Author: Bob Mery

Eric Adams Exits New York City Mayoral Race
After working for the New York City Police Department for more than two decades. © ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock.com
NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Eric Adams abruptly suspended his re-election campaign on Sunday, September 28, 2025, just five weeks before Election Day, citing funding woes and relentless media scrutiny that he said had crippled his bid for a second term. The announcement, delivered in a nearly nine-minute video posted to X, marks the end of a tumultuous tenure for the one-term Democrat and could consolidate opposition votes behind former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, potentially tightening the race against Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.
Adams, who rose from NYPD captain to Brooklyn borough president before winning the mayoralty in 2021 as the city’s second Black mayor, framed his exit as a reluctant necessity. “Despite all we’ve achieved, I cannot continue my re-election campaign,” he said, his voice steady but somber against a backdrop of city skyline footage. “The constant media speculation about my future and the campaign finance board’s decision to withhold millions of dollars have undermined my ability to raise the funds needed for a serious campaign.” He acknowledged lingering voter unease from his dismissed federal corruption case, insisting, “I was wrongfully charged because I fought for this city, and if I had to do it again, I would fight for New York again.”
The mayor’s departure from the race—where he had been polling in the low single digits as an independent—leaves a crowded field led by Mamdani, the 33-year-old state assemblyman and democratic socialist who stunned observers by winning the June Democratic primary. Recent polls show Mamdani commanding 43% to 47% support among likely voters, far ahead of Cuomo’s 23% to 29% and Republican Curtis Sliwa’s 9% to 17%. Adams hovered below 10% in most surveys, a sharp fall from his early-term popularity amid post-COVID recovery efforts.
Adams did not endorse any candidate, but his remarks carried clear barbs at Mamdani’s progressive platform, warning of “extremism growing in our politics” and “insidious forces [who] use local government to advance divisive agendas with little regard for how it hurts everyday New Yorkers.” He urged voters to choose leaders “not by what they promise, but by what they have delivered,” a nod to his own record of crime reductions and quality-of-life investments. “Major change is welcome and necessary, but beware of those who claim the answer is to destroy the very system we built over generations,” he added. “That is not change, that is chaos.”
The decision caps a year of speculation fueled by Adams’s scandals, including a September 2024 federal indictment on charges of bribery, wire fraud, and illegal campaign contributions—dismissed in February 2025 at the Trump Justice Department’s urging to enlist the mayor in immigration enforcement. Critics alleged a quid pro quo, with then-interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon resigning after orders to drop the case. Adams denied any deal but admitted the probe had eroded trust.
As recently as early September, Adams vowed to stay in, declaring himself “the only one who can beat Mamdani.” He skipped the Democratic primary to run independently, a maneuver that spared him from Mamdani’s upset victory but isolated him further amid liberal backlash over his rapport with President Donald Trump. Trump’s overtures—suggesting Adams and Sliwa exit to boost Cuomo—added to the pressure, though Sliwa has rebuffed calls to withdraw.
Adams’s exit could reshape the November 4 contest, potentially funneling his supporters—outer-borough Black and Latino Democrats, Orthodox Jews—to Cuomo, the centrist independent who has positioned himself as Mamdani’s chief foil. In head-to-head hypotheticals without Adams and Sliwa, Mamdani’s lead narrows to 48%-44%, per a New York Times/Siena poll, though he still holds a double-digit edge in multi-candidate scenarios. Cuomo, speaking after an unrelated Queens event, called the dropout “a game-changer,” praising Adams’s resilience: “Only in New York can a child raised in a tenement in Bushwick… rise to become mayor.”
Mamdani, campaigning on affordability in the world’s priciest city, dismissed the shift on X: “Trump and his billionaire donors might be able to determine Adams and Cuomo’s actions. But they won’t decide this election.” Sliwa, the Guardian Angels founder, faces internal GOP pressure but insists on staying, despite Trump’s quip that he’s “not exactly prime time.”
Gov. Kathy Hochul, who endorsed Mamdani, lauded Adams: “He leaves the city better than he inherited it.” Trump, in a Reuters interview, predicted Adams’s votes would flow to Cuomo. Republican Rep. Mike Lawler urged Sliwa’s support to “defeat Zohran Mamdani.”
Adams pledged to serve out his term, battling COVID fallout, crime surges, the migrant crisis, and economic woes. “This is not the end of my public service,” he said. “I will continue to fight for this city… to make our streets safer and our systems fairer.” He implored his successor to expand his initiatives on policing, mental health, and homelessness.
With Adams out, the race—New York’s first competitive general election in decades—pivots to a potential Cuomo-Mamdani showdown, testing the city’s appetite for bold progressive change against centrist pragmatism. Polls suggest Mamdani’s enthusiasm edge among younger voters could prove decisive, but Cuomo’s consolidation play keeps the outcome fluid. As one X user quipped amid the frenzy, “Eric Adams was given a choice… dropout, and turn Fed evidence against the NYC crime machine.” Whether that’s hyperbole or harbinger, the Big Apple braces for a bruising finish.
September 28, 2025
Xi Demands U.S. Opposition to Taiwan Independence in Talks With Trump
Xi Jinping, China’s president. © Qilai Shen/Bloomberg
In a bold and aggressive move that underscores Beijing’s relentless ambition to dominate the Indo-Pacific, Chinese President Xi Jinping is reportedly maneuvering to extract a major concession from President Donald Trump: a formal U.S. declaration opposing Taiwan’s independence. This push, revealed in recent reports, exploits Trump’s focus on securing a robust trade deal with China, potentially at the expense of America’s longstanding commitment to the democratic island nation that stands as a bulwark against communist expansionism.
Xi, who has made “reunification” with Taiwan a cornerstone of his authoritarian “China Dream” since seizing power in 2012, sees the upcoming high-stakes meetings with Trump as his golden window to erode U.S. support for Taipei. According to sources familiar with the matter, Beijing has urged the Trump administration to shift from the Biden-era phrasing that the U.S. “does not support” Taiwan independence to a stronger stance explicitly “opposing” it – a semantic change with profound implications that could embolden China’s military adventurism and undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty. This would mark a diplomatic triumph for Xi, aligning Washington more closely with Beijing’s narrative that Taiwan is a breakaway province destined for absorption, by force if necessary.
The Trump administration has yet to decide on this demand, which sits amid a laundry list of Chinese asks under review. But conservatives in Washington are sounding the alarm, warning that any capitulation would signal weakness and betray America’s allies. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton blasted the idea on X, stating, “Recent reports confirm Xi Jinping is going to leverage trade negotiations with Trump to push the U.S. to abandon our position on Taiwan independence. This is exactly what I warned against last week.” Bolton’s concerns echo his earlier criticism of the administration’s decision to withhold over $400 million in military aid to Taiwan this summer amid trade talks, a move that raised eyebrows about prioritizing economic deals over deterring Chinese aggression.
Trump, known for his art-of-the-deal negotiating style, has so far played his cards close, avoiding explicit commitments to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion to preserve leverage. In August, he revealed that Xi had assured him China would not invade during his presidency, adding cryptically, “China is very patient.” Yet, recent actions – including denying Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te a routine U.S. transit stop and delaying arms deliveries – have fueled speculation that trade priorities might be overshadowing security pledges, prompting unease in both Washington and Taipei.
The U.S. maintains its “One China” policy, acknowledging Beijing’s claims without endorsing them, and emphasizes opposition to any unilateral changes to the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. A State Department spokesperson reiterated to reporters, “We have long stated that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. China presents the single greatest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” This stance was bolstered earlier this year when the department removed Biden-era language explicitly not supporting independence, a tweak praised by Taiwan but met with fury from Beijing.
