Jeffrey Epstein’s case refuses to fade, as whispers of a shadowy client list ignite public frenzy. Former attorneys David Schoen and Alan Dershowitz have stepped into the spotlight, firmly denying such a list ever existed, as NewsNation reports. Their claims clash with a bipartisan push to unseal all Epstein-related files, signaling a battle over truth and transparency.
The Epstein saga, a magnet for speculation, centers on allegations of a hidden client list, which Schoen and Dershowitz dismiss as fiction. House representatives introduced a bipartisan bill Tuesday to force the release of all Epstein-related documents. This move reflects growing public demand for clarity in a case mired in controversy.
Schoen, who met with Epstein nine days before his trial, appeared on Cuomo Tuesday to set the record straight. “That wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein,” Schoen declared, rejecting notions of a blackmail scheme. His words aim to douse the wildfire of rumors, but skeptics remain unconvinced.
Schoen’s assertion that Epstein had “no plan for blackmail” cuts against the grain of popular narratives. The idea of a sinister list fuels progressive fantasies of exposing powerful figures, yet Schoen insists it’s a mirage. This denial challenges the left’s obsession with conspiracy, demanding evidence over innuendo.
Dershowitz, another former Epstein attorney, echoed Schoen on Cuomo Monday, stating, “There is no client list.” Dershowitz, who secured Epstein’s 2008 plea deal, argues no such document ever existed. His blunt dismissal exposes the folly of chasing ghosts in a case already riddled with complexity.
The former Harvard professor pointed to a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers as the closest thing to evidence. He cautioned that naming associates such as former President Bill Clinton or Britain's Prince Andrew doesn’t imply guilt. Jumping to conclusions, he suggests, risks slandering the innocent while feeding a media circus.
The bipartisan bill introduced Tuesday seeks to pry open Epstein’s files, a rare moment of congressional unity. Both sides, weary of speculation, want documents laid bare to settle the debate. Yet, the push for transparency collides with privacy concerns, complicating the path forward.
Schoen explained that accusers sought privacy, leading judges to seal some files. “The judge balanced that,” he said, highlighting the delicate legal dance. This nuance is often lost in the clamor for full disclosure, where emotions outpace reason.
Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred the pot in February, hinting at the existence of a client list before clarifying she meant the broader case file. Her misstep, though corrected, fanned the flames of public distrust. The left pounced, eager to paint her as complicit in a cover-up, despite her solid record.
President Donald Trump praised Bondi, saying, “She has done a really good job.” His endorsement underscores her credibility, which he called “very important.” Yet, the progressive outrage machine churns, desperate to link Bondi to what she says is a nonexistent scandal.
Scottie Nell Hughes, a noted commentator, stated, “This could have been completely avoidable.” She argues the controversy is a PR crisis for Trump, fueled by relentless critics. The left’s fixation on Epstein’s case reveals their hunger for political leverage, not truth.
Hughes observed that calls for transparency often come from Trump’s staunchest supporters. “Everybody that is sitting here asking for transparency… have been following President Trump since 2016,” she said. This suggests a divide: MAGA demands clarity, while detractors exploit the chaos.
The absence of a client list hasn’t quelled public curiosity, as Schoen noted: “I don’t think that information is out there.” He warns against the tantalizing allure of rumors, which cloud rational discourse. The progressive agenda thrives on such distractions, sidelining substantive policy debates.
Hughes pointed out that critics “aren’t going to let it go.” Their persistence reflects a broader strategy to weaponize Epstein’s case against conservative figures. This selective outrage ignores the bipartisan nature of Epstein’s connections, exposing a double standard.
The Epstein case remains a lightning rod, with no easy answers. Schoen and Dershowitz’s denials, Bondi’s clarification, and the bipartisan bill highlight a shared desire for truth. Yet, as speculation swirls, the pursuit of facts must trump political point-scoring, lest justice be lost in the noise.
A trove of hidden evidence unearthed by FBI Director Kash Patel has ignited a firestorm, launching a probe into a decade-long scheme to weaponize federal agencies against political foes, as Just the News reports.
This spring, the FBI opened an investigation into alleged political abuses by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, treating them as a sprawling criminal conspiracy. Patel’s discovery of a secretive evidence “vault” tied to probes such as Russiagate fueled the inquiry. Republican lawmakers cheer the move, hoping it exposes plots to sway elections and strip civil liberties.
Patel, alongside Deputy Director Dan Bongino, stumbled upon this lockbox of documents nobody bothered to mention when they took the FBI’s reins. “They put America through unbelievable, really historic political turmoil, knowing that the entire narrative was completely false,” Sen. Ron Johnson fumed on Just the News. His outrage underscores the conservative view that this was no accident but a deliberate power grab.
