'The last thing he heard on this Earth was him being read his rights by the police'
The disgraced former congressman allegedly bet on whether he would appear at the State of the Union address, prompting federal investigations.
Former GOP operative Tim Miller took a moment on MS NOW's "Deadline: White House" to lay into President Donald Trump's move to replace outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard with his controversial housing finance administrator Bill Pulte — a man often called Trump's "attack dog," and, Miller pointed out, has absolutely no qualifications to coordinate national intelligence."I'm going to start with you because there's nothing for an intelligence person to say about this person," said anchor Nicolle Wallace. "This is a political hack ... what happens next?"Miller agreed, saying that he is likely the most unqualified Cabinet-level nominee in the history of the United States, even including Pete Hegseth, who at least served in the military before being tapped for Secretary of Defense. "Bill Pulte has no experience by this at all. Calling him a political hack is even, you know, kind of too kind to him.""It's mean to us political hacks!" chimed in Wallace, to general laughter around the panel.Worse, Miller continued, "he was a corrupt grifter" whose main experience before Trump appointed him to head up housing finance was pushing "meme stocks" and "crypto rug pulls."Then, he said, at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, "The main thing he did was use his access to mortgage documents. He also made himself the head of Freddie and Fannie to go after Trump's political foes. I mean, that's like the extent of his political work actually, going after political foes with dubious attacks based on the way that they filed their mortgage documents." That, he said, is the extent of his experience in government operations.And that's probably by design, Miller added."I don't think that he's in this job to actually do the job of the Director of National Intelligence," said Miller, speculating that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other high-ranking officials will do that job for him. Rather, "I think he's in there to do the dirty work, to do the sole job of now using his expanded access to the information about Americans to try to go after Donald Trump's political foes. I think that will be basically his only duty there." - YouTube www.youtube.com
CBS News’s new editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, recently announced in an email to staff a major shakeup of the revered broadcast, starting with the removal of “60 Minutes” executive producer, Tanya Simon, for Nick Bilton, who has no experience producing a television news show. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Bilton said he was excited “to take what I believe is largely an unutilized news brand and take it into the modern age.”Unutilized? Modern age? “60 Minutes” is the most successful television news broadcast in U.S. history. It has remained the #1 news program for 50 straight years and consistently ranks among the top 10 of all Nielsen-rated television programs. And it pulls in a fortune for CBS. “60 Minutes” is one of the most profitable programs in all of television, generating tens of millions in annual profit for CBS. In one recent year, its advertising revenues were $67.5 million. The network wholly owns the franchise, which makes it a gold mine. It’s the most lucrative and prestigious journalism operation on the network.This goes beyond “if it ain’t broke ….” At a staff meeting yesterday, famed “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley accused Weiss of “murdering” “60 Minutes,” according to an audio recording and a source who was in the room. Others at the meeting applauded. (Scott Pelley gets this week’s Joseph N. Welch Award for truth-telling in the face of tyranny.)I could understand Weiss wanting to shake up, say, CBS’s Sunday morning news program. But why in hell would Weiss want to shake up CBS’s golden goose?One hint: Besides chucking its executive producer, Weiss has also cut ties with “60 Minutes” producers Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega. In December, Alfonsi challenged Weiss’s decision to hold a “60 Minutes” segment on an El Salvador maximum-security prison where the Trump administration sent hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, including alleged gang members. Weiss had raised concerns about the comment-seeking process and determined that it needed additional reporting. Alfonsi termed the decision a political move. (The segment, called “Inside CECOT,” eventually ran in January, with some additional material bookending the piece.)Alfonsi calls the network’s decision now to allow her contract to expire “a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting” that “sends a chilling message to the entire newsroom.”Vega is no less blunt. “In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories,” she said in a statement. “Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions…. Let’s call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven.”Of course it’s censorship, because CBS is now owned and controlled by Trump pals Larry and David Ellison, who kissed Trump’s assets to get Trump’s FCC chair Brendan Carr to approve their acquisition of CBS from Paramount. Trump’s “fingerprints and DNA are all over this,” veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Croft says. “He’s been making threats against ‘60 Minutes’ and how he wanted it gone. And he finally got his wish.”Trump has fixated on “60 Minutes,” calling the show “a dishonest Political Operative disguised as News.” He sued CBS News over an interview of then presidential candidate Kamala Harris that Trump claimed had been edited in such a way as to hurt his presidential campaign. After “60 Minutes” aired a story about Ukraine and another about Greenland, Trump said CBS “should lose their license.”This much is clear. CBS is being “murdered,” as correspondent Scott Pelley calls what’s happening, not because of economics but because of politics. Economically, “60 Minutes” is a gold mine. Politically, Trump thinks it’s dangerous as hell because it tells the truth about him and his regime, and wants it killed. Bari Weiss knows this. Larry and David Ellison know it. Nick Bilton knows it. Everyone who’s been fired from “60 Minutes” knows this. Trump’s lapdog at the FCC, Brendan Carr, knows this. You need to know this. “60 Minutes” — the most successful television news broadcast in U.S. history — is being dismantled because Trump doesn’t want America to know the truth. It’s the same reason CBS canned Stephen Colbert — because Trump hated Colbert’s truth-telling humor about him. It’s important to see all this as a systematic effort by Trump to silence the truth about what he’s doing to America. Trump’s increasingly corruption — rife with crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and payoffs to the powerful — is producing an increasingly corrupt economy in which everything depends on bribes and personal deals made by the biggest Republican loyalists and grifters, oligarchs and plutocrats, billionaires and multibillionaires, and monopolists.When political and economic deal-making become personal transactions — when greed and payoffs replace trust — what happens?