Xi’s strategy is clear: capitalize on Trump’s desire for a trade win following the recent TikTok agreement, which kept the app operating in the U.S. under American ownership. The leaders have a slate of engagements lined up, including a face-to-face at next month’s Asia-Pacific economic summit in South Korea, Trump’s potential visit to Beijing in early 2026 – a diplomatic coup for Xi – and Xi’s reciprocal trip to the White House later that year, contingent on progress on trade and fentanyl curbs.
Experts warn this is classic Chinese Communist Party tactics: incremental gains to erode U.S. resolve. Evan Medeiros, a former U.S. national security official, told reporters, “Driving a wedge between Washington and Taipei is the holy grail of the Taiwan problem for Beijing. It would undermine Taiwan’s confidence and increase Beijing’s leverage over Taipei.” Yun Sun of the Stimson Center added, “No U.S. policy change on Taiwan will happen overnight. But China will push persistently to inch forward – and in the process, undermine Taiwan’s confidence in U.S. commitment.”
From Taiwan’s vantage point, these developments are alarming but not insurmountable. A senior Taiwanese national security official, speaking anonymously, dismissed Beijing’s ploy: “China’s attempts to exploit political transitions in the US to create a ‘strategic gap’ would not succeed, as they disregard Washington’s established strategic policy on Taiwan.” Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung recently appealed for U.N. recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty, arguing it’s time for the world to “leave no one behind” by embracing Taiwan’s contributions. Taipei remains confident in its U.S. ties, viewing a strong Taiwan as essential to Indo-Pacific stability.
Meanwhile, China’s military saber-rattling intensifies. Beijing has ramped up war games in the Taiwan Strait, claiming jurisdiction over the 110-mile waterway. Leaked documents reveal Moscow is aiding Xi’s preparations, agreeing to train Chinese paratroopers and supply vehicles for a potential aerial assault, with Western intelligence estimating Beijing could be invasion-ready by 2027. Chinese Embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu stonewalled inquiries, reiterating, “China firmly opposes any form of official exchanges or military ties” between the U.S. and Taiwan.
Right-leaning voices argue this is no time for concessions. Trump, who championed America First policies, should stand firm against Xi’s coercion, prioritizing deterrence over deals that could embolden a regime hell-bent on regional hegemony. As Bolton warned, trading away Taiwan’s security for short-term economic gains risks long-term catastrophe, echoing the appeasement pitfalls of the past. With global stocks rising amid bets on U.S. rate cuts, the real stakes are geopolitical: Will America hold the line against communist aggression, or blink in the face of Beijing’s bluster?
September 27, 2025
Judges Reject Trump Request to Dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Cook
Dr. Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, nominated to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, speaks before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 3, 2022. © REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/Pool/File Photo
WASHINGTON — In a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the Federal Reserve, a federal appeals court on Monday night rejected the administration’s emergency bid to remove Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s Board of Governors, upholding a lower court’s temporary block on her termination. The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ensures that Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, can participate in this week’s crucial Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, where policymakers are widely expected to vote on a quarter-point cut to the federal funds rate amid signs of a cooling labor market.
The ruling comes at a pivotal moment for the U.S. economy, as the Fed grapples with inflation pressures exacerbated by Trump’s tariff policies and a weakening job market. Cook, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022 and reappointed in 2023 for a term extending to January 2038, launched her legal challenge on August 28 after Trump fired her on August 25. The dismissal was based on allegations from Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte that Cook made false claims on mortgage applications in 2021—prior to her Senate confirmation—potentially securing more favorable loan terms by misrepresenting properties in Michigan, Georgia, and Massachusetts as primary residences.
U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb had granted Cook’s request for a preliminary injunction on September 9, finding that the removal likely violated the Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” provision and her Fifth Amendment due process rights. Cobb noted that the allegations, which predate Cook’s tenure, did not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal, describing them as raising “many serious questions of first impression.” Documents reviewed by Reuters indicate that Cook declared a Georgia property as a vacation home, not a primary residence, undercutting Pulte’s claims, while Michigan property tax authorities confirmed no rules were broken on a home she listed as primary.
The Trump administration swiftly appealed, arguing in briefs that the president has broad discretion to remove Fed governors for cause, including pre-office conduct that reflects a “lack of care in financial matters” inconsistent with public trust. Lawyers for the White House contended that courts should not second-guess such decisions, warning that blocking the removal would “diminish” the Fed’s integrity. They sought an emergency stay to oust Cook before the FOMC’s two-day meeting starting Tuesday, emphasizing the need to ensure governors are “competent and capable of projecting confidence into markets.”
Cook’s legal team fired back in a Saturday filing, urging the appeals court to deny the stay and highlighting the broader implications for Fed independence. “A stay by this court would therefore be the first signal from the courts that our system of government is no longer able to guarantee the independence of the Federal Reserve,” her attorneys argued, warning that it could allow the president to fire board members on “flimsy pretexts,” ending the era of central bank autonomy and risking dire economic consequences. They stressed that the government provided no meaningful notice or opportunity for Cook to respond to the allegations, a point the appeals court majority echoed in its order.
In the majority opinion, joined by Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs—both Biden appointees—Circuit Judge Bradley N. Garcia wrote that Cook’s due process claim is “very likely meritorious,” as the administration “does not dispute that it provided Cook no meaningful notice or opportunity to respond.” The judges reasoned that granting the stay would “upend, not preserve,” the status quo, given Cook’s continuous service, and that her strong likelihood of success on the merits warranted denial. Circuit Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the “equitable balance” favored the government due to the heightened interest in ensuring Fed competence.
White House spokesman Kush Desai responded defiantly Tuesday morning, stating to Barron’s that “The President lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause. The Administration will appeal this decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.” The administration has until hours before the FOMC meeting to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, a path it has signaled it will pursue. This marks the first attempted “for cause” removal of a Fed governor in the central bank’s 111-year history, testing long-standing protections against political interference enshrined in the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which shields governors from at-will dismissal but does not define “for cause” or removal procedures.
The case underscores Trump’s aggressive push to influence monetary policy, including public berating of Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting rates aggressively enough despite inflation concerns. The Fed has held rates steady since late 2024 but signaled a potential cut last month amid hiring weakness; economists now anticipate a reduction to about 4.1%, which could lower borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and businesses over time. Cook’s lawyers noted she has continued her duties during the litigation, and the Fed itself has remained neutral, requesting a swift resolution and pledging to abide by court orders.
Complicating matters, the Senate narrowly confirmed Trump’s nominee Stephen Miran—current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers—to a vacated Fed board seat on Monday night in a 48-47 party-line vote, meaning he will also join this week’s meeting. Miran’s addition could tilt the board toward Trump’s preferences, but Cook’s retention preserves a Biden-era voice in deliberations.
Beyond the immediate rate decision, the dispute has ramifications for the Fed’s independence, seen as essential for controlling inflation and stabilizing markets. The Supreme Court, in a May ruling on other agency removals, distinguished the Fed as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with singular historical traditions, potentially bolstering Cook’s position. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched a criminal mortgage fraud probe into Cook, issuing grand jury subpoenas in Georgia and Michigan, though no charges have been filed and Cook denies wrongdoing, calling the allegations a pretext for her policy stances.
As the legal battle escalates, markets await the FOMC’s outcome, with investors eyeing how this high-stakes clash might influence the central bank’s credibility and the broader economy under Trump’s second term.
