Ex-Nuclear Negotiator Criticizes Trump’s Push for Abraham Accords in Iran Deal
Trump threatened to blow up Oman and said Gulf states “owe” it to the US to normalize relations with Israel.

Legal experts Katie Phang, Norm Eisen and Adam Klasfeld appeared on Thursday for a discussion about the new taxpayer-funded lawsuit against foe E. Jean Carroll by President Donald Trump's Justice Department. Trump, who lost two lawsuits for defamation, was accused of sexual assault by Carroll, and when Trump spoke out against her, she sued. Two juries awarded her $88 million and declared him liable for defamation while also agreeing that he committed an act of sexual abuse. The DOJ now claims that she lied under oath when she was asked whether someone was funding her legal fees. In reality, Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman was footing some of the costs, though it's unclear whether she knew that when she was asked. Carroll's lawyer later told the judge that Hoffman was funding some of the legal expenses. The DOJ says she lied under oath. In the latest conversation with "The Contrarian," Klasfeld called it ironic because there were acts of perjury on Trump's part. "I was in federal court when the deposition of Donald Trump was unspooled and he famously, and one might say wretchedly, claimed she's not my type," he recalled. Trump claimed to the lawyers that he could not have sexually assaulted Carroll because she wasn't attractive enough. "That was his defense to sexual abuse. She's not my type," Klasfeld continued. "And in this deposition, he was shown a picture that he was not aware included E. Jean Carroll, pointed to that picture, and confused her with Marla Maples. So clearly, she was his type. He confused her with his second wife."Eisen began laughing. "What an a——." "And so that was just one example of the demonstrable lies that led a unanimous federal jury to find him liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll," continued Klasfeld. "And what is inspiring this new leg of the retaliation tour, in the very district where they just failed to prosecute six local activists and politicians known as the Broadview Six. They were supposed to be on trial right now, but evidence of shocking grand jury misconduct came to light."Klasfeld said it was the "perfect place" for the DOJ to pick a jurisdiction in which to "persecute" Carroll. Phang said that she wasn't surprised because FBI Director Kash Patel and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche spent a year investigating seashells on the beach in North Carolina. "But here's the thing: you notice how they're not going after her about the substantive testimony she provided about the sexual assault that she was victimized by Trump, right?" Phang added. "They're not going after that. They're not going after the underlying facts of what she has alleged happened to her at the hands of Donald Trump. That is the tell."Instead, Trump is going after a Reid Hoffman-related question, claiming it was perjury. But they're not disputing the facts of the case and the jury's verdict.Coffee with the Contrarians, with Norman Eisen and Katie Phang by All Rise NewsA recording from Adam Klasfeld and Norman Eisen's live videoRead on Substack
Trump threatened to blow up Oman and said Gulf states “owe” it to the US to normalize relations with Israel.
In a Truth Social post Wednesday, President Trump typed out a lengthy paragraph on the necessity of protecting the prediction and crypto markets, taking the opportunity to label a slew of Democrats “scum,” call the US the crypto capital of the world, and claim prediction markets are a new form of financial market. He didn’t […]
Few events in President Donald Trump’s second term have prompted as much outrage as the announcement that the DOJ will create a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund to compensate those “harmed” by the Biden administration, which has been broadly denounced as a “slush fund” for convicted J6 criminals. There has been bipartisan discussion of how to block the fund, and now famed Esquire political commentator Charles P. Pierce is applauding one “imaginative” idea. Earlier this week, New York Democratic state assemblymember and House candidate Alex Bores unveiled legislation that would level a 100 percent tax against payouts from the fund. Then on Wednesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom gave even greater visibility to the idea, telling reporters, “Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100 percent of those proceeds.” Other congressional Democrats have gotten behind similar efforts.“I love this,” said Pierce. “This is the kind of imaginative grassroots pushback the national Democratic party needs. The more that this incredibly corrupt bargain is subjected to public scorn and ridicule, the better.”While the concept may have a hard time catching on among Republicans who are famously antagonistic toward enacting new taxes, conservative lawmakers have been so angered by the fund that they may be willing to take dramatic steps to oppose it. Even congressional Republicans who are usually hesitant to break with the president have blasted the move, with former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declaring, “So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.” The tax idea hasn’t been the only effort to stymie the fund. Shortly after it was announced, the Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act was introduced by Representatives Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), which declared simply that “no federal funds may be used for the payment of any claim submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund, established by the Department of Justice on May 18, 2026.” If enacted, it would essentially kill the fund. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-CA) introduced the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act, which would similarly deny federal cash to the fund.Interestingly enough, in February, a slate of Republican lawmakers began pushing the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026, which has so far failed to gain traction. If enacted, it would prohibit government officials from entering into settlement agreements that divert funds to third-party organizations, with the intention of preventing the Executive Branch from circumventing Congress and steering settlement money to its preferred recipients — an exact description of the circumstances surrounding the J6 slush fund.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gracelessly dodged questions about the $1.8 billion slush fund the Department of Justice awarded to the president and his allies. During a White House press briefing Thursday, a reporter asked Bessent to comment on the process for developing the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” set up as part of a settlement for Donald Trump’s failing lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Services.Surprise, surprise: Bessent’s response did not mention the fund at all. “This is going to be the only question I take on this matter today. So, there’s ongoing litigation, so it’d be inappropriate for me to comment,” Bessent said. “President Trump is a great American who has endured more than 10 years—10 years of nonstop harassment and weaponization from federal and state government actors. A bad actor at the IRS leaked more than 400,000 tax returns including the Trump family, all the employees, and that’s how we got here now.”