts didn’t stop there; he claimed a “Third Intifada” was born in Jerusalem, spreading to Gaza and beyond. “This is not a conflict between Israel and Hamas,” he wrote, calling it a fight against “settler colonialism.” Such language, critics charge, romanticizes violence while ignoring Hamas’s role.
“The resistance … began in Jerusalem and spread … We are witnessing … the birth of the Third Intifadah!” Mamdani posted in May 2021. His enthusiasm for a “Third Intifada” alarms Jewish groups, who see it as a call for unrest. This isn’t scholarship—it’s activism dressed up as academia.
Zohran Mamdani, meanwhile, has dodged condemning calls for a “global intifada,” drawing fire from Jewish organizations. His refusal to distance himself from such rhetoric mirrors his father’s views, suggesting a shared ideological thread. Critics argue this silence speaks volumes about his priorities.
After the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre, Mahmood Mamdani joined the Columbia faculty in physically blocking Jewish students on campus, including economics student Avi Weinberg, from a pro-Palestine encampment. Wearing orange vests, they locked arms to exclude dissenters, a move critics call intimidation, not free speech. Columbia’s campus, a hotbed for pro-Palestine protests, amplifies these tensions.
“Palestinians have a right to resist. This is a colonial occupation, not a conflict!” Mamdani posted on X. This absolutist view, critics say, shuts down dialogue and paints Israel as the sole villain. It’s a simplistic narrative that thrives on outrage, not reason.
Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney, slammed the Mamdani family’s rhetoric as “fundamentally anti-American” and antisemitic. “Zohran Mamdani has built his political brand on the same radical, hate-filled … ideology his father … has spent decades promoting,” she told Fox News Digital. Her critique underscores the broader implications for New York’s mayoral race.
Goldstein further argued that the Mamdani family’s views threaten “the peace and security of our communities.” She called their ideology a “window on anti-Jewish and anti-democratic radicalization” that corrupts young minds. This is a sharp rebuke of their influence in academia and politics.
“If Zohran Mamdani can’t -- or won’t -- disavow these beliefs, we have every reason to be alarmed,” Goldstein added. Her warning highlights the stakes: a mayoral candidate tied to divisive rhetoric could deepen community rifts. Voters, she implies, deserve better.
Mahmood Mamdani’s role on an anti-Israel organization’s advisory council, which backs boycotts and sanctions, cements his activist credentials. Described by Canary Mission as a “Marxist” professor obsessed with “colonialism,” he’s a polarizing figure at Columbia. Fox News Digital’s requests for comment from both Mamdani and his son’s campaign went unanswered, leaving their side of the story untold.