September 17, 2025
Patel: FBI Collected Multiple Devices in Search of Alleged Kirk Assassin’s Home
A police mugshot shows Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the fatal shooting of U.S. conservative commentator Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University, in Orem, Utah, U.S., in this photo released by the Utah Department of Public Safety on September 12, 2025. © Utah Department of Public Safety/Handout/REUTERS
FBI Director Kash Patel said “multiple” electronic devices were seized from the Utah home of Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting Charlie Kirk last week, as part of the ongoing investigation.
“We are going to be interviewing scores of people, not just these chats on Discord, but any communications this individual have,” Patel said Monday evening during an appearance on Fox News’s “Hannity.”
“We’ve seized multiple electronic devices from the home of the suspect and his romantic partner,” he continued. “We’ve got computers, we’ve got laptops, gaming systems, cell phones.”
Law enforcement identified 22-year-old Robinson as the shooter who allegedly shot and killed Kirk, a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, on Wednesday during an event at Utah Valley University.
“The evidence and information will come out. I won’t stylize the evidence, but I will say what was found in terms of information was a text message exchange where he, the suspect, specifically stated that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he was going to do that,” the FBI director told host Sean Hannity.
On Monday, Patel, who is facing growing scrutiny over his handling of the case, said the bureau reconstructed a note from Robinson, stating the alleged suspect planned to take Kirk out.
FBI Director Kash Patel drew scrutiny when, hours after the killing, he posted on social media that “the subject” was in custody even though the actual suspected shooter remained on the loose. © AP
“The suspect wrote a note saying, ‘I have the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I’m going to take it.’ That note was written before the shooting. Evidence of its existence — we now have learned existed before the shooting — was in the location in the suspect and partner’s home,” Patel said Monday on “Fox and Friends.”
He said that the note was destroyed, but “we have found forensic evidence of the note, and we have confirmed what that note says, because of our aggressive interview posture at the FBI.”
The agency also collected DNA evidence from a screwdriver located at the scene and a towel used to wrap the rifle allegedly used in Kirk’s killing, according to Patel.
Over the weekend, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) said Robinson was in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who is cooperating with law enforcement.
Robinson is set for his first court appearance on Tuesday. He has been arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder.
September 16, 2025
Kash Patel on Defensive as FBI Director Faces Intensifying Pressure
WASHINGTON – FBI Director Kash Patel is bracing for a grilling from both sides of the aisle as he prepares to testify before Congress on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, amid swirling controversies over his handling of the investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a wave of internal firings that have plunged the bureau into turmoil.
Patel, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump confirmed in February 2025 in a razor-thin, party-line Senate vote, returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since his January confirmation hearing. There, he pledged to Democrats that he would steer clear of retribution against perceived political enemies within the FBI. Now, with the bureau reeling from high-profile missteps and lawsuits alleging a “campaign of retribution,” Patel faces skeptical lawmakers eager to probe whether he’s lived up to those assurances.
The hearing, which will also include an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee later in the week, comes just days after the FBI’s response to Kirk’s killing on a Utah college campus last week drew sharp bipartisan criticism. Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who authorities say had increasingly embraced a “leftist ideology” and become more politically radicalized in recent years. Robinson turned himself in late Saturday night, September 13, after acquaintances tipped off law enforcement, but not before Patel’s public handling of the case ignited a firestorm.
Patel drew immediate backlash for a social media post hours after the shooting, announcing that “the subject” was in custody—a claim he walked back less than two hours later, stating the individual had been released following an interview. The swift reversal fueled accusations of incompetence, with conservative commentator Chris Rufo questioning Patel’s “operational expertise” in a Friday morning post on X (formerly Twitter). “He performed terribly in the last few days, and it’s not clear whether he has the operational expertise to investigate, infiltrate, and disrupt the violent movements—of whatever ideology—that threaten the peace in the United States,” Rufo wrote.
Steve Bannon, another prominent Trump supporter, piled on, noting that those close to Robinson had turned him in, calling the arrest “not great law enforcement work.” Even President Trump, while defending Patel in a Saturday interview with Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo, acknowledged the scrutiny: “Kash and the FBI have done a great job,” Trump said, but the praise rang hollow amid the GOP infighting.
FBI Director Kash Patel testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Commitee in Washington, D.C., on Sept.16, 2025. © Josh Morgan, USA TODAY
Undeterred, Patel pushed back aggressively on Monday morning during an appearance on Fox & Friends. Defending his transparency pledge—a cornerstone of his vow to dismantle the “deep state” bureaucracy he inherited—Patel dismissed the criticism as partisan noise. “I was being transparent with working with the public on our findings as I had them,” he said. “I stated in that message that we had a subject and that we were going to interview him, and we did, and he was released. Could I have worded it a little better in the heat of the moment, sure, but do I regret putting it out? Absolutely not.”
He added: “I challenge anyone out there to find a director that has been more transparent.” Patel also highlighted his decision to release photographs of Robinson while he was at large, crediting it with facilitating the eventual arrest. The FBI rarely comments publicly on ongoing probes, making Patel’s approach a deliberate departure from precedent.
The Kirk investigation isn’t the only flashpoint. Democrats, led by Senate Judiciary Committee members like Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), have teed up questions about broader politicization of the bureau. Schiff posted a video on X last week previewing his line of inquiry, compiling past Patel statements critical of the “deep state.” Patel fired back swiftly: “Let’s find out who law enforcement backs… and who supports defunding the police—answer coming tomorrow, but we already know.”
On the left, concerns center on a recent FBI review of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, which culminated in a memo deeming further releases unnecessary despite earlier promises. House Judiciary ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) fired off a letter to Patel last week demanding details: “Obvious questions abound: why were so many agents tasked with reviewing documents that were never released? What specific instructions were they given during the review? What information did these agents uncover that led DOJ and FBI to reverse their promise to release the files, and how are these decisions related to the President?”
Raskin specifically asked when Patel became aware of references to Trump in the files and for a breakdown of resources devoted to the review. The Epstein matter has faded somewhat amid the Kirk fallout, but it’s expected to resurface as evidence of alleged favoritism.
Compounding the pressure is a federal lawsuit filed last week by three top FBI officials ousted in August, including former acting director Brian Driscoll. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses Patel of orchestrating the firings as part of a White House-directed purge targeting those seen as disloyal. Driscoll, who clashed with Trump administration officials early in the president’s second term, and two other high-ranking agents allege the removals were illegal and retaliatory.
The suit details a conversation between Patel and Emil Bove, then a senior Justice Department official, in which Patel reportedly admitted the firings were non-negotiable to safeguard his position. “Patel explained that he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of the agents who worked on cases involving the President,” the complaint states. It further claims Patel referenced the FBI’s past investigations into Trump, saying, “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Driscoll believed “superiors” meant the Justice Department and White House, a claim Patel did not refute in the recounted exchange.
White House aide Stephen Miller is named in the suit, with allegations that he demanded “summary firings” via Bove. The firings have decimated FBI leadership: Since Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, the administration has axed all top career officials overseeing key branches, multiple special agents in charge of field offices, and counterterrorism expert Mehtab Syed, who was set to lead the Salt Lake Field Office in February. Current and former officials say the upheaval has sapped morale and hampered operations at a time of rising political violence.
Democrats argue these moves echo Patel’s confirmation hearing promises gone awry, while Republicans on the committee—holding the majority—plan to rally around him. They expect to laud his emphasis on combating violent crime and illegal immigration, and press for updates on the Kirk probe, including Robinson’s motives tied to leftist extremism.
Patel’s tenure, now eight months old, has been marked by vows to root out institutional bias. A vocal critic of the multiple probes into Trump during his first term, Patel has redirected resources toward reexamining the 2016 Russia investigation into potential Trump campaign coordination. Agents and prosecutors are reportedly seeking interviews on those long-dormant threads, which Patel frames as correcting past weaponization of the FBI and DOJ.
