Kylie Jane Kremer, the activist listed as the permit holder for the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the Capitol attack, has floated a new theory about Washington's summer heat: it's sabotage.In a post on X, Kremer claimed someone with an "extreme case" of Trump derangement syndrome "geoengineered" the weather in D.C. She pointed to the cold at Trump's inauguration as proof of the same plot."I’m telling y’all that someone with an extreme case of TDS geoengineered this weather in DC. Same way they geoengineered Trump’s inauguration to be one of the coldest in U.S. history. People with TDS hate Trump more than they love America," she wrote on X.Her post came in response to Washington Post meteorologist and reporter Ben Noll, who noted the nation's capital would be "hotter than 99 percent of the planet on Friday.""Only parts of Africa's Sahara Desert, the Middle East, China's Gobi Desert and a few spots in the Desert Southwest will be hotter," he wrote on X.Forecasters called the inauguration D.C.'s coldest in decades, and the ceremony was moved indoors. But whether progressives with weather machines were responsible is another matter. And the internet didn't spare her. Former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger wrote that people pushing the theory are "not mentally well," while internet commentator Damin Toell reminded followers that Kremer was also a key figure in the 2020 "stop the steal" movement. Writer Joe Flood noted that a woman who helped host the Jan. 6 rally now believes liberals control the weather.Julian Andreone of Drop Site News leaned into the joke, sarcastically agreeing that July heat in D.C. is "very suspicious." Climate advocate Benji Backer flagged the contradiction."Climate change can’t be real but this can be. Got it. Trying to catch up," he joked.The claim echoes a pattern among MAGA figures, including Marjorie Taylor Greene's flood conspiracy theory and her bill to ban "weather modification" after the deadly Texas floods. Even fellow Republicans have stepped in to debunk the weather-control claims. Meteorologists have said cloud seeding cannot produce disasters.
Notorious CNN host Abby Phillip's efforts to defend communist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's demand for air conditioning went sideways when one of her guests caught her in a huge hypocrisy.
The post Conservative Catches CNN Host Abby Phillip in a Glaring Hypocrisy as She Defends Communist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Absurd Demand on Air Conditioning (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
A conservative writer scolded Democrats on Thursday for not focusing on President Donald Trump’s unprecedented corruption in the months leading up to the November mid-terms.“For all intents and purposes, nobody cares,” The Dispatch’s Nick Catoggio wrote. He described Trump’s blatant profiteering from being in office, which is without any analogous example in modern American history. Agreeing with a source in the Senate who said that the indifference to Trump’s corruption means “we’re just screwed,” he argued that “any explanation of why we’re screwed begins with the promiscuous civic delinquency of the American right, but we’ve been over that many times and don’t need to belabor it here.”He denounced Republicans who give Trump a pass on his grift by saying that “depending upon what sort of Republican you are, you’re either an enthusiastic member of a fascist personality cult, a brain-damaged hyperpartisan willing to excuse anything to keep the left out of power, or so embarrassed by where Trumpism has led that it’s easier psychologically to pretend its abuses aren’t happening than to confront them.”Yet in addition to Trump’s own party, Catoggio criticized Democrats — especially those on the left — since “few on the left seem to care very much about the president’s corruption either.” Instead they seem more interested in opposing Israel and trying to purge the party of its centrist leaders.He adds that this is a great missed political opportunity.“If ever there were a moment when you might expect anger at Trump’s financial corruption to break big among voters, this is it,” Catoggio said. “In the middle of an affordability crisis, with huge numbers of Americans exasperated by the cost of living, evidence that the president is profiting lasciviously from his office is everywhere you look.” His financial disclosure forms reveal that he earned $2.2 billion in 2025, almost quadrupling his income from 2024, of which roughly $1.4 billion “came from businesses related to cryptocurrency, an industry his administration regulates (sort of?) and for which he’s a key policymaker.”He added, “Trump did suspiciously well in 2025 with conventional securities, too. At least three times last year, he purchased shares of Nvidia shortly before major announcements that boosted the company’s value. He also made hundreds of stock purchases the day before announcing that he was ‘pausing’ his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, which sent markets soaring. All told, according to the Financial Times, he engaged in more than 22,000 stock transactions during his first 11 months back in office. Over four years as president, Joe Biden engaged in 13.”Refraining from discussing Trump’s conflicts of interest, “petty graft like kickbacks” and selling pardons, “we’d be here all day.” The bottom line is that, as presidential historian Douglas Brinkely told NBC News, “What strikes me as remarkable is how many pies Trump has his fingers in. There is no precedent to compare it with. No president in the 20th or 21st century has had something that’s vaguely comparable.”Instead of exploiting this opportunity to win elections on a populist theme, Catoggio suggested that left-wing populists are relatively indifferent to those issues compared with others that rile up their base. By doing this, though, they are normalizing Trump’s unprecedented corruption and making it easier for both him and future perpetrators to get away with it.Indeed, Catoggio said Democrats’ failure to adequately bring up and emphasize Trump’s corruption has made it easier for Republicans to obscure that what Trump is doing far and away exceeds the actions of any of his predecessors.“Someone should run a poll asking whether corruption was worse under the last two Democratic administrations or under the criminal syndicate that runs the government now,” Catoggio said. “I’ll be surprised if opinion deviates wildly from the usual party lines. That’s the sort of ignorance and moronic tribalism that a Democratic strategist looking to galvanize voters this fall would be banging his or head against by flogging the issue of Trump’s unethical behavior.”If this attitude continues into the 2028 election, it could be disastrous — and Catoggio suspects that is exactly what will happen.“Some left-wing strategists will ask themselves this: If attempting a coup wasn’t corrupt enough to stop Americans from reelecting Trump himself in 2024, why would the president’s insider trading and crypto scams dissuade them from reelecting some entirely different Republican in 2028?” Catoggio wrote. “If voters were willing once before to lay aside all ethical considerations about national leadership in order to vote their wallets, why wouldn’t they do so again?”He concluded, “‘We’re just screwed’ is anathema to anyone who cares about politics, an endeavor based on the devout conviction that we’re not screwed as long as the faction one supports gets to be in charge.
