Biden’s administration was incredibly secret. And this proves it even more.

Because an ex-Biden advisor admitted a terrifying truth about Joe Biden’s time in office.

House Oversight Questions Biden’s Leadership as Spokesman Reveals Minimal Contact

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) described a “shocking” revelation on August 21, 2025, that former White House spokesman Ian Sams met President Joe Biden face-to-face only twice during his two-year tenure from mid-2022 to August 2024.

Comer, briefing reporters after Sams’ three-hour closed-door interview, called the testimony evidence of a cover-up surrounding Biden’s mental and physical capacity, raising concerns about who wielded executive authority during his presidency.

Sams, who left to advise Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign, also participated in one virtual meeting and a phone call with Biden, interactions Comer described as “very limited.”

Testimony and Oversight Probe

“This was a huge interview today, and I think it contradicts everything that the former Biden people are saying with respect to the president’s mental fitness,” Comer stated, noting that former special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents, spent more time with the president than Sams.

Hur’s 2024 report concluded Biden deliberately retained sensitive files but declined charges, citing his “poor memory” and age.

A Biden White House colleague confirmed Sams’ limited access, noting his office was in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the West Wing, and he typically reported to intermediaries like communications chief Anita Dunn.

Another aide remarked that Sams’ two meetings were “more than I thought,” suggesting Biden was heavily insulated by a small circle.

Alleged Inner Circle Control

Comer’s probe, the 11th interview in an investigation into alleged misuse of executive power, points to a “politburo” of aides—Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Bruce Reed, Jill Biden, and Hunter Biden—making key decisions, as detailed in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s book “Original Sin.”

Former chief of staff Ron Klain and aide Annie Tomasini were also influential, though Tomasini, Jill Biden’s aide Anthony Bernal, and physician Kevin O’Connor invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Klain testified that even national security adviser Jake Sullivan doubted Biden’s political viability in 2024, while Reed attributed Biden’s poor June 2024 debate performance to a stutter.

Donilon and Ricchetti defended Biden’s capabilities, with Ricchetti claiming his communication skills improved over time.

Pardons and Executive Actions

Sams expressed surprise at Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden for tax and gun convictions, as well as pre-emptive clemency for family members, Comer noted.

The investigation also scrutinizes nearly 2,500 commutations for “nonviolent” drug offenders, with The Post identifying a dozen involving violent crimes, and late pardons approved by former chief of staff Jeff Zients without Biden’s full awareness, per The New York Times.

Comer alleged that Biden’s isolation, particularly in his final year, enabled aides to dominate decision-making, including autopen-signed executive orders. Three aides—Andrew Bates, Karine Jean-Pierre, and Zients—await questioning in September. Biden’s representatives did not respond to inquiries.

Donald Trump has been persecuted more than any president in recent history. But now his name is cleared.

Because a federal court gave Donald Trump a huge win that put the witch hunts to bed.

New York Appeals Court Overturns $515M Fraud Fine Against Trump, Upholds Liability

President Donald Trump secured a significant legal victory on August 21, 2025, when New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, overturned a $464 million fine—ballooning to $515 million with interest—imposed in a civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James.

The 323-page ruling, split among three opinions, deemed the penalty “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment, with Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton stating it violated constitutional limits on fines.

However, the court upheld findings that Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization engaged in fraud by inflating asset values, such as Trump’s Trump Tower triplex and Mar-a-Lago estate, to secure favorable loan and insurance terms from 2011 to 2021.

The case now heads to New York’s Court of Appeals, as no majority opinion allows for an automatic appeal.

Case Details and Ruling

The ruling maintains non-monetary sanctions, including a three-year ban on Trump holding corporate directorships in New York, a two-year ban for his sons, and oversight by an independent monitor for the Trump Organization, measures paused during the appeal after Trump posted a $175 million bond.

James, who campaigned on investigating Obama’s successor, alleged “staggering fraud,” citing examples like Trump’s triplex falsely reported as 30,000 square feet (actually 11,000) and Mar-a-Lago valued at $517 million despite a $27 million tax valuation as a social club.