The timing of Patel’s find and the probe’s launch this spring raises eyebrows about what else lurks in the shadows. These documents, stashed away like contraband, could bolster a grand jury’s case for a coverup. The arrogance of assuming no one would look, as Patel noted, is almost comical if it weren’t so sinister.
“They’re so arrogant, they think, ‘No one’s going to catch us,’” Patel told podcast host Joe Rogan, revealing how the culprits documented their deeds. He’s now vowing a “wave of transparency” to expose the rot. The promise of accountability is a rare bright spot for those fed up with bureaucratic overreach.
Two classified troves from 2016 could supercharge this “grand conspiracy” case if President Trump declassifies them. A 2018 DOJ Inspector General report’s annex on Hillary Clinton’s email saga and another from John Durham’s 2023 Crossfire Hurricane review hold critical clues. Senate Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley has been chasing Durham’s annex for years, suspecting it shows the FBI ignored credible wrongdoing.
In mid-May, Patel and Bongino uncovered fresh details about Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe. “As much as we know about Crossfire Hurricane, he and I just found out more last week,” Patel told Maria Bartiromo. The fact that new dirt keeps surfacing suggests the conspiracy’s roots run deeper than anyone imagined.
The probe also eyes the Democratic Party and “deep-state” maneuvers, including Special Counsel Jack Smith’s pursuit of Trump. If this investigation leads to a special prosecutor, it could unravel a scheme to tilt three presidential elections. That’s a bombshell that makes progressive cries about “saving democracy” ring hollow.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently sent Patel a criminal referral targeting Obama-era CIA chief John Brennan. A CIA review this month slammed Brennan, James Comey, and James Clapper for a “chaotic” and “unconventional” process in crafting a key assessment. Their obsession with narrative over evidence, as Ratcliffe noted, smells like a setup.
“Multiple senior CIA managers opposed including the [Steele] dossier, asserting it did not meet even basic tradecraft standards,” Ratcliffe said, exposing the dossier’s flimsy inclusion. Yet Brennan pushed it, prioritizing politics over integrity. This kind of chicanery is why trust in institutions is at rock bottom.
Trump’s January executive order, “Ending the Weaponization of The Federal Government,” set the stage for this reckoning. Attorney General Pam Bondi followed with a Feb. 5 memo, “Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice,” launching a “Weaponization Working Group.” These moves signal a no-nonsense push to root out politicized enforcement.
Bondi’s group is scouring four years of DOJ and agency actions for political motives. “These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice,” Trump declared in his order. The left’s sanctimonious lectures about fairness look absurd against this backdrop.
The DOJ’s intervention in former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ case shows this probe’s real-world impact. Peters, convicted in August 2024 on seven of ten charges tied to a 2021 election office breach, got nine years in prison. The judge called her a “charlatan,” but the DOJ’s March filing cited her health issues and questioned aspects of her case.
Peters, now appealing and seeking habeas corpus, is a flashpoint for conservatives who see her as a victim of overzealous prosecution. “I think it’s part of a coordinated strategy to deprive people of their constitutional rights,” former Trump attorney John Eastman said on John Solomon’s podcast. His words resonate with those who view her case as part of a broader witch hunt.
If Patel’s vault yields evidence of a grand conspiracy, the statute of limitations could vanish, as he hinted on Rogan’s show. The probe’s quiet launch weeks ago, as reported by Just the News, suggests a methodical approach to dismantling a decade of alleged abuses. For a nation weary of elite double standards, this investigation is a long-overdue gut check.
The Justice Department’s ongoing tussle over Jeffrey Epstein’s shadowy records is raising eyebrows and questions about transparency. In a joint status report filed with a federal court, the DOJ and Judicial Watch revealed the FBI is still combing through documents tied to the convicted sex offender, as Just the News reports. This saga, rooted in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, smells like a government slow-walk to conservatives craving answers.
Judicial Watch’s April lawsuit demands Epstein-related records, including names of his clients and associates. The DOJ and FBI, sued after ignoring three FOIA requests, filed the report Thursday to update the court. It’s a classic case of bureaucrats dragging their feet while the public demands the truth.
The FBI claims it’s running “initial searches” for Epstein’s records, but no documents have been released yet. No timeline or document count has been shared, leaving conservatives skeptical about the government’s commitment. Transparency feels like a distant dream when agencies play hide-and-seek with the facts.
The status report hints at ongoing FBI efforts to locate communications from Director Kash Patel about an alleged Epstein client list. Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have publicly tackled conspiracy theories, like claims that Epstein was murdered in 2019. Yet, the lack of concrete results fuels distrust in the FBI’s intentions.
A DOJ-FBI memo, leaked to Axios the day before the report, boldly claims no “client list” exists. It also dismisses credible evidence of Epstein blackmailing prominent figures or grounds to investigate uncharged third parties. Sounds like a convenient way to shut down speculation, doesn’t it?