“No American should be targeted for political reasons and every citizen deserves fair treatment and the full protection of the law. The Department of Justice represented the Treasury and the IRS in this matter, and I’m going to have to refer any questions to active Attorney General Todd Blanche.”Q: There's a lot of people talking about the 'weaponization fund.' What is the process for those funds now?BESSENT: Thank you for the question. This will be the only question I will take on this matter. President Trump is a great American who has endured more than 10 years of… pic.twitter.com/j6qZZfaDxY— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026CNN’s Kaitlan Collins also pressed the secretary on the sudden exit of Brian Morrissey, the Treasury’s top legal officer, following the announcement of the fund—but Bessent wouldn’t bite.“I will not be taking any other questions, I will not be taking any other questions,” he repeated. Maybe he should add that to his list of pathetic affirmations?Q: Mr. Secretary, about the $1.8B slush fund. Is it accurate that the general counsel of the Treasury Department resigned over that?Trump's Treasury Secretary: I will not be taking any other questions. pic.twitter.com/2sz5PDD5U0— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 28, 2026It appears that Bessent is intent on allowing Trump to pillage the Treasury and award his worst allies with taxpayer dollars—without owing taxpayers any answers. This lack of transparency is par for the course, but Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund is a criminal enterprise so egregious that it manages to stand out in a presidency that was already blatantly corrupt.
Cracks are forming in the MAGA-linked "Freedom 250" festival.Marketed as a celebration of America's 250th anniversary, artists in the lineup are now withdrawing due to the event's increasingly politicized direction. Morris Day denied involvement despite appearing in promotional materials, explicitly stating he would not perform, reports Bring Me The News. Young MC, the rapper behind "Bust a Move," followed suit, announcing on X he informed his agents he would not participate. Young MC also revealed artists were never told about political involvement with the event, despite organizers claiming it was non-partisan.The American rapper stated he hopes to perform in Washington D.C. at a future event "that is not so politically charged." The festival, scheduled for the National Mall, originally featured performers including Vanilla Ice and Flo Rida. The artist departures raise questions about the event's credibility and appeal.The "Freedom 250" Festival was described by SPIN magazine as "Trump-backed." Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will lead Thursday afternoon’s White House press briefing, hours after the new app for the Trump administration’s newborn investment accounts went live. President Trump has touted the investments, dubbed “Trump Accounts” and established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as another economic win ahead of the midterms. Under the plans,…
War has existed throughout human history, but the weapons have changed dramatically over the years. Medieval warfare was fought with cavalry, swords and armor; in 1945, during World War 2, U.S. President Harry Truman used nuclear bombs against Japan. The United States still has the world's largest military, but according to conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, U.S. military technology is behind the times and remains overly reliant on 20th Century methods.In a late May Times podcast, Douthat examined the "future of high-tech warfare" with Christian Brose, president and chief strategy officer of the defense technology company Anduril.When Douthat noted that "drones and robots and autonomous weapons are remaking battlefields," guest Brose responded that "in order to talk about the future, we probably also have to talk about the past and present." "When you look at the future," Brose told Douthat, "I would argue that the assumptions that are now very evident to us in the present are almost the opposite of what we've built our military around. I don't think that we have the kind of military dominance that many of us in the 1990s and early 2000s just took for granted. We have peer competitors and rivals in the world who are adapting to and really disrupting the American way of war. I think that we are going to find a much more contested battlefield, where we're going to lose a lot of planes, ships, satellites and other things."The defense expert continued, "We're going to shoot a lot of weapons, and we're going to have to replace that as an act of production over a long period of time. I think that is not a future that we're really ready for. All of this points in the direction of autonomous systems, lower-cost systems — things that are much more like consumer technology or commercial capabilities than they are legacy military capabilities."According to Douthat and Brose, two current conflicts — the war in Iran and the Ukraine/Russia war — show how much war methods have changed since the 20th Century.Douthat asked Brose if he envisions a "near future where infantry itself starts to be obsolete and you literally just have drones and robots maneuvering against each other."Brose responded, "I think that's further out, if it's ever something that becomes feasible, simply because, so long as human beings continue to live on and inhabit the Earth — which I'm pretty sure we're going to do for the indefinite future — I think it becomes very difficult for these types of robotic systems to entirely go in, take and then hold ground. We've seen plenty in the war in Ukraine that militaries can be, at various different times in the battle, adept at taking ground. It's the holding of it that becomes very difficult."Brose added, "The question then becomes: Can those gains be solidified? Can those gains be held entirely through nonhuman means? That's not a bet that I would make at the moment."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters on Thursday that the Treasury Department is, in fact, making preparations to begin printing $250 bills with President Trump's face on them, pending approval from Congress. This comes after a Washington Post report, claiming that Trump administration officials are pressuring the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing to design a design a $250 featuring Trump's portrait. The post WATCH: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Confirms Treasury is Prepared to Print $250 Bill with Trump’s Face appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.