Trump, denying wrongdoing, celebrated on Truth Social, calling it a “TOTAL VICTORY” and a “political witch hunt” by James, whom he accused of targeting him for political gain. James, claiming a partial win, vowed to appeal to the state’s highest court, emphasizing the upheld fraud findings.

Trial and Broader Context

The decision follows an 11-week trial in 2023-2024, where Judge Arthur Engoron ruled Trump’s actions “shock the conscience.”

Critics, including Justice David Friedman, argued James overstepped her authority under New York Executive Law § 63(12), with no direct victims harmed, as lenders like Deutsche Bank were repaid.

James countered that the fraud disrupted market integrity. The ruling coincides with Justice Department probes into James for alleged mortgage fraud and civil rights violations, led by Trump’s appointee Ed Martin, who recently appeared outside James’ Brooklyn home.

Democrats, including James’ attorney Abbe Lowell, call these investigations “political retribution,” while Trump’s team, including former lawyer Alina Habba, hailed the ruling as proof of a “legally baseless” case.

America makes up the vast majority of NATO’s forces. And now it’s decision time.

Because Russia launched a surprise attack that put NATO on the back foot.

NATO Deploys German Jets as Russia Targets Ukraine Near Romanian Border

Two German Eurofighter Typhoon jets were scrambled from Romania’s Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base overnight on August 19, 2025, to monitor Russian drone and missile attacks targeting Ukraine’s Odesa region, less than a mile from NATO’s border, according to Romania’s Ministry of National Defense.

The deployment, part of NATO’s Enhanced Air Policing mission, followed a large-scale Russian assault involving 93 drones and two ballistic missiles, with 62 drones and one missile intercepted by Ukraine’s air force, per official reports.

No Russian projectiles entered Romanian airspace, but the strikes underscore ongoing tensions near NATO’s eastern flank as diplomatic efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war continue.

Russian Attack and NATO Response

Romania’s Defense Ministry stated that the German jets were deployed “to monitor the air situation” in Tulcea County, near Ukraine’s Danube River ports, which were hit by Russian drones targeting oil and port facilities in Izmail.

Oleg Kiper, head of Odesa’s regional administration, reported damage to infrastructure and one injury. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy highlighted the human toll, noting a family with children aged 5 months, 4, and 6 years was wounded in Sumy, and a Donetsk glide bomb strike damaged five apartment buildings, trapping three people.

“All of these are demonstrative strikes that only confirm the need to put pressure on Moscow, the need to impose new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy is fully effective,” Zelenskyy posted on X, thanking partners like the U.S. and Europe for support.

Diplomatic Context and NATO’s Role

The attack follows high-level talks, including an August 15 summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and an August 18 White House meeting with Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other NATO leaders.

Despite these efforts, Russia’s bombardment persists, with Ukraine reporting 20 locations hit overnight.

NATO’s virtual meeting on August 20 aims to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, amid concerns over prior Russian drone incursions into NATO airspace in Romania, Poland, and Lithuania.

Romania’s Defense Ministry emphasized that “close cooperation with our allies in the framework of enhanced Air Policing missions strengthens Romania’s defense capability,” noting no airspace violations occurred during the latest incident.

Strategic and Regional Implications

The strikes highlight the strategic importance of Ukraine’s Danube ports for grain exports, critical to its economy, and the risks to NATO neighbors. Social media on X reflects heightened concern, with users like @Daily_MailUS noting Russia’s “brutal response” to peace talks.

The Biden administration, in a July 2025 statement, reaffirmed U.S. support for Ukraine’s air defenses, citing $8 billion in aid since 2022. Critics on X, including @3Xtraders, argue that NATO’s restraint in direct engagement avoids escalation but leaves Ukraine vulnerable, while supporters of the air policing mission stress its role in deterring Russian aggression without provoking conflict.

Gabbard is rooting out the corruption in the nation’s capital. And there’s plenty to go around.

Now Tulsi Gabbard just laid down the law on these D.C. Swamp monsters.

Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of 37 Intelligence Officials Over 2016 Russia Assessment

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced on August 18, 2025, the revocation of security clearances for 37 current and former intelligence officials, citing their alleged politicization and manipulation of intelligence, particularly in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The move, detailed in an Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) memo obtained by The New York Post, targets individuals involved in the Obama-ordered assessment, which Gabbard claims was part of a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory.