As the hearing looms, Patel shows no signs of backing down. His combative style—evident in his X clapback at Schiff and on-air defenses—suggests Tuesday’s testimony will be as much a battle as an oversight session. For a director who campaigned on transparency and reform, the spotlight could either solidify his reformist image or expose fractures in his leadership of America’s premier law enforcement agency.
September 15, 2025
Rubio Blasts Conviction of Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Promises U.S. Action
U.S. State Secretary Marco Rubio on Sept. 11 vowed the United States would respond after Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro was convicted of attempting a coup to remain in power.
The Brazilian Supreme Court sentenced Bolsonaro to 27 years and three months in prison after convicting him of plotting to overturn the 2022 election results—which he lost to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—making him the first former president in Brazil convicted of a coup attempt.
Rubio said Bolsonaro’s conviction was a “witch hunt” and said the U.S. government “will respond accordingly,” without specifying what the actions might be.
“The political persecutions by sanctioned human rights abuser [Supreme Court Justice] Alexandre de Moraes continue, as he and others on Brazil’s supreme court have unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro,” Rubio stated on X.
The political persecutions by sanctioned human rights abuser Alexandre de Moraes continue, as he and others on Brazil's supreme court have unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro.

The United States will respond accordingly to this witch hunt.
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) September 11, 2025
In response, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry accused Rubio of attacking the country’s authority and said that its democracy will not be intimidated.
The ministry added that Rubio’s statement “ignores the facts and the compelling evidence on record” that led to Bolsonaro’s conviction.
“We will continue to defend the sovereignty of the country against aggressions and interference attempts, no matter where they come from,” the ministry stated on X.
We will continue to defend the sovereignty of the country against aggressions and interference attempts, no matter where they come from.
— Itamaraty Brazil 🇧🇷 (@Itamaraty_EN) September 11, 2025
A five-justice panel of Brazil’s Supreme Court convicted Bolsonaro on five counts, including an attempted coup, being part of an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of democratic rule of law, damage characterized by violence, and a serious threat against the state’s assets and deterioration of listed heritage.
Bolsonaro has denied all allegations.
One member of the court, Justice Luiz Fux, voted to acquit Bolsonaro of all five charges, saying there was insufficient evidence for any of the prosecutors’ claims.
Commenting on the court’s decision on Sept. 11, President Donald Trump said that he was “very unhappy” with the conviction, and that it was “very bad for Brazil.”
“I thought he was a good president of Brazil, and it’s very surprising that could happen,” Trump said of Bolsonaro’s conviction.
In July, Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian imports over the prosecution of Bolsonaro. The U.S. government also sanctioned Justice Moraes and revoked his visa, along with those of his judicial allies and their family members, over what it called “censorship of protected expression in the United States” following Bolsonaro’s trial.
Lula has condemned the moves as interference in the Brazilian justice system. The Brazilian president warned that any “unilateral tariff increases” by the Trump administration will be addressed in line with Brazil’s economic reciprocity laws.
September 12, 2025
DOJ to Begin Sharing Epstein Investigation Records with House Oversight Committee on Friday, Chairman Comer Announces
A billboard in New York’s Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein Files on Wednesday. © Adam Gray/Getty Images
The Department of Justice (DOJ) will start turning over documents related to its investigation of the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee this Friday, according to Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.). The announcement comes as the committee faces a self-imposed deadline of Tuesday, August 19, for full compliance with a subpoena issued earlier this month, highlighting growing bipartisan frustration over the pace of transparency in one of the most controversial cases in recent U.S. history.
Comer revealed the development in a statement on Monday, noting that DOJ officials had informed the committee of their intent to begin the process despite needing additional time to review and redact sensitive materials. “There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,” Comer said. He added, “I appreciate the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.”
The subpoena, approved on a bipartisan basis last month, demands all documents and communications from the case files of Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, including records related to human trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, and Epstein’s controversial 2007 plea deal in Florida. That deal, orchestrated by then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, has long been criticized for its leniency, with Acosta reportedly claiming Epstein “belonged to intelligence” in a 2019 testimony. The committee’s request also extends to files that could shed light on Epstein’s death in 2019, officially ruled a suicide, which has fueled widespread conspiracy theories among the public and lawmakers alike.
Political Flashpoint and Bipartisan Pressure
The Epstein case has emerged as a significant flashpoint within the Republican Party, particularly among the MAGA base, which has expressed outrage since the DOJ concluded last month that Epstein had no “client list” and that his death was indeed a suicide. Despite President Trump’s efforts to downplay the issue and sideline related votes, congressional momentum has persisted. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has repeatedly emphasized the need for transparency, stating there is “no fear” within his conference about the revelations.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer speaks on Capitol Hill, March 08, 2023 in Washington, DC. © Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, FILE
Democrats on the committee have voiced strong dissatisfaction with the DOJ’s timeline, arguing it falls short of full compliance. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, insisted after a closed-door deposition with former Attorney General William Barr on Monday that the committee requires “the full, complete, and unredacted Epstein files, as well as any ‘client list.’” He warned that failure to deliver by the deadline would signal a continuation of what he called the “Trump Epstein Coverup.” The subpoena originated from a motion by Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), calling for the files to be delivered concurrently to both majority and minority members.
Notably, several Republicans joined Democrats in approving the subpoena, including Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), and Brian Jack (R-Ga.), underscoring the rare cross-aisle consensus on this matter. Beyond the document request, the committee has issued subpoenas for testimony from high-profile figures linked to Epstein or the investigations, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Attorneys General such as Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, and Robert Mueller. Barr’s deposition on Monday marked the first in this series, with others expected to follow into the fall.
Separately, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) are spearheading an effort to force a full House vote on declassifying the Epstein files when Congress reconvenes in September, potentially bypassing leadership delays.
Background on the Epstein Saga
Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with connections to powerful figures across politics, business, and entertainment, was arrested in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges involving minors. He died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell the following month, sparking debates over prison oversight and possible foul play. His associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking and is serving a 20-year sentence.
The case has lingered in the public eye due to Epstein’s infamous “little black book” and flight logs from his private jet, dubbed the “Lolita Express,” which allegedly transported underage girls and high-profile passengers. Thousands of pages of court documents were unsealed in early 2024 related to a defamation lawsuit by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, revealing names like Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton, though no new criminal charges stemmed from them. Earlier this year, in February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi released initial batches of Epstein files, including flight logs and victim statements, describing the contents as “pretty sick.”
Conspiracy theories have proliferated, particularly among conservative circles, alleging a cover-up involving intelligence agencies or political elites. The DOJ’s July 2025 memo dismissing further disclosures as unnecessary intensified calls for accountability, leading to the current subpoena.
Reactions and Broader Implications
The announcement has elicited mixed responses. On social media platform X, users expressed skepticism about the completeness of the release, with one poster stating, “Unless it’s all of em, save your breath. We don’t want any watered down shit.” Another highlighted the bipartisan nature, noting, “The Epstein case continues to generate attention in Washington.”
Critics from both parties argue that redactions could obscure key details, while supporters of the Trump administration praise the move as a step toward openness. As the files begin to flow, the committee’s investigation represents a direct challenge to GOP leadership’s attempts to move past the issue, potentially reshaping public discourse on accountability and elite influence.
A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The process is expected to unfold over weeks, with the full impact on ongoing political debates yet to be seen.