Reporter Katie Phang recently nabbed a huge win against interim AG Todd Blanche and his crusade to keep the Epstein files under wraps. After months of stalling by the administration of President Donald Trump and ignoring the letter of a new law demanding the release of the sex-trafficker’s files, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan opened the floodgates on Trump’s longtime friend. Sullivan sided with former MS NOW show host Katie Phang in her lawsuit demanding the Trump administration adhere to the Epstein Transparency Act.Now, fresh off her big win, Phang tells “Left Hook” podcaster Wajahat Ali that Blanche, Trump and his entire crew appeared to be a bunch of idiots who had no real plan to protect Trump from being implicated in the Epstein files.“They're damned if they do and damned if they don't,” howled Phang. “You either produce it and now we have information that I and others can track down and do more reporting on, or you don't … it means they're trying to hide s——.”“If I were them I'd comply,” Phang told Ali. “I'd say ‘here are the names of the co-conspirators. Here are the names of the bad people that sent these terrible f—— emails. Here are the names of possible perpetrators. Have a nice day.’ But they are so dumb the way that they play this game. They had no f—— strategy and p—— off a federal judge like Emmett Sullivan … [who] told [Trump conspiracist] Michael Flynn to his face ‘you are a traitor to this country.’”Sullivan’s ruling means Blanche now must explain to a court why he shouldn't be forced to release names redacted from emails and documents that reference potentially damning videos and allegations of abuse of minors. Also included in redacted info includes the potential names of Epstein’s co-conspirators, as well as potentially damaging FBI interview notes from a victim who claimed Epstein introduced her to President Donald Trump when she was only 13.Phang told Ali that she had no doubt Sullivan put Trump administration in terrible danger.“Starting last year right … in the spring of 2025 they convene in the situation room about the Epstein files and it's not just the vice president of the United States, JD Vance there,” said Phang. “It was also then-attorney general Pam Bondi. It was FBI director Kash Patel. It's the deputy director of the FBI, Dan Bongino. It was then-deputy attorney general Todd Blanche. … It's the White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. It's the White House council … and a slew of other people. If something [fatal] had happened to that situation room pretty much … the entirety of the trump administration upper echelon would be f—— exterminated.”“The fact that you convene all those people repeatedly in the Situation Room you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out that there is something politically toxically horribly bad for the President of the United States [in those files],” she said.Phang added that she deliberately targeted Blanche in the suit to make him the prime target.“Unlike in other lawsuits when the DOJ is being sued and they parade in some junior federal prosecutor who has to go hat-in-hand to sit there and explain what happened or why they didn't do it, I only sued one person,” Phang said gleefully. “So, Todd Blanche … is gonna have to show up. You can't just send in some lackey.”
The Supreme Court has previously been accused of having a far right ideology, engaging in judicial activism rather than strict constructionism and moving to empower President Donald Trump even at the expense of the Constitution.“In the wake of Slaughter, presidents now hold the keys to the kingdom,” wrote Ryan J. Owens, a political science professor and director of the Institute for Governance and Civics at Florida State University, for The Dispatch on Thursday. Owens was referring to the Supreme Court case of Trump v. Slaughter, which overturned a 1935 case holding that presidents could not fire commissioners of independent agencies except for cause. By allowing Trump to fire a Federal Trade Commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, simply because she is a Democrat, the majority of justices brushed aside concerns that this would allow civic and non-partisan institutions to be manipulated for political ends.Owens argues that the Supreme Court was correct to make it possible for presidents to effectively implement their agenda so long as voters can remove that president. Yet he also argued that this is not in itself enough to help America.“If the president can remove agency officials at will and Congress continues to delegate substantial authority to the executive, the president will have become more powerful than the Framers possibly imagined,” Owens wrote. “The Supreme Court must now finish the job. Revive the nondelegation doctrine. Make Congress legislate again.”He then quoted a Trump-appointed judge, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who suggested in his decision that it might be time “to reinvigorate the intelligible principle doctrine and recognize that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority.” Agreeing with this principle, Owens argued that “the court’s Slaughter opinion hints at such. Somewhat surprisingly (and unnecessarily), the majority opinion positively referenced A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935), the last case in which the court struck down a law for violating the nondelegation doctrine. The Slaughter opinion further called the Federal Trade Commission Act’s delegation ‘startingly abstract.’ This sounds an awful lot like a formalist court ready to revive the nondelegation doctrine now that the president’s removal power is back in its rightful constitutional place.”Owens continued that “constitutional formalists and liberals should hope the Supreme Court revives the doctrine—formalists, because it would return legislating to Congress where it belongs, and liberals because they fear an empowered Trump.” He then concluded that, while he believes the Slaughter decision corrected an earlier case with which he disagreed, he hopes “it follows this great ruling with another.”