Revocation Details

The ODNI memo states, “The President has directed that, effective immediately, the security clearances of the 37 individuals are revoked,” noting their failure to safeguard classified information, adhere to tradecraft standards, or avoid politicizing intelligence.

Affected officials include former Principal Deputy DNI Stephanie O’Sullivan and Vinh Nguyen, both linked to the 2017 ICA, which concluded Russia sought to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump.

Other targeted individuals, such as Samantha Vinograd, Andrew P. Miller, Loren DeJonge Schulman, and Beth Sanner, held roles in the Obama or Biden administrations, with some signing statements critical of Trump, including a 2019 letter supporting his first impeachment inquiry.

Gabbard’s Claims and Declassified Documents

Gabbard, in a statement posted on X, emphasized, “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”

She has prioritized depoliticizing the intelligence community, arguing that the 2017 ICA, ordered by President Barack Obama in December 2016, relied on flawed sources, including the debunked Steele dossier, and ignored evidence that Russia did not alter vote tallies. Declassified documents released by Gabbard in July 2025, including a 44-page House Intelligence Committee report from 2020, allege that Obama officials, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, manipulated the assessment to emphasize Russian support for Trump.

Context of the 2017 ICA

The 2017 ICA, produced by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS, concluded that Russia conducted an influence campaign to aid Trump’s election chances, a finding supported by a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report but contested by Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Ratcliffe’s recent review criticized the ICA’s “chaotic” and “atypical” process, suggesting political motives.

Gabbard’s declassified records highlight a December 2016 directive from Obama to investigate “Russia Election Meddling,” despite earlier assessments finding no evidence of vote tampering through cyberattacks.

Opposition and Concerns

Democrats and former intelligence officials have pushed back. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) called Gabbard’s accusations “baseless,” citing the Senate’s bipartisan confirmation of Russian interference. Susan Miller, a former CIA officer involved in the 2017 ICA, told NBC News that Gabbard’s claims misrepresent credible intelligence, stating, “We definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the Russians’ specific goal was to get Trump elected.”

Obama’s spokesperson, Patrick Rodenbush, dismissed the allegations as “ridiculous” and a distraction, noting that no evidence suggests votes were altered. Concerns have been raised about Gabbard’s declassification process, with critics like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warning that unredacted releases could compromise sources and damage intelligence-sharing alliances.

American politicians can really be brainless sometimes. But this may take the cake.

Because the White House humiliated a leading Democrat for making the dumbest comment ever.

White House Dismisses Rep. McIver’s ‘Liberation Day’ Accusation as Political Stunt

The White House on August 18, 2025, sharply criticized Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) for claiming that President Donald Trump’s use of the term “Liberation Day” in reference to his Washington, D.C., crime crackdown is a coded endorsement of “white power.”

McIver, who faces federal charges from a June 2025 incident involving alleged assault and interference with immigration officers at a Newark, N.J., ICE facility, made the remarks on the “Defending Democracy with Marc Elias” podcast, accusing Trump of targeting cities led by Black mayors and sanctuary cities supporting immigration.

McIver’s Allegations

McIver expressed concerns over Trump’s decision to place Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department under Department of Justice control and deploy federal law enforcement and National Guard troops, warning it could “start a civil war” if applied to other Democrat-run cities.

“I think there’s an ultimate agenda of this administration to do these types of things,” she said, alleging Trump aims to provoke unrest: “Sic the military on the very people that they’re supposed to be protecting in these cities and then expect a certain response so that it can escalate — I truly believe that that’s what the president hopes for.”

She labeled Trump’s “Liberation Day” rhetoric as racist, stating, “When he says, ‘Oh,’ you know, ‘it’s Liberation Day,’ and all of these things, those are, you know, ways of him saying, ‘Oh, it’s white power.’ Those are racist remarks. His number one targets are cities that are led by black mayors.”

White House Response

The White House swiftly rebuked McIver’s claims. Spokesman Harrison Fields told The New York Post, “LaMonica McIver, whose claim to fame was assaulting federal agents, is an unserious person whose comments are nothing more than a political stunt, much like her attempted catfight in front of an ICE facility. Congress would be better off if she left, and the people of New Jersey would benefit greatly if she pursued her apparent passion for street fighting.”