“No more Epstein material will be released,” the DOJ seems to whisper to the public, per Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton. But in court, they sing a different tune, claiming the FOIA review chugs along. This contradiction reeks of a government playing both sides to avoid accountability.
“We will be relentless in demanding transparency,” Fitton declared Thursday, slamming the DOJ’s mixed messages. His group’s lawsuit is a battering ram against federal stonewalling. Conservatives cheer this tenacity, tired of elites dodging scrutiny.
Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, rots in prison with a 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking. Her conviction keeps the spotlight on Epstein’s network, yet the DOJ’s inaction on related records frustrates justice-seekers. Why protect the powerful when victims deserve answers?
President Donald Trump, during his 2024 campaign, vowed to release Epstein files on day one of his administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed that promise early on, but disappointed by sharing already-public information with a group of online influencers. Campaign trail bravado hasn’t yet translated to action, leaving supporters restless.
The FBI’s Patel and Bongino tried debunking Epstein murder theories in May, tied to his 2019 jail death. Their efforts aimed to quell conspiracies but did little to satisfy those demanding document releases. Talk is cheap when files stay locked away.
Judicial Watch’s FOIA fight targets the heart of Epstein’s influence -- his clients and associates. The lawsuit’s scope, covering records of who rubbed elbows with the disgraced financier, could expose uncomfortable truths. Yet, the DOJ’s silence suggests they’d rather keep those truths buried.
The Axios memo’s claim of no incriminating client list feels like a dodge to conservatives. If no list exists, why are the endless delays in FOIA responses? The government’s foot-dragging only fuels suspicions of a cover-up.
Fitton’s charge of “contradictory messages” hits the nail on the head for many on the right. The DOJ tells courts one thing and the public another, undermining trust. This isn’t transparency—it’s a masterclass in bureaucratic sidestepping.
The Epstein case, with its web of elite connections, demands sunlight, not shadows. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit keeps the pressure on, but the DOJ’s vague updates offer little hope for a quick resolution. Conservatives see this as another example of a system shielding its own.
As the FBI “reviews” and the DOJ stalls, the public’s right to know hangs in the balance. Epstein’s victims, Maxwell’s conviction, and Trump’s promises all underscore the need for answers. Until those documents see daylight, expect conservatives to keep sounding the alarm.
President Donald Trump just dropped a trade bombshell on Canada. In a letter shared on Truth Social on July 10, he announced a 35% tariff on Canadian goods starting Aug. 1, up from 25%, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl flowing into the U.S., as the Daily Mail reports. This move obliterates hopes of a quick trade deal and signals more global tariff hikes.
Trump’s letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reset ongoing U.S.-Canada trade talks, which Canadian officials thought were nearing a deal. The tariff war, sparked by Trump’s return to office, has escalated with Canada retaliating against U.S. goods. It’s a classic Trump power play: disrupt, demand, and dominate.
Since March, Trump has slapped 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum worldwide, followed by 50% sectoral tariffs on steel, copper, and aluminum for most countries by June 4. These moves, including the April 2 “Liberation Day” 10% baseline tariff on most imports, have jacked up costs for American households. Soup cans and refrigerators aren’t cheap anymore, but MAGA sees this as taking back economic control.
Canada, the U.S.’s second-largest trading partner after Mexico, now faces a 35% tariff wall. Trump’s letter complained of Canada’s “tariff, and non-tariff, policies,” a jab at their trade barriers. Carney’s “reliable economic partner” claim on X, posted hours before, looks like wishful thinking next to Trump’s hardball tactics.
Carney, elected in April, has pushed for stronger EU and UK trade ties, but Trump’s not impressed. During Carney’s May 2025 White House visit, Trump bluntly said no arguments would lift the tariffs. That’s Trump: unwavering when America’s interests are on the line.
Trump’s tariff crusade isn’t just about Canada. He’s sent similar letters to 23 countries, with Brazil facing 50% tariffs over its trial of Jair Bolsonaro and Chinese goods hit with up to 145% (later cut to 55% after talks). Mexico’s 25% tariffs, also tied to fentanyl, show Trump is using trade as a geopolitical sledgehammer.
On April 2, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs triggered a market selloff, forcing a 90-day negotiation period. Trade frameworks with the UK, Vietnam, and China kept talks alive, but Canada’s digital services tax briefly stalled its negotiations in June. Carney’s quick reversal of that tax shows he’s scrambling to keep up.
Trump told NBC News he’s ready to raise the baseline global tariff to 20% or 15% for the remaining countries. “All of the remaining countries are going to pay,” he said, sounding like a man who relishes rewriting trade rules. Progressive dreams of open borders and free trade are crumbling under his pen.