Ever since it was announced that the Trump administration would create a slush fund for the benefit of convicted January 6 rioters, Republicans have been unusually vocal with their criticism of President Donald Trump. In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, GOP resistance to the fund appears to have tanked it. By Tuesday afternoon, Republican Senators were telling reporters that they expected acting Attorney General Tood Blanche to confirm the fund’s end during a testimony later in the day, otherwise, it would further delay their make-or-break immigration budget reconciliation bill. “It was a nonstarter from the get go,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) told NBC News. But according to Vox, Republican reasoning for opposing the fund may have had less to do with what is right or wrong, but hinged on public perception with the midterms looming. In order to learn why Republicans finally stood up to Trump, Vox “spoke with DC insiders on both sides of the aisle, as well as leading scholars of American politics. They told a fairly consistent story: one in which the awful election year politics of giving Trump a fund to pay out January 6 rioters, combined with the specific timing of a must-pass funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), forced usually deferential Republicans’ hands.”“We’re kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place right now,” said one Senate Republican aide on Monday. “There were dozens of senators that had concerns [on our side].” The major concern was that Democrats now had a powerful new weapon with which to attack the GOP, which is already expected to take substantial losses in the November midterms due to Trump’s historic unpopularity driven by the ongoing war with Iran and its resulting economic calamity. Suddenly, with Trump’s almost universally despised fund complicating a key Republican legislative priority, the party was finally forced to take decisive action to oppose the president. “The timing of it forces their hand,” said Matt Glassman, an expert on Congress at Georgetown University. “It can’t be ignored, because the administration chose to announce it at the dumbest possible time.” “The point is not that Congress has, all of a sudden, discovered its constitutional spine,” notes Vox. “It is still uncommon for Republicans to fight back against something Trump really wants, and many of his defeats there are symbolic. High-profile effective challenges to Trump remain quite rare. However, there is a difference between ‘quite rare’ and ‘unheard of,’ which is basically how Congress operated in the early months of Trump’s presidency. It seems that the specific ways he has gone about trying to consolidate his own power has, over time, created space for greater friction in Congress — or even actively generated pushback. And given the narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, it doesn’t take a lot of resistance to block a bill.”As Vox explains, this dynamic has offered Democrats opportunities to impede Trump’s agenda while the GOP is weakened electorally. Democrats are expected to reclaim the majority in at least the House later this year, which will make Trump's ability to consolidate power substantially weaker. “If Trump were a more competent authoritarian,” concludes Vox, “he might be using his remaining time controlling Congress to grab as much formal power as he could. Instead, he’s chosen to mismanage his relationship with Congress, a series of costly and time-consuming fights that could have been avoided with defter management. American democracy would be in far better shape if Republicans actually did care about stopping Trump’s power grabs as a matter of constitutional principle. They don’t, for the most part. But their instincts for political survival, and frustration with the White House, are starting to assert themselves in democratically valuable ways.”
UK police bodycam footage shows 18-year-old Henry Nowak pleading with officers after he was stabbed by a Sikh man named Vickrum Digwa. The post HORROR: “I’ve Been Stabbed!” – UK Police Bodycam Footage Shows Stabbing Victim Henry Nowak Pleading with Officers as They Cuff and Drag Him (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Compromise of 1850 was really no compromise at all.
President Donald Trump made the unorthodox proposal Saturday to replace the shrinking number of artists for the Great American State Fair concert with himself – claiming to have drawn audiences larger than “Elvis in his prime” – and in doing so, left several onlookers floored, including CNN’s Jake Tapper.“Didn’t think this was a real post at first,” Tapper wrote Saturday in a social media post on X after seeing Trump’s online post floating the proposal.Organized by the Trump-linked organization Freedom 250, the American State Fair unveiled several headliners recently for its live music concert, including Milli Vanilli, Flo Rider and Vanilla Ice. After learning of the event’s connections to Trump, however, “nearly all” have pulled out of the event.The mass exodus of artists – which Trump described as them getting “the yips” – apparently sparked the president’s idea that he would be a viable replacement for the event’s entertainment, albeit a new event he dubbed “America is Back Rally” to take place at the same time and location, suggesting he would give a “major speech” in lieu of performing live music.“The artists pulling out say this isn’t about the ‘yips,’ they say it’s about the perception that the festivity is partisan in nature,” Tapper continued. “Not sure this post will dispel that concern.”Trump’s proposal drew mockery from a number of critics, including from several conservatives.“Wow. He’s nuts,” wrote Michigan Republican Party strategist Jeff Timmer in a social media post on X.And prominent far-right influencer Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire called the idea “lame and boring,” encouraging Trump to ditch the idea and “just go out and get real musicians.”Didn’t think this was a real post at first. Either way, the artists pulling out say this isn’t about the “yips,” they say it’s about the perception that the festivity is partisan in nature. Not sure this post will dispel that concern. https://t.co/ZRVpKbmrZi https://t.co/gPxS5LcOPM— Jake Tapper 🦅 (@jaketapper) May 30, 2026
She was also part of the editing team for director Martin Scorsese’s 1970s films “Taxi Driver,” “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” and “New York, New York.”