The statement referenced McIver’s pending federal charges for three counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with federal officials during a May 9, 2025, confrontation at the Delaney Hall ICE detention center, to which she has pleaded not guilty.

Context of the Charges

McIver’s accusations stem from Trump’s August 11 announcement to federalize D.C. police operations under Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing rising crime rates. The move, dubbed “Liberation Day,” has drawn criticism from Democrats, who argue it oversteps local authority.

McIver further claimed Trump’s policies target “sanctuary cities that, you know, support immigration,” asserting, “The push to clean up DC and end sanctuary city policies show us each and every day how much of a bigot he is.” Her comments echo broader Democratic concerns about Trump’s immigration crackdown, though critics on X note that California Gov. Gavin Newsom also used “Liberation Day” in a separate context, undermining her claim of its racial coding.

Newark Incident and Legal Battle

The Newark incident involved McIver, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, and other Democratic lawmakers protesting conditions at the Delaney Hall facility. Federal prosecutors allege McIver forcibly interfered with Baraka’s arrest, though charges against Baraka were dropped. McIver’s attorney, Paul Fishman, called the charges “spectacularly inappropriate,” citing her congressional right to conduct oversight under a 2020 DHS appropriations bill.

Social media reactions on X are polarized, with some users supporting McIver’s oversight role and others backing the White House’s dismissal of her as “unserious.” McIver’s office did not respond to inquiries.

Trump doesn’t slow down. But this changes everything.

Because he received a test result the put jaws on the floor.

Trump’s Approval Rating Rises to 54% After Putin Summit, Poll Shows

A new InsiderAdvantage survey conducted August 15-17, 2025, reveals a surge in President Donald Trump’s approval rating to 54%, with 44% disapproving, following his August 15 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.

The poll, conducted at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, shows Trump gaining majority support across all age groups except those over 65, where approval stands at 40% compared to 57% for both the 18-39 and 39-64 demographics. The results mark a significant uptick from InsiderAdvantage’s July poll, which reported a 50% approval and 48% disapproval rating.

Broadening Support Across Demographics

The survey, noted for its least-biased rating by Media Bias and ranked among the top ten polling services for general elections from 2014-2022 by RealClearPolitics, also indicates improved support among Black and Hispanic respondents. Polling analyst Matt Towery highlighted that Trump’s approval has risen among these groups, with white voters reaching a near-record 64% approval.

“Donald Trump now has an advantage among every age group other than the most senior of voters. He has improved his numbers among African-Americans and Hispanic-Latinos,” Towery said in his analysis.

Alaska Summit Drives Approval Gains

The boost follows Trump’s high-profile meeting with Putin, aimed at brokering a peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, which began in February 2022. Speaking to reporters after the three-hour summit, Trump described it as “extremely productive,” stating, “We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

Despite no ceasefire agreement, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff revealed a key concession on CNN’s “State of the Union” on August 17, noting, “We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,” marking a first in Russian willingness to consider such terms.

Contrasting Polls and White House Talks

The poll contrasts with other recent surveys, such as a Pew Research Center poll from early August showing 38% approval and 60% disapproval for Trump. The Alaska summit’s visibility, coupled with Trump’s subsequent White House meeting on August 18 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders—including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer—appears to have bolstered public perception.

Unlike Zelenskyy’s tense February 2025 Oval Office visit, Monday’s discussions were described as productive, with Zelenskyy expressing support for a potential trilateral meeting with Trump and Putin.

Public and Political Reactions

Public reactions on X reflect mixed sentiments, with some users praising Trump’s diplomatic efforts as a step toward peace, while others question the lack of a concrete ceasefire.

The InsiderAdvantage poll, with a margin of error of ±3.09%, underscores a shifting public mood as Trump navigates complex international negotiations ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Schiff has been a thorn in the president’s side for years. Now he’s about to get his just desserts.

Because Trump administration teased evidence that could bring down Adam Schiff.