Carney’s response? “We will continue to do so,” he said, vowing to defend Canadian workers. But his tough talk feels hollow when Trump’s already reset the board. Canada’s retaliatory tariffs might make headlines, but they’re no match for Trump’s economic leverage.
The tariff hikes are hitting American wallets hard. Everyday items -- paper clips, cars, stainless-steel fridges -- are pricier, and there’s no immediate relief in sight. Yet, some S&P 500 gains hint investors think that Trump might soften his stance, as he’s done before.
Trump’s letter to Carney dangled a carrot: “These tariffs may be modified.” It’s a reminder he’s open to deals, but only on his terms. The left’s whining about consumer costs ignores the bigger picture: America’s economic sovereignty is non-negotiable.
Carney's recent X post involving UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, touting Canada’s reliability, now reads like a desperate plea for allies. “The world is turning to reliable economic partners,” he claimed. Good luck convincing Trump, who sees Canada as a fentanyl pipeline and trade cheat.
Trump’s defenders argue he’s forcing allies to respect U.S. interests. “The United States has agreed to continue working with Canada,” he said, framing his patience as a favor despite Canada’s retaliation. Critics call it chaos; MAGA calls it genius.
The tariff war’s ripple effects are undeniable. From Brazil to China, countries are bending to Trump’s will or paying the price. Woke globalists who preached free trade are learning a harsh lesson: America First means business.
As Aug. 1 looms, Carney faces a grim deadline. “This will take some time,” he admitted, but time’s not on his side. Trump’s tariff gambit is a bold bet on American strength, and he’s playing to win.
Steve Bannon is rattling cages again, demanding a special prosecutor to dig into the murky Jeffrey Epstein files. The former Trump strategist isn’t buying the Justice Department’s tight-lipped stance, as the New York Post reports. His call for transparency is a jab at the establishment’s cozy secrecy.
Bannon, on his WarRoom show, pushed for the release of Epstein’s court documents, a promise he claims the Trump administration made. Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, insists no high-profile client list exists. The disconnect fuels suspicion among conservatives craving answers.
In February, Bondi teased she was reviewing a potential Epstein client list, claiming it was “sitting on my desk.” Fast forward, and her Justice Department now shrugs off the issue, saying there’s nothing more to discuss. The flip-flop smells like a dodge to those fed up with government obfuscation.
Bannon, never one to mince words, told the Telegraph that Bondi should demand a “complete unsealing” of all Epstein files. He’s also backing Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to force document releases. The man’s on a mission, and he’s not alone.
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene echoed Bannon’s frustration on social media, slamming the “deep state” for controlling narratives. “The American people are fed up with … being lied to,” she declared. Her words resonate with a MAGA base still raw over Epstein’s saga.
Epstein, the financier whose web of elite connections sparked endless speculation, died by suicide in a New York prison in 2019. His death and rumors of a hidden client list remain a lightning rod for controversy. The case splits even the staunchest Trump supporters, some smelling a cover-up.
Last week, the Department of Justice issued an unsigned memo dismissing talk of an Epstein client list. The vague brush-off only poured fuel on the conspiracy fire. If there’s nothing to hide, why the bureaucratic sidestep?
Bondi’s team doubled down, stating there’s no further comment on the Epstein case. Her earlier hint at reviewing a list now feels like a head-fake. Conservatives aren’t amused by the Justice Department’s selective amnesia.
Bannon insists that releasing the court documents is “straightforward.” He’s betting full transparency would expose uncomfortable truths the establishment wants buried. The question is whether Bondi will budge or keep stonewalling.
President Donald Trump, during a Tuesday Cabinet meeting, swatted away a reporter’s Epstein question with disdain. “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?” he scoffed, pivoting to Texas floods. His impatience signals the case is a distraction he’d rather avoid.
Trump’s dismissal doesn’t sit well with those demanding accountability. The MAGA base, already skeptical of elite cover-ups, sees his sidestep as dodging a fight worth having. The tension underscores a rift in conservative priorities.
Greene, undeterred, keeps the pressure on, insisting the “deep state” must be reined in. Her social media posts rally supporters who view Epstein’s case as a symbol of systemic corruption. The fight for transparency isn’t fading quietly.
The Epstein saga, with its mix of scandal and secrecy, continues to polarize Trump’s supporters. Some see it as a litmus test for draining the swamp; others, like Trump, want to move on. The divide reflects broader battles over what “MAGA” means today.
Bannon’s push for a special prosecutor keeps the issue alive, challenging Bondi’s Justice Department to act. His WarRoom platform amplifies the call, rallying conservatives who distrust the government’s narrative. The man knows how to stir the pot.
As Epstein’s shadow lingers, the demand for answers grows louder. Whether Bondi bends or Trump engages, the case won’t vanish from the MAGA radar. Bannon’s crusade ensures that much.