August 18, 2025
Crime in Major Cities Becomes Trump’s Next Target Following DC Developments
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump federalizes Washington, D.C.’s police and deploys the National Guard to curb crime in the nation’s capital, he is signaling a broader push to address violent crime in other major U.S. cities. During an August 11, 2025, press conference at the White House, Trump named Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Baltimore as areas of concern, describing them as “bad, very bad.” While violent crime rates have recently declined nationwide, these cities continue to grapple with elevated homicide and felony numbers, some exceeding levels from a decade ago.
The President’s Powers and Legal Challenges
Trump’s actions in Washington, D.C., stem from his declaration of a crime emergency, leveraging Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This allows him to control the city’s Metropolitan Police Department for up to 30 days without Congressional approval. He has called on Congress, currently in its August recess, to extend this authority, hinting that a national emergency declaration could bypass legislative delays if needed.
National Guard troops deployed to D.C. will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, but aren’t making arrests, officials said. Here, National Guard personnel keep watch as travelers arrive at the entrance to Union Station near the Capitol in Washington on Thursday. © J. Scott Applewhite/AP
However, extending similar measures to other cities faces significant hurdles. Unlike D.C., where the president has direct authority, state and local governments control law enforcement in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Baltimore. Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles is under scrutiny, with U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer examining whether it violates the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), which restricts federal military involvement in domestic law enforcement. In D.C., Trump has avoided PCA conflicts by deploying the District of Columbia National Guard under Title 32 duty status, maintaining local authority while supporting police operations.
Trump also criticized no-cash bail policies, which he believes exacerbate crime, urging Congress to act. Illinois eliminated cash bail in 2023, as did Los Angeles County for most offenses. New York State followed suit in 2019. “Maybe they’ll self-clean up, and maybe they’ll self-do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused this problem,” Trump said during the press conference.
Chicago: A Focal Point
Chicago tops Trump’s list of concern, with the president stating, “If we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago.” The city recorded 573 homicides in 2024, the highest in the U.S., though down from 620 in 2023, according to the Chicago Police Department. Shootings and vehicular hijackings also declined, but thousands of incidents persist. In the first half of 2025, homicides dropped 32 percent to 188 compared to the same period in 2024, yielding a homicide rate of over 21 per 100,000 residents.
While this rate is lower than the 1990s peak, it exceeds levels from the 2000s and early 2010s, per a University of Chicago Crime Lab analysis. An Illinois Policy Institute report further noted a decline in homicide arrest rates, falling from 42 percent a decade ago to 27 percent between June 2024 and June 2025, highlighting challenges in law enforcement effectiveness.
New York City: Persistent Challenges
Trump signaled that New York City is next on his radar, stating, “I’m going to look at New York in a little while.” The city reported 382 murders and non-negligent manslaughters in 2024, down from a 2021 peak of 488 but higher than the 2013–2019 period, which saw a low of 292 in 2017, according to city data. By August 10, 2025, the New York Police Department recorded 188 murders, a 23.6 percent decrease from the same period in 2024. Robberies and felonious assaults also declined, but rape incidents rose 21.6 percent, with 1,748 cases in 2024 compared to 1,455 in 2023. Felonious assaults reached 29,461 in 2024, up from a low of 16,284 in 2008.
Los Angeles, Oakland, and Baltimore: Mixed Trends
Trump’s remarks also targeted Los Angeles, Oakland, and Baltimore, with the president noting that the latter two are “so far gone” and urging Los Angeles to “watch” D.C.’s example. Los Angeles saw 264 homicides in 2024, down from 327 in 2023, per FBI and Los Angeles Police Department data. The first half of 2025 showed further declines, with Mayor Karen Bass touting a trajectory toward the lowest homicide levels in six decades. Oakland reported 81 murders in 2024, a significant drop from 120 in 2023, aligning with late 1990s and early 2000s lows, according to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Homicides in Oakland fell 21 percent in the first half of 2025 compared to 2024.
Baltimore recorded 201 homicides in 2024, down from 260 in 2023, with a 2024 homicide rate of over 35 per 100,000, among the highest for large U.S. cities, per Baltimore Police Department data. The city’s 2025 midyear report showed 68 homicides, a decrease from 88 in the same period of 2024.
While Trump’s focus on crime has sparked debate, posts on X highlight mixed sentiments. On August 13, noted that Trump singled out cities with Black mayors and large minority populations, suggesting a political dimension to his rhetoric, though this claim remains inconclusive. Conversely, azpublicmedia reported on August 15 that mayors of the targeted cities—Baltimore, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Oakland—emphasized declining crime rates, countering Trump’s narrative.
As Trump pushes for federal intervention, legal and political constraints may limit his ability to replicate D.C.’s model elsewhere. The outcome of Judge Breyer’s ruling on the Los Angeles deployment and Congress’s response to Trump’s call for expanded powers will shape the feasibility of his plans. For now, the president’s focus on urban crime underscores a broader agenda to prioritize public safety, even as cities report progress in reducing violence.
August 15, 2025
Trump, Putin Convene in Alaska for Crucial Peace Talks
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin convened at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on Friday, August 15, 2025, in a high-stakes summit aimed at ending more than three years of war in Ukraine. The meeting, held at Alaska’s largest military facility, marks the first face-to-face encounter between the two leaders since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and carries significant implications for global stability.
The choice of Alaska, once part of the Russian Empire before its sale to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million, added historical resonance to the summit. A blue backdrop emblazoned with “Pursuing Peace” framed the leaders as they shook hands on the tarmac, accompanied by a fighter jet flyover. Trump and Putin then rode together in The Beast, the president’s armored limousine, before appearing alongside key advisers. Trump was flanked by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, while Putin was joined by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and presidential adviser Yuri Ushakov.
The White House described the summit as a “listening exercise” for Trump to gauge Moscow’s terms for peace. The leaders held a one-on-one session at 11:30 a.m. local time (3:30 p.m. Eastern), attended only by their translators, following a three-on-three meeting with advisers. Reporters briefly questioned Putin before the talks began, with the Russian leader praising the Trump administration’s “energetic and sincere” efforts to resolve the conflict, according to a Kremlin statement on August 14. Putin also suggested that broader negotiations could lead to a nuclear arms control agreement and hinted at “huge untapped potential” for U.S.-Russia economic ties, per Ushakov’s remarks to reporters.
Trump expressed cautious optimism about the summit, telling reporters in the Oval Office on August 14, “I think it’s going to be a good meeting, but the more important meeting will be the second meeting,” referring to a potential follow-up involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders. He suggested Alaska could host subsequent talks for logistical ease, adding, “I’d like to see it happen very quickly.” However, in an August 14 interview with Fox News radio host Brian Kilmeade, Trump acknowledged a “25 percent chance” the meeting could fail to produce results.
The summit follows months of diplomatic maneuvering. Last month, Trump set an August 8 deadline for Putin to agree to a ceasefire, threatening new U.S. sanctions and economic penalties if unmet. While direct sanctions on Russia were not imposed, the U.S. levied a 50 percent tariff on India for purchasing sanctioned Russian oil, a move Trump suggested influenced Putin’s decision to attend the summit. “Certainly, when you lose your second-largest customer and you’re probably going to lose your first-largest customer, I think that probably has a role,” Trump told Kilmeade.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin talk during the family photo session at the APEC Summit in Danang, Vietnam, on Nov. 11, 2017. © Jorge Silva/Reuters
Economic pressure on Russia could intensify, according to Seth Jones, president of the defense and security department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In a recent note, Jones wrote, “Energy sanctions could be combined with sanctions against other Russian exports, such as minerals, metals, agricultural goods, and fertilizers,” noting Russia’s struggles with inflation, labor shortages, and limited economic growth.
