An individual allegedly involved in a thwarted terrorist attack aimed at Sunday’s UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House parroted Democrat conspiracy theories about President Trump protecting child predators connected to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to federal court documents. The revelation came on Tuesday, when Fox News reported on how the FBI and […]
Green algae have proliferated amid warm weather after Lincoln Memorial pool renovation turning water greenDonald Trump’s $14.2m attempt to turn the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool from what the US president described as a “filthy” and “dirty” site into a “beautiful” monument has encountered a hitch.The water is green again. Continue reading...
Critics say it’s not the first time a president has vented their anger with Netanyahu with no resulting material change.
Vice-President JD Vance appeared on "The View" today and immediately put one of the lead cackling hens in her place when she tried to smear President Trump. The post WATCH: Vice-President JD Vance Shuts Down Joy Behar After Catching Her Spreading a Big Lie About President Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Federal prosecutors revealed details Tuesday of a 94-page indictment against 15 individuals they alleged to be affiliated with Antifa – the loosely organized anti-fascist movement that the Trump administration has designated as a terrorist organization – though mockery soon ensued after prosecutors shared a particularly “embarrassing” piece of evidence.Speaking at a press conference in Minnesota, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen announced that a federal indictment had been unsealed charging 15 defendants with “conspiracy to injure federal officers,” among other charges. He went on to share with reporters evidence supporting the indictment, with one example sparking widespread mockery among critics.“You see here a Facebook post from one of the defendants writing, quote: ‘We need to become ungovernable,’” Rosen said, pointing to a monitor with a screengrab of the social media post in question displayed.“Embarrassing,” noted the progressive media outlet The Tennessee Holler in a social media post on X.“Oh, so they have NOTHING nothing,” quipped independent journalist Aaron Rupar.And Jim Stewartson, an entertainment producer and political commentator, argued the press conference made a “mockery” of the American justice system.“Wait. That’s evidence of something?” Stewartson asked in a social media post on X to his nearly 150,000 followers. “Justice Department, if you keep making a mockery of the American justice system and acting as a personal defense firm for the demented pedophile running the country, you are god------ right we will become ‘ungovernable.’ Welcome to America.”Rosen not only received scrutiny from critics online, but from a journalist attending the press conference in person, Minnesota Reformer’s Madison McVan, who noted that more than a third of the individuals named in the indictment had already had their charges dismissed.“I don't think any cases have failed in any way," Rosen pushed back."It's actually half now," another reporter could be heard interjecting.Embarrassing https://t.co/nY10ZsKE7t— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) June 16, 2026
President Donald Trump hasn't yet released what he has agreed to on the Iran deal, but there are those in his administration who aren't happy with it and think it's a mistake. According to the Mirror, Trump is pondering firing them. Those include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. "The debate has been settled. Anyone who opposed it could pay a personal price," a source told The Mirror.One person who appears to be safe is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who serves in multiple roles for the president. It's unclear whether Trump would be willing to fire Vice President JD Vance, who has opposed to the Iran war from the start. In April, The New York Times reported that Vance was the most skeptical voice on the strikes. But The Mirror reported that Vance is supportive of the deal. Oddly, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who have been on the team working on the deal, are also said to support it, the Mirror reported. Since the deal hasn't been revealed, it's unclear if it prevents Israel from defending itself against Hamas in Lebanon. In the past both Kushner and Witkoff have been ardent supporters of Israel's ability to defend itself. The Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday that Witkoff and Kushner are being seen as "sell-outs" as a result of their support for the deal. Right-wing pundit and close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yinon Magal, host of Channel 14 's The Patriots, blasted Kushner and Witkoff using a slur, saying that Trump's deal makes him look like a “loser.” Magal accused the two men of acting under pressure from Qatar and “selling their brothers in Israel.”"Rubio, Hegseth, and other officials from both the Department of Defense and State have presented an assessment that the current Iranian regime was already in decline due to economic pressure and that turning up the heat on the country would eventually end in a surrender or, alternatively, its collapse," The Mirror claimed. South Carolina Republican, Lindsey Graham, fears that the U.S. and Iran might have "different" views of what the deal is or should be. He wrote on X that he was "pleased to hear the memorandum of understanding with Iran to allow the Strait of Hormuz to open has been agreed to.""I will be watching closely the ensuing negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program and other matters," Graham wrote. "I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming."That said, Graham doesn't appear to want Trump to decide whether the deal is final. "Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote," Graham claimed. "I look forward to reviewing the final product, and I believe it is imperative that the architect of the deal, Vice President Vance, and his negotiating partners be part of the process in presenting the final deal to Congress."