Chinese nationals just got locked out of America’s farmland. The Trump USDA, under Secretary Brooke Rollins, has dropped a bombshell policy banning foreign adversaries from buying U.S. agricultural land, as The Hill reports. It’s a bold move to shield the nation’s food supply from globalist overreach.
The Trump administration’s National Farm Security Action Plan, unveiled at a press conference, bars Chinese nationals and other risky foreign entities from purchasing farmland while aiming to reclaim already-sold plots. Seven agreements with suspect foreign countries were axed, and 70 affiliated individuals were shown the door. The USDA also plans to scrutinize future land deals with a fine-tooth comb.
Rollins didn’t mince words, declaring, “American agriculture is not just about feeding our families but about protecting our nation.” Her statement nails the stakes: farmland isn’t just dirt -- it’s national security. The progressive crowd might scoff, but ceding control of our food chain to adversaries isn’t exactly a recipe for sovereignty.
The press conference was a who’s-who of conservative heavyweights. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and GOP Governors Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Jim Pillen, and Bill Lee flanked Rollins. This wasn’t just a policy rollout; it was a signal that the administration means business.
“Today we are taking this purpose and our American farmland back,” Rollins said. That’s not just rhetoric -- it’s a middle finger to globalist schemes that have eroded U.S. autonomy for decades. The USDA’s canceling of those seven foreign agreements proves they’re not messing around.
Approximately 70 people tied to those deals are now persona non grata. The USDA also flagged 550 additional entities for removal, citing similar security concerns. This purge shows the administration isn’t just posturing -- it’s rooting out threats with surgical precision.
The National Farm Security Action Plan isn’t a solo act. It ropes in the White House, Departments of Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice, plus state governors and local tribal governments. This kind of coordination is what separates serious policy from woke window-dressing.
“Agriculture supply chain is essential for our nation’s security,” Rollins emphasized. She’s right—control the food, control the future. Letting foreign adversaries buy up farmland is like handing them the keys to our survival.
Governor Sanders has been ahead of the curve. Months before the USDA’s announcement, she pushed legislation in Arkansas to block Chinese Communist Party-linked firms from snapping up land near military bases and electric substations. That’s the kind of foresight the nation needs, not more progressive hand-wringing about “xenophobia.”
Attorney General Bondi laid down the law, stating, “The Department of Justice will use every tool at our disposal to secure, defend, and protect our AG Community.” Her commitment means foreign buyers won’t just face red tape -- they’ll face the full weight of federal power. That’s a deterrent with teeth.
The Pentagon’s getting in on the action, too. Defense Secretary Hegseth vowed, “No longer can foreign adversaries assume we’re not watching.” His promise to monitor land ownership around military bases nationwide shuts the door on sneaky foreign encroachment.
The USDA’s ban isn’t just about saying “no” to new purchases. It’s about clawing back farmland already in the hands of those deemed national security risks. That’s a tall order, but it’s the kind of audacity that resonates with Americans tired of globalist overreach.
This policy is a shot across the bow for foreign adversaries. The USDA’s move to review future land purchases with extra scrutiny ensures that only those aligned with American interests get a seat at the table. It’s about time someone put the nation’s security over globalist pipe dreams.
The involvement of state leaders like Govs. Sanders, Pillen, and Lee shows this isn’t just a D.C. edict -- it’s a nationwide push. Their presence at the press conference signals that red states are ready to back this fight. Contrast that with the left’s obsession with open borders and unchecked foreign influence.
Make no mistake: this ban is a rebuke to the progressive agenda that’s left America vulnerable. By protecting farmland, the Trump administration is safeguarding the nation’s lifeblood from those who’d exploit it. It’s a policy that’s as practical as it is patriotic, and it’s long overdue.
President Donald Trump’s latest tariff salvo targets Japan and South Korea with a bold 25% levy, signaling America’s resolve to fix lopsided trade deals. Starting Aug. 1, goods from these nations will face steep costs, alongside new tariffs on 12 other countries, as the Associated Press reports. This move, rooted in conservative principles of economic strength, aims to level the playing field for American workers.
Trump’s executive order, signed July 7, delays implementation until Aug. 1, after a 90-day negotiation period that began April 2 with a baseline 10% tariff on most nations. The United States ran a $69.4 billion trade deficit with Japan and $66 billion with South Korea in 2024, per Census Bureau data. The president’s plan, including 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum, seeks to curb these imbalances and fund tax cuts signed on July 4.
Letters posted on Truth Social to leaders like Japan’s Shigeru Ishiba and South Korea’s Lee Jae Myung warned against retaliatory tariffs, threatening to pile on additional U.S. levies. “If you decide to raise your tariffs, that number will be added to our 25%,” Trump wrote, flexing America-first muscle. Progressive critics may cry foul, but this is about protecting U.S. interests, not coddling globalists.