The summit builds on a virtual meeting Trump and Vice President JD Vance held with Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and other European and NATO leaders prior to the Alaska talks. A Ukrainian government statement emphasized that peace negotiations must involve Ukraine, occur under a ceasefire, and respect international borders. “Ukraine, together with other European countries, must have reliable security guarantees,” the statement read.
Trump has warned of “very severe consequences” if Putin refuses to end the war, a stance that underscores the urgency of the talks. The conflict, the deadliest in Europe since World War II, has claimed thousands of lives and displaced millions. However, posts on X, including one by @The_Real_ITDUDE on August 9, suggest earlier misunderstandings in pre-summit talks, with Russia reportedly demanding control of five Ukrainian regions, a claim that remains unverified and inconclusive.
As the leaders negotiate, the world watches closely. The outcome of the Anchorage summit could shape the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict and U.S.-Russia relations, with potential ripple effects for global security and economic stability.
August 15, 2025
Federal Judge Stops Obamacare Religious Exemption Rule
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has struck down a Trump-era rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of an Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring health insurance plans to cover abortion and contraceptives. The decision, issued on August 13, 2025, by U.S. District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone, declared the 2018 rules “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of federal law, delivering a significant blow to religious liberty advocates.
The ruling, detailed in a 55-page opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, vacates both the religious and moral exemption rules enacted during President Donald Trump’s first administration. These rules permitted employers, including religious organizations, to exclude coverage for contraceptives and abortion services from employee health plans based on sincerely held beliefs. Judge Beetlestone’s decision came in response to lawsuits filed by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which argued that the exemptions undermined access to essential healthcare services.
Beetlestone’s ruling hinged on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 law prohibiting the government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it meets strict criteria. The judge concluded that the exemption rules were not rationally connected to addressing RFRA violations. “The Rule is not arbitrary and capricious because it draws imprecise lines,” she wrote. “It is arbitrary and capricious because the Agencies identified a problem (RFRA violations) and then proposed a solution that is not rationally connected to solving that problem (exempting organizations whose compliance with the Accommodation posed no potential conflict with RFRA to begin with).”
The decision favors Pennsylvania and New Jersey, with a spokesperson for the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office telling The Epoch Times via email: “We are gratified that a federal court has agreed with us that the Trump Administration violated the law by exempting certain entities from the requirement to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.” The White House declined to comment on the ruling.
The case has drawn sharp criticism from religious organizations and their legal advocates, particularly the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic nonprofit that has been a defendant-intervenor in the litigation. Mark Rienzi, president of Becket, a public interest legal institute, called the decision an “out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty.” He criticized the court for issuing a nationwide ruling without addressing constitutional issues or holding a hearing after five years of litigation. “It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue,” Rienzi said, vowing to continue the fight to protect the group’s right to serve the elderly without violating their religious convictions.
The dispute traces back to the ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, which mandates that employer-sponsored health plans cover preventive services, including contraceptives, at no cost to employees. The 2018 rules were designed to address concerns from religious groups, like the Little Sisters, that compliance with the mandate violated their beliefs. A 2020 Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, upheld the authority of federal agencies to create such exemptions, stating, “The plain language of the statute clearly allows the Departments to create the preventive care standards as well as the religious and moral exemptions.” Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, argued that the exemptions were not arbitrary or capricious, though the Court remanded the issue to lower courts for further review.
Litigation stalled as the Biden administration drafted narrower exemption rules in 2024, only to withdraw them shortly before President Trump’s second term began. Judge Beetlestone noted that with the 2018 rules still in effect, the case was “ripe for resolution.”
The ruling reignites a contentious debate over balancing religious liberty with access to healthcare. For states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the decision reinforces the ACA’s mandate to ensure comprehensive coverage. For religious organizations, it raises concerns about government overreach into matters of conscience. As the Little Sisters and their advocates consider an appeal, the case may once again escalate to the Supreme Court, prolonging a legal battle that has spanned over a decade.
August 14, 2025
Watchdog Agency Launches Investigation into Jack Smith, the Prosecutor Who Investigated Trump
In a stunning development with far-reaching political implications, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has officially launched an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who led the federal prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump. The inquiry, announced over the weekend, centers on allegations that Smith may have violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits government officials from engaging in partisan political activity while performing their official duties.
The OSC, an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act, confirmed to several news outlets—including The Hill, Fox News, and Reuters—that it is now examining complaints lodged by Republican lawmakers about Smith’s conduct during his tenure leading high-profile investigations into the 45th president. These investigations began shortly after Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in November 2022—just three days before Trump formally declared his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election.
While the OSC declined to provide specific details regarding the scope of the probe, a spokesperson stated that “appropriate steps are being taken to evaluate potential violations of the Hatch Act or other misconduct involving Mr. Smith.”
The timing of the announcement has reignited fierce partisan debate over the integrity and neutrality of the Justice Department and the role of special prosecutors in politically sensitive cases.
The Allegations and GOP Response
Leading the charge is Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who has openly accused Smith of wielding his prosecutorial power for political ends. In a strongly worded post on X (formerly Twitter), Cotton alleged, “Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical—it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office.”
Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office. Let’s take a look at just how egregiously Smith used his DOJ role to influence the election:
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) July 30, 2025
Cotton further pointed to Smith’s push for an “unprecedented and rushed” trial schedule—seeking jury selection just two weeks before the Iowa GOP caucuses—as evidence of politically motivated intent. “No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly,” he said.
Other conservative lawmakers, including Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), have echoed Cotton’s sentiments, calling for sweeping reviews of the Justice Department’s prosecutorial discretion and accusing it of being “weaponized” against political opponents.
Smith, a veteran prosecutor and former head of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, has firmly denied any improper conduct. In a final report issued in January 2025 before his resignation, Smith maintained that “the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine alone.”
“To all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable,” Smith wrote in the report.
His report detailed what he called a “throughline of deceit,” accusing Trump of knowingly spreading false claims about election fraud and obstructing a constitutionally mandated process. “Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,” he wrote.
After Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, Smith stepped down from his role and ultimately dismissed charges against the president-elect, citing political and logistical barriers to achieving a conviction.
Pam Bondi Cleans House
Adding more intrigue to the already politically charged case, newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi fired 20 Justice Department employees who were reportedly tied to Smith’s investigations just weeks before the OSC announced its inquiry. While the DOJ has not publicly commented on the dismissals, sources told Politico and Axios that Bondi’s team is reviewing all DOJ prosecutions initiated during the Biden administration.
Bondi, a close Trump ally and former Florida attorney general, has previously criticized what she described as “a two-tiered justice system” and vowed to restore impartiality at the Department of Justice.
The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits executive branch employees from using their official authority to influence elections or engage in partisan political activity. Violations can result in disciplinary actions including suspension, removal from federal service, or referral for criminal prosecution if warranted.
While the OSC does not have direct prosecutorial power, it can submit its findings to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General or Office of Professional Responsibility, or recommend sanctions to federal agencies.
Legal experts say proving a Hatch Act violation in Smith’s case may be difficult. “You’d have to show not just political impact, but political intent,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former DHS official and senior fellow at the R Street Institute, speaking to NPR. “The threshold is very high.”
A Broader Political Battle
The investigation into Jack Smith is yet another chapter in the intensifying legal-political drama engulfing Washington, where partisanship increasingly clouds public perception of the justice system. While Democrats accuse Republicans of undermining the rule of law, the GOP sees a pattern of political targeting that must be rooted out.
On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly referred to Smith as “deranged” and painted his prosecution as part of a “deep state conspiracy.” Meanwhile, Democrats have accused the former president of trying to evade accountability for actions that culminated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The OSC’s investigation is expected to unfold over the coming months, though no specific timeline has been set. Depending on the outcome, the case could either vindicate Smith—or add fuel to Republican arguments of DOJ corruption and abuse.