Tennessee Republicans, having redrawn congressional maps to eliminate Democratic representation, are now targeting state legislative districts for similar partisan gerrymandering. The GOP holds veto-proof supermajorities (27-6 in Senate, 75-24 in House) but plans maps that could achieve 33-0 and 99-0 margins, completely eradicating Democrats from state government, according to reporting by Tennessee Lookout's Bruce Barry.Following the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision permitting partisan gerrymandering, but not racial, Republicans have carved Memphis's majority-Black 9th District into three GOP-friendly districts. Republican Caucus press secretary Molly Crawford confirmed redistricting legislation is planned for next year. Using mapping software, Democrats could be eliminated from Nashville and Memphis state Senate representation entirely. The author argues that while Republicans justify moves as partisan advantage-maximization, the result threatens democratic representation for one-third of Tennessee's reliably Democratic voters."Do the one-third of Tennesseans who do not choose Republican government have a right to be represented in their elected legislature? In a functional democracy in a supposedly advanced liberal society, do the two-thirds who are calling the shots have a moral obligation to see to it the one-third are included rather than silenced?" the author writes. These are not hard questions, Barry concludes.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.
In Trump v. Slaughter — a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — President Donald Trump is defending his right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case is pending, and according to Reason's Damon Root, he may have the late Justice Antonin Scalia to thank if Trump v. Slaughter goes his way."Sometime in the next two or three weeks," Root explains in the libertarian Reason, "the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case about the president's authority to fire independent federal agency heads 'at will,' rather than 'for cause,' as federal law currently requires. If President Donald Trump wins the case, as many legal observers think he probably will, a 1988 dissenting opinion by a famous conservative justice is likely to play a key supporting role."The 1988 dissent by Scalia was in the case Morrison v. Olson.In that ruling 38 years ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and eight other justices examined a president's ability to remove officers of the U.S. from office. Scalia was the lone dissenter, disagreeing with two fellow Ronald Reagan appointees — Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor — as well as Rehnquist and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William Brennan Jr."According to the Federal Trade Commission Act," Root notes, "FTC commissioners may only 'be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Trump, however, purported to fire Slaughter for purely political reasons, which the statute, as written, does not allow. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether that statutory requirement amounts to an unlawful restriction on executive power. A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to view the law in that unforgiving light and rule in Trump's favor."Root continues, "If the Court does so, among the legal authorities it is likely to cite is a solo dissent written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Morrison v. Olson (1988)…. At issue in Morrison v. Olson was whether the existence of the independent counsel violated the constitutional separation of powers because it placed certain executive authorities beyond the immediate reach of the chief executive."Morrison v. Olson, like Trump v. Slaughter 38 years later, is grappling with how much executive power a president enjoys under the Constitution. "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a judicial conservative who was first appointed to SCOTUS by none other than (President Richard) Nixon, readily affirmed the independent counsel law…. Writing alone in dissent, Scalia offered a very different view of the matter," according to Root. "The Constitution placed the executive power in the hands of the president alone, Scalia argued, and 'this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power'…. If Trump does prevail in his efforts to fire Slaughter from the FTC, don't be surprised when the long shadow cast by Scalia's nearly 40-year-old dissent is visible in the Court's decision."
Secret Service officials were angry after FBI Director Kash Patel blindsided them and publicly announced details of a sealed, ongoing investigation into an alleged plot to attack a UFC fight event at the White House.Patel's announcement Tuesday morning potentially compromised roughly 10 arrests that had not yet been made, according to three people familiar with the matter, and his social media post disrupted plans by Secret Service and FBI officials to unseal the case later that afternoon and issue a joint public statement, reported NBC News correspondent Ken Dilanian."We all woke up this morning to see this on Twitter," one administration official said, speaking anonymously to discuss sensitive matters.The investigation began last week when a relative of one of the suspects contacted local police in the Cincinnati area to report that their family member was discussing a vague plot in Washington. A Secret Service advanced threat interdiction team, working with the FBI, obtained a subpoena for an encrypted Signal chat thread that revealed plans for the drone attack. One suspect was arrested June 13, and the case was immediately sealed to allow investigators to identify and arrest additional suspects.Secret Service Deputy Director Matt Quinn publicly rebuked the premature disclosure at a news conference Tuesday without naming Patel directly. "Don't choke on your own smoke," Quinn said, invoking a phrase learned early in his career. "The Secret Service led that investigation from the beginning. In order to maintain the integrity of the investigation and the security plan, we chose not to leak it."Quinn declined to discuss further details, noting the case remained sealed and active.The Secret Service has since dramatically expanded security around the weekend event and issued alerts to law enforcement partners to watch for drones in downtown Washington.