Myanmar and Laos face the highest tariffs at 40%, while Cambodia and Thailand get hit with 36%, and Serbia and Bangladesh at 35%. Indonesia’s 32% rate, alongside 30% for South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina, rounds out Trump’s economic offensive. Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Tunisia join Japan and South Korea at 25%, ensuring broad pressure on trade partners.
Autos worldwide face a separate 25% tariff, a move to shield American manufacturers from foreign competition. Trump’s April announcement initially pegged Japan at 24%, but the finalized 25% rate shows he’s not backing down. Unlike the left’s obsession with open borders and free trade, this strategy prioritizes Main Street over multinational boardrooms.
Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba called the tariffs “extremely regrettable,” a predictable lament from a nation benefiting from decades of trade surpluses. Sorry, but America’s done footing the bill for globalism’s failures. South Korea’s Trade Ministry, meanwhile, is scrambling for a deal before Aug. 1, proving Trump’s pressure works.
Only two trade frameworks have been secured, despite Trump’s promise of 90 deals in 90 days, including one with Vietnam doubling its 20% tariff to block China’s trade tricks. The United Kingdom dodged higher steel, aluminum, and auto tariffs but still faces a 10% levy on goods. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted of “tailor-made trade plans,” yet the pace suggests tougher fights ahead.
Trump’s letters followed a standard format, though a gaffe misaddressed Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Željka Cvijanović as “Mr. President” before correction. Such slip-ups don’t undermine the policy’s intent: restoring America’s economic dominance. The left’s fixation on these errors ignores the bigger picture of trade reform.
BRICS-aligned nations like Brazil, Russia, and China face an extra 10% tariff, a clear message to geopolitical rivals. “These tariffs may be modified, depending on our relationship,” Trump warned, leaving room for diplomacy but not weakness. This isn’t the Biden era’s endless appeasement; it’s strategic leverage.
The S&P 500 dipped 0.8% on July 7, 2025, and the 10-year Treasury note’s interest rate climbed to 4.39%, reflecting market jitters. Critics like Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute called the tariffs “unfortunate,” but their hand-wringing misses the long-term gain for American industries. Short-term pain beats decades of economic surrender.
Trump’s use of an economic emergency to impose tariffs unilaterally faces a legal challenge, spurred by a May 2025 court ruling questioning his authority. The left’s love for judicial overreach is no surprise, but conservatives trust Trump’s instincts to fight for U.S. sovereignty. This battle will test the balance between executive power and globalist courts.
Past deals, like the 2018 South Korea trade revision and the 2019 Japan agreement on agriculture and digital trade, show Trump’s track record of delivering. “It’s all done,” he told reporters on July 7, radiating confidence in his strategy. Doubters may scoff, but results speak louder than elite skepticism.
Josh Lipsky of The Atlantic Council sees Trump’s tariffs as a sign he’s “serious,” not just posturing. That’s right -- America’s back and it’s not bluffing. The globalist crowd may pine for the days of unchecked trade deficits, but Trump’s base cheers this economic patriotism.
Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute downplays escalation, calling it “more of the same.” His libertarian shrug ignores the urgency of rebalancing trade to save American jobs. Conservative voters know better: Trump’s tariffs are a lifeline for workers crushed by decades of bad deals.
With Aug. 1 looming, Trump’s tariffs mark a pivotal stand against the progressive dream of a borderless economy. The fight for fair trade is far from over, but this bold move puts America first. Expect more deals, more pressure, and more wins for the heartland.
Jeffrey Epstein’s death was suicide, not murder, according to a bombshell DOJ and FBI memo. The two-page document, obtained by Axios, also denies the existence of a long-awaited "client list."
The Trump administration’s Justice Department and FBI concluded that Epstein died alone in his Manhattan cell in 2019, with no evidence of foul play or a shadowy elite cover-up. Video footage, both raw and enhanced, shows that no one entered the prison area from 10:40 p.m. on Aug. 9 to 6:30 a.m. on Aug. 10, when he was found unresponsive. The medical examiner’s suicide ruling stands firm.
Conspiracy theories once swirled around Epstein’s connections to powerful figures, including President Donald Trump. A 2017 claims suggested that Epstein labeled Trump his “closest friend,” a notion Trump dismissed in 2019, saying he hadn’t spoken to Epstein in 15 years. The DOJ memo buries these rumors, finding no credible evidence of blackmail or a secret “client list.”
Investigators reviewed prison footage meticulously, with the FBI enhancing it for clarity by tweaking contrast and sharpness. The result? Zero intruders, zero mystery -- Epstein was alone, and the woke narrative of a high-profile hit collapsed under scrutiny.