As 2026 approaches, and with President Trump now back in office, the results of this inquiry could reshape the public’s understanding of the relationship between law enforcement and electoral politics for years to come.
August 2, 2025
Trump may live to regret suing Murdoch for libel regarding Epstein’s birthday card
Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and Rupert Murdoch in New York County Supreme edit. © Alan Woodward/The NewYorkBudgets
Donald Trump has never shied away from a fight. In fact, it’s practically his brand. But in launching a $10 billion libel lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, and two Wall Street Journal reporters over a birthday card allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump may have walked into a legal minefield of his own making.
The lawsuit centers around a Journal story detailing a bizarre 2003 birthday card supposedly authored by Trump to Epstein. According to the article, the note contained several typed lines framed by the outline of a naked woman, hand-drawn in thick marker. The letter reportedly included a third-person conversation between “Trump” and Epstein, with enigmatic phrases such as “enigmas never age” and the cryptic sign-off: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has vehemently denied authorship of the card. In a furious social media post, he declared: “These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.” He further asserted the note was a forgery fabricated by “unnamed Democrats,” and called the Journal a “useless rag,” promising “a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved.”
For Murdoch, 93, and Trump, 78, this isn’t their first confrontation. The media mogul’s outlets — most prominently Fox News and the Journal — were skeptical of Trump during the 2016 primaries before eventually aiding his path to the presidency. Their relationship has since oscillated between strategic alliance and mutual contempt. But this lawsuit could mark a definitive rupture.
The legal hurdles Trump faces are towering. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) still stands — despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s wish to revisit it. Under Sullivan, public figures suing for libel must prove “actual malice” — that the publisher knowingly printed falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a near-impossible standard to meet when the defendant is The Wall Street Journal, not a tabloid like the National Enquirer.
Moreover, reports suggest the card came from Department of Justice archives. If so, the Journal’s sourcing may have been both legitimate and well-documented. Dow Jones has vowed to “vigorously defend” its reporting, stating, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our journalism.”
If Trump hoped to intimidate Murdoch into silence or submission, he may have miscalculated. Libel suits, historically, are double-edged swords — especially for the plaintiff. They often invite forensic dissection of the very allegations the plaintiff seeks to bury. Legal legend Roy Cohn, Trump’s onetime mentor, famously advised clients: “Never sue for libel.” The reasons are obvious. Oscar Wilde, Alger Hiss, Gen. William Westmoreland, and Ariel Sharon all sued — and saw their reputations battered further. Some even ended up in prison.
Trump’s reputation is already uniquely impervious to additional tarnish. A New York jury found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. He’s been convicted of 34 felony counts related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His boasts about women and his own sexuality — including in the notorious Access Hollywood tape — are publicly etched in American memory.
So what’s the damage here, really?
Legal analysts suspect Trump’s motivations may have more to do with uncovering sources through discovery than restoring his name. His lawyers have already requested that Murdoch be deposed quickly, citing his advanced age and reported health concerns. “I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies,” Trump posted. That may sound like bravado, but it betrays an ulterior aim: flushing out who leaked the card and what else they may know.
But discovery cuts both ways. Murdoch’s attorneys will be free to interrogate the origins and nature of Trump’s long, checkered relationship with Epstein — one that spanned at least 15 years. How close were they? Did Trump know about Epstein’s illegal activities? Did he ever participate, enable, or turn a blind eye? Why did their relationship allegedly sour in 2004 over a Palm Beach mansion? Was that really the end?
Those depositions may expose far more than Trump bargained for — not just about his ties to Epstein, but about his broader conduct and associations.
Trump has filed and settled media lawsuits before. He reportedly reached a $15 million agreement with ABC after George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said he had been “convicted of rape.” A recent $16 million CBS settlement over a 60 Minutes segment seemed more about easing Paramount’s merger path than Trump’s legal merit. But those cases were relatively tame compared to what this Journal suit could unleash.
Murdoch’s legal team is not likely to blink. While The Wall Street Journal ran a curious follow-up story on Epstein’s “Birthday Book” that included letters from Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black, it offered little new insight — possibly a strategic nod or an effort to show editorial balance. But sources close to the matter insist Murdoch has no intention of settling.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993. © THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY/MEGA
And perhaps he shouldn’t. Trump is often at his most reckless when wounded. Peggy Noonan aptly observed that “he fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.” But in this case, the fight may well invite ruin. Trump could inadvertently open the floodgates to evidence, testimony, and revelations far more damaging than a birthday card.
He may soon learn what every good trial lawyer knows: In libel litigation, the courtroom is often the last place you want your secrets to surface.
July 29, 2025
Grocery Chain CEO and Real Estate Titan Warn Socialist Mayoral Frontrunner Could ‘Destroy’ New York

Former Douglas Elliman CEO Dottie Herman and Stew Leonard’s President and CEO Stew Leonard Jr. speak with Fox News Digital about their opposition to NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s policies. (Fox Business)
NEW YORK CITY — As Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani surges to the front of New York City’s mayoral race following his historic primary victory, prominent figures in business and real estate are sounding the alarm, warning that his radical proposals could cripple the city’s economy and chase away its wealth base.
From government-run grocery stores to punitive housing regulations and higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, Mamdani’s progressive platform is drawing fierce criticism from two of New York’s most recognizable business leaders: Stew Leonard Jr., CEO of the regional grocery empire Stew Leonard’s, and Dottie Herman, Vice Chair of Douglas Elliman and one of Forbes’ wealthiest self-made women in real estate.
“You’re in a street fight if you get into the food business,” said Leonard in an interview with Fox News Digital. “You gotta be in there with sharp prices, fresher product, friendlier people… Can the government do that? I don’t know.”
Leonard, who operates eight food stores and eight wine and spirit outlets across the Tri-State area, questioned the feasibility of Mamdani’s city-run supermarket proposal, which aims to sell food at wholesale prices. The idea is part of a broader vision that includes a citywide rent freeze, construction of 200,000 affordable units over ten years, and tighter enforcement on “bad landlords.”
“It’s seven days a week. Weekends are the busiest. If you’re paying $200 to $300 per square foot along Second Avenue, you need serious volume to make it work,” Leonard added. “Margins in food are razor-thin. Everyone eats, yes, but it’s still one of the toughest industries in the country.”
For Dottie Herman, the implications go beyond groceries—she sees Mamdani’s economic approach as an existential threat to the city’s future.
“I never talk about politics, but I am talking now because I really don’t want to see New York destroyed,” Herman said. “I believe with every breath of me, that if he gets in, we will be in a socialized country.”
Citing rising fear among developers and property investors, Herman shared that some clients are already reconsidering multimillion-dollar deals out of concern for punitive taxes and hostile business conditions.
“I’ve had people call me asking if they should cancel contracts on development sites in New York City,” she said. “People are scared. You’re going to discourage anyone from investing in rental property, and values will fall. That’s what happens when you tell people, ‘We’ll just take it from the rich.’”
Mamdani, who currently represents Astoria and Long Island City in the State Assembly, gained national attention after winning more votes in the primary than any candidate in the city’s history. His campaign site outlines a platform that includes raising the corporate tax rate to 11.5% and implementing a 2% flat tax on the city’s wealthiest residents—moves that would require state legislative approval and signoff from Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has expressed concern about affordability and capital flight.
Mamdani’s platform also pushes for public control of grocery access, rent freezes, and an aggressive reworking of landlord-tenant laws—all in the name of housing and food equity.
While progressive circles and some younger millionaires have cheered his vision, established business figures worry his policies will bring economic instability, capital outflow, and unintended market disruption.