The memo also seemingly halts the notion of further charges emerging in the Epstein saga. Ghislaine Maxwell, his longtime associate, is already serving 20 years for child sex trafficking. No uncharged third parties face investigation, as the DOJ sees no basis for additional probes.
MAGA voices, including now-FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, once fueled speculation about the Epstein case as influencers. “He killed himself,” Bongino declared on Fox News in May, reversing course on his earlier rhetoric. Their about-face underscores the power of evidence over emotion-driven narratives.
Since February, some MAGA media and Capitol Hill figures have griped about the Trump administration’s Epstein case handling. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) called the DOJ’s earlier release of old files “a complete disappointment” on social media. Yet, the memo’s clarity suggests that demands for new dirt were arguably chasing ghosts.
Elon Musk briefly stirred the pot last month, accusing Trump of Epstein ties before backtracking. “Went too far,” Musk admitted after deleting his X posts. Such reckless claims highlight the dangers of unverified gossip in the digital age.
Trump and Epstein’s 1990s acquaintance is no secret -- they attended the same parties. Trump barred Epstein from his golf resorts in the early 2000s, and by 2019, he was “not a fan.” These facts dismantle the left’s desperate attempts to tie Trump to Epstein’s crimes.
The DOJ and FBI refuse to release more Epstein-related materials, citing the sensitivity of child sexual abuse details. The memo argues further disclosures could harm victims or falsely implicate innocent people. This restraint contrasts sharply with the left’s obsession with sensationalism over substance.
Democrats, predictably, demand more on Trump’s Epstein ties, ignoring the memo’s findings. Their calls for transparency ring hollow when weighed against the need to protect victims from public exploitation. The DOJ’s stance is a rare win for decency in a polarized world.
David Schoen, Epstein’s former lawyer and Trump’s impeachment attorney, defended Trump on Truth Social. Trump’s team amplified Schoen’s statement, denying any criminal link. The left’s narrative crumbles further under this legal clarity.
Patel and Bongino’s earlier positions, held as influencers, fed a frenzy of speculation, but their current roles demand accountability. Their pivot to the suicide conclusion aligns with what they say is the DOJ’s evidence-based approach. The MAGA base deserves the truth, not recycled rumors.
The memo’s release exposes what may be the futility of chasing Epstein myths. No shadowy cabal, no hidden list -- just a tragic end in a prison cell?
Epstein’s case could end here, with Maxwell behind bars and no further culprits to pursue. The DOJ’s final word prioritizes victims over political point-scoring. America’s focus should now shift to real issues, not recycled gossip.
Atlantic Beach's mayor just bailed, leaving taxpayers fuming. George Pappas, a New York Republican, resigned on July 3 after slamming residents with an 87% property tax hike that sparked outrage, as the New York Post reports. His deputy, Charles Hammerman, ditched the sinking ship the same day.
Pappas and Hammerman’s exits followed a controversial May tax increase and a $950,000 settlement in a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches. The village’s attempt to seize Chabad’s property via eminent domain ignited accusations of religious bias. Legal fees already topped $500,000 before the settlement was approved.
In 2021, Chabad bought a former Capital One bank to convert into a synagogue and community center. The village, under Pappas’s watch, tried to block the plan, claiming the property was needed for a municipal facility. This heavy-handed move backfired, landing Atlantic Beach in a costly legal mess.
The Chabad lawsuit accused the village of blatant religious discrimination. Rather than fostering community, Pappas’s administration burned through taxpayer dollars fighting a losing battle. The $950,000 settlement, greenlit days before the resignations, left residents seething.
“We shouldn’t be footing the bill for their antisemitism,” one resident told The Post. That’s a fair gripe when your property taxes skyrocket 87% to cover legal blunders. The village’s excuse? Decades of faulty Nassau County assessments.
Nassau County assessor Joseph Adamo pushed back hard. “Nassau County is not responsible for the Village of Atlantic Beach budget or tax levy,” he said. Translation: Don’t blame us for your fiscal trainwreck.
The 87% tax hike, implemented in May, wasn’t just a number -- it was a gut punch to homeowners. Village officials pointed fingers at Nassau County’s assessment practices, but residents smelled a rat. Many suspect the increase was a sneaky way to offset the Chabad lawsuit’s legal tab.
Atlantic Beach’s leadership imploded with Pappas and Hammerman’s resignations. The village board shrank to three trustees -- Patricia Beaumont, Nathan Etrog, and Barry Frohlinger—by July 3, 2025. Beaumont and Etrog are set to exit on July 7, leaving Frohlinger as the last man standing.
Newly elected trustees Joseph B. Pierantoni and Laura Heller, fresh off June 2025 village election wins, will be sworn in on July 7. Their arrival signals a potential reset, but the damage is done. Residents are stuck with the bill for Pappas’s missteps.
The timing of the resignations couldn’t be worse. With only Frohlinger holding the fort after July 7, Atlantic Beach faces a leadership crisis. The incoming trustees inherit a village reeling from distrust and financial strain.
Pappas’s tax hike was sold as a fix for long-standing assessment errors. Yet Nassau County’s denial of responsibility casts doubt on that narrative. The county claims the village mismanaged commercial property billing for years, forcing the massive tax jump.
Residents aren’t buying the official story. The Chabad lawsuit’s $1.45 million total cost -- $950,000 settlement plus $500,000 in legal fees -- lines up suspiciously with the tax hike’s timing. It’s hard to see this as anything but a cover for poor governance.
The settlement with Chabad closed an ugly chapter, but it didn’t erase the sting of betrayal. Taxpayers feel duped, forced to bankroll a fight that reeked of anti-religious bias. Pappas’s resignation feels less like accountability and more like an escape hatch.
The village’s claim of assessment woes doesn’t hold water when the county disputes it. If Atlantic Beach botched commercial billing, that’s on local leadership, not Nassau County. Residents deserve better than excuses and runaway taxes.
As Pierantoni and Heller step in, they face a tall order: restore trust and stabilize finances. The Chabad fiasco and tax hike exposed a leadership failure that won’t be forgotten. Atlantic Beach needs a conservative fix -- less woke overreach, more fiscal sense.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is eyeing California’s gubernatorial seat, and a recent poll suggests she’s got a head start. A University of California, Irvine survey from late May to early June shows her trouncing a generic Republican opponent with 41% support to their 29%, as Breitbart reports. But with 40% of voters still scratching their heads over specific candidates, the race is far from locked.
The poll, conducted by UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology, reveals Harris as the frontrunner to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom. It surveyed over 4,000 California adults across two samples, one from May 27 to June 2 and another from May 29 to June 4. Harris’s lead, while notable, comes with a progressive agenda that many voters might find hard to swallow.
Against a nameless Republican, Harris commands a 12-point edge. Yet, 14% of respondents said they’d sit out the election entirely, and 16% couldn’t pick a side. This indecision hints at an electorate wary of her San Francisco-style liberalism taking over Sacramento.
Harris’s potential run isn’t just idle chatter; sources say she’s mulling it over with a decision deadline by summer’s end. A February survey by Emerson College Polling already pegged her as the top Democratic Party contender. Her progressive track record, though, could alienate moderates who crave practical governance over woke rhetoric.
When pitted against specific candidates, Harris’s support drops to 24%. That’s still enough to lead, but it’s a far cry from a mandate. The poll’s 40% “not sure yet” crowd suggests voters aren’t sold on her or anyone else just yet.
Billionaire developer Rick Caruso, fresh off his 2022 Los Angeles mayoral loss to Karen Bass, pulls in 9% support. His business-savvy pitch might resonate with voters tired of career politicians. But his low numbers show he’s got a steep climb ahead.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who threw his hat in the ring in February, scraped by with 4% support. His law-and-order stance could appeal to conservatives, but he’s barely registering in the poll. It’s a sign the GOP needs a stronger contender to counter Harris’s name recognition.
Former Rep. Katie Porter, known for her whiteboard theatrics, garners 6% support. Her progressive bona fides might split the liberal vote with Harris. But with only 6% backing, she’s more of a sideshow than a serious threat.
Trump administration special envoy Richard Grenell is teasing a run, but only if Harris jumps in. His potential candidacy could shake up the race, bringing a Trump-aligned fighter to the field. For now, he’s just a wildcard waiting in the wings.
The poll’s most glaring takeaway is the indecision: 40% of voters aren’t sold on any candidate. This uncertainty could spell trouble for Harris, whose progressive policies might not survive scrutiny in a state craving solutions over ideology. The GOP, if it can field a competent candidate, has an opening.
Fully 6% of respondents flat-out refuse to vote in the specific candidate matchup. That’s a small but telling group fed up with the options. It’s a reminder that Californians are desperate for leadership that doesn’t pander to the loudest activists.
Harris’s 24% against named opponents shows her lead is soft. Her baggage -- decades of pushing divisive policies -- could weigh her down as voters dig deeper. A less woke alternative might siphon off her support.
The U.C. Irvine poll paints a picture of a state at a crossroads. Harris’s early lead reflects her name recognition, not a love for her progressive playbook. Voters seem open to alternatives, if only someone steps up.
Caruso’s 9% and Bianco’s 4% show the GOP and independents have room to grow. A candidate who rejects both Harris’s left-wing orthodoxy and Sacramento’s status quo could gain traction. The question is whether such a figure will emerge by summer’s end.
With 40% of voters still on the fence, California’s gubernatorial race is wide open. Harris may be ahead, but her lead feels more like a mirage than a mandate. As she ponders her run, the state’s voters are hungering for something -- or -- something different.