“The key to this business is freshness,” Leonard added. “Are you going to eliminate dyes, hormones, sugar, and antibiotics from your entire government inventory? That’s what I’ve done. But that drives up costs.”
With New York’s real estate market already facing tight inventory and slowing sales volumes, Herman warned that Mamdani’s proposed crackdown on landlords and tax hikes could lead to a broader investment freeze.
“If people can’t make money here, what business will come to New York?” she asked. “America is about the ability to grow and succeed, no matter where you start. That dream dies if the rules become punish-the-successful.”
Herman also revealed that a number of business owners are organizing political fundraisers to counter Mamdani’s momentum, signaling growing concern in the city’s economic elite.
The crowded mayoral race now pits Mamdani against rivals like former Governor Andrew Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, raising speculation about whether the two centrist contenders might team up to create a unified front against the socialist frontrunner.
“I think one of them has to step aside for the other,” Herman said. “Because if not, the vote splits, and we hand this city to someone who doesn’t understand how it actually runs.”
Leonard, for his part, said that Mamdani’s victory would make him rethink expanding in New York City.
“I’d struggle to open five new stores here right now,” he said. “It’s a real challenge—and this would only make it harder.”
Despite the controversy, Mamdani’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
July 18, 2025
Trump directs Bondi to pursue release of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein
President Donald Trump on Thursday directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to try and unseal grand testimony records related to Jeffrey Epstein. (Yuri Gripas/UP)
Washington — President Trump late Thursday ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein as his administration faces pressure to disclose more details on the late sex offender.
“Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,” Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!”
Bondi wrote in a post on X minutes later, “we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.”
A judge will need to make the final decision on whether material can be released, which could take some time and is unlikely to be immediate.
It’s unclear what material the Trump administration will ask to be released. It’s not clear how much of the Epstein-related material in the government’s possession is grand jury testimony.
Epstein was investigated by federal authorities in Florida in the 2000s, which ended in a non-prosecution agreement and a guilty plea on state prostitution charges, and he was later charged with child sex trafficking in Manhattan in 2019. The government also secured a conviction against Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. It investigated the circumstances of Epstein’s death in federal custody, which was deemed a suicide.
The order from Mr. Trump comes after the Justice Department and FBI released a memo stating that Epstein did not have an incriminating “client list,” did not try to blackmail any prominent figures, and died by suicide. The memo drew backlash from across the political spectrum, including from some fervent Trump backers, in part because Bondi and other administration figures had promised to release information on Epstein.
The government is generally required to keep grand jury materials secret, and it’s common for not all material that is shown to a grand jury — which meets before a person is criminally indicted — to emerge during a criminal case.
A request of this kind by the government is unusual, says Mitchell Epner, a partner at the New York law firm Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner, and a former federal prosecutor.
“I’ve been in and around federal criminal cases for over 30 years. I’ve never heard of this before,” he told CBS News.
While the scope of the government’s request is still unknown, Epner says it could encompass an “enormous quantity of data.” Mr. Trump said the government would seek the release of grand jury testimony, which Epner noted may include exhibits that witnesses testified about before a grand jury.
“I would not bet against there being anything, from the most interesting thing in the world to the least interesting thing in the world, in that material,” said Epner, who told CBS News he believes calls for more information to be disclosed in the Epstein case are warranted.
Epner joked: “If we were to find out the location of the corpse of Jimmy Hoffa, I would not be surprised.”
Material likely will not be released immediately, according to Epner, who said, “weeks would be moving very quickly, months is likely.” Under court rules, grand jury material is typically only released under certain circumstances, often when it’s needed for some other investigation. The government’s grounds for release in this case aren’t clear.
In this case, both associates and alleged victims of Epstein’s may oppose some disclosures.
“I would not be surprised if a number of people came forward under pseudonyms to object to the release of grand jury material related to them,” Epner said. “I also would not be surprised if some of the victims…came forward and said, ‘Yes, we do want things to be revealed.’”
Trump administration faces Epstein fallout
Last week’s memo on Epstein reignited years of questions — and conspiracy theories — on the disgraced financier, including speculation about the circumstances of Epstein’s death in custody, and about whether the federal government was concealing information to shield some of Epstein’s famous friends.
Bondi had pledged to release files related to Epstein, and suggested in a Fox News interview in February a “client list” was “sitting on my desk right now to review.” (She later said she meant generally that material on Epstein was sitting on her desk.)
In late February, the Justice Department distributed binders to over a dozen right-wing social media influencers labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1,” though the influencers later said many of the materials were already in the public domain.
Some Republicans and vocal Trump supporters were dissatisfied with last week’s memo, in some cases calling for more disclosures or the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the Epstein case — which White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president does not support.
Mr. Trump, for his part, has scolded some Republicans for buying into what he called the “the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax,” calling them “stupid people” and “weaklings” who are “do[ing] the Democrats work.”
Shortly before pushing for the release of grand jury testimony, the president on Thursday denied a Wall Street Journal report on what the newspaper described as a “bawdy” birthday letter to Epstein — featuring a drawing of a nude woman — that the paper claimed was signed by Mr. Trump in the early 2000s. Mr. Trump and Epstein had crossed paths for years, though Mr. Trump says they had a “falling out.”
Mr. Trump called the letter a “FAKE” and threatened to sue the Journal, as well as its parent company News Corp and leader Rupert Murdoch.
“These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures,” he said.
NY Budgets has not independently verified or seen the letter. Dow Jones — the News Corp division that includes the Journal — declined to comment on Mr. Trump’s threats.
July 18, 2025
Biden administration spent over $1 million on swimming pool upgrades in war-torn countries, analysis shows
Taxpayer dollars went for a dip overseas.
The Biden administration’s State Department approved more than $1.2 million to help upgrade swimming pools in war-torn and poverty-stricken countries, a new analysis found.
During the 46th president’s term, the feds placed at least 14 orders related to swimming pools at embassies or mission residences in seven countries, including Russia — after its brutal invasion of Ukraine began, according to an analysis from Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-Iowa) office.
“Bureaucrats might think wasting millions is a drop in the bucket, but I am sick and tired of taxpayers getting tossed in the deep end by Washington,” Ernst told The Post.
The US Embassy in Baghdad spent six figures on upgrades to its lavish indoor pool. (REUTERS)
“I will continue working with the Trump administration to put a stop to the splashy spending of the Biden years.”
Most of the orders appear to be for upgrades to pools rather than installations of brand new ones, despite some of the costs running into six figures.
In Zimbabwe, for example, the State Department approved an upgrade to US mission residences in Harare to include pool covers — costing more than $130,000, according to USASpending.gov, which Ernst’s team used to compile the data.
Sen. Joni Ernst blasted the spending as a waste of taxpayer dollars. (Getty Images)
Meanwhile, Uncle Sam spent some $40,000 in 2022 for a “swimming pool sewer pump replacement” in its Moscow Embassy. Records indicate that the contract was issued almost three months after Russia’s bloody onslaught against Ukraine began that February.
In Iraq, officials billed taxpayers for a roughly $444,000 upgrade to the indoor dehumidification system in the lavish Baghdad Embassy — a facility that had cost over $750 million.
In all, the analysis found that there were two upgrades for pools in Haiti, one in Russia, five in Iraq, three in Sudan, one in Zimbabwe, one in Ghana and one in Indonesia.
Some of the contracts flagged have not been fully paid. For example, a $173,000 contract awarded for a “prapatan swimming pool project” has not been paid out, according to USASpending.gov records.
The pool spending report comes as Ernst, who leads the Senate DOGE Caucus, has been probing the vast federal government for waste and bloat.
July 17, 2025