Trump DOJ Official Signals Expanded Probes into Sen. Schiff and Jan. 6 Committee Members

Ed Martin, head of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, suggested on August 17, 2025, that additional investigative actions may soon target Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and unpardonned members of the dissolved House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Speaking on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Martin referenced an ongoing criminal probe into Schiff for alleged mortgage fraud and hinted at further inquiries, stating, “There’s a referral from Bill Pulte about mortgage fraud about Adam Schiff. That’s publicly discussed. His own lawyers have been out there. Now there’s more on Adam Schiff.”

Mortgage Fraud Allegations Against Schiff

The mortgage fraud allegations, initiated by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte in May 2025, accuse Schiff of falsifying bank documents and property records between 2003 and 2019 to secure favorable loan terms.

Pulte claimed Schiff listed a Maryland home as his primary residence in multiple refinancing filings while serving as a California congressman, and similarly designated a Burbank, California, condo as his primary residence, potentially exploiting exemptions meant for primary homeowners. Schiff’s attorney, Preet Bharara, dismissed the allegations as “transparently false, stale, and long debunked,” per a statement reported by NBC News.

Separate Accusations of Classified Leaks

Separately, Schiff faces accusations from a former House Intelligence Committee staffer, who claimed in FBI interviews from 2017 to 2023 that Schiff approved leaks of classified information during the 2017 Russia investigation to damage then-President Donald Trump.

An FBI memo obtained by The Post noted that Schiff may be protected by the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, and prior DOJ investigations questioned the accuser’s credibility, finding “little support” for the claims. Martin did not clarify whether these allegations are part of the “more” he referenced, stating only, “All we’re going to do, again, is get to the facts of this and use all the tools that we have in our system.”

Parallel Probe into Letitia James

Martin also pointed to a parallel probe into New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud involving a Norfolk, Virginia, property and her Brooklyn brownstone. Pulte’s referral, reported by Fox News, alleges James misrepresented her primary residence to obtain favorable loan terms, mirroring accusations against Schiff. Martin was spotted in Brooklyn last week inspecting James’ property, signaling active DOJ engagement.

Jan. 6 Committee Under Scrutiny

Turning to the Jan. 6 Committee, Martin indicated that unpardonned members and staff could face scrutiny, despite former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons for the panel in late 2024. “We’re all in that too,” Martin said.

“A lot of people did not get a pardon that were involved in the select committee, and they ought to be keeping an eye on their mailbox, because there’s a lot to be asked about.” He credited Attorney General Pam Bondi for empowering his team, noting she “let us loose on” issues of alleged government weaponization. Martin did not name specific individuals but suggested the inquiries could extend to those involved in the committee’s 18-month investigation, which produced an 845-page report and recommended charges against Trump.

Broader Context and Public Reaction

The remarks come amid a broader Trump administration effort to address perceived political adversaries, with Martin, a former interim U.S. attorney and conservative activist, appointed by Bondi to lead these probes. Social media posts on X reflect polarized reactions, with some users praising the investigations as accountability measures, while others, including Schiff’s supporters, label them as politically motivated “lawfare.” The DOJ’s next steps remain undisclosed, but Martin’s comments suggest an intensifying focus on Schiff and Jan. 6 Committee affiliates as the administration pursues its agenda.

The mainstream media has always had it out for Donald Trump. But now it’s asking for treason.

Because they called for troops to disobey Donald Trump’s direct orders.

Trump’s National Guard Deployment in D.C. Sparks Debate Over Military Role

President Donald Trump’s deployment of 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to address crime and public safety concerns has ignited a debate about the military’s role in domestic affairs.

In a New York Times op-ed published on August 13, 2025, former Obama administration officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson expressed concerns about the deployment, arguing it reflects a troubling shift in civil-military dynamics.

However, the administration’s actions, grounded in legal authority, aim to restore order in the nation’s capital.

Former Obama Officials Critique Trump’s Strategy

In their op-ed, titled “We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong,” Simon and Stevenson, both former National Security Council members under President Obama, argue that the military’s compliance with Trump’s orders signals a weakening of its role as an independent constitutional safeguard.

They claim the deployment, which they describe as based on “the pretext of an illusory crime wave,” is a test case for militarizing domestic law enforcement, following similar actions in California to support deportation efforts.

They express concern that Trump’s personnel changes, such as promoting loyalists like former National Guard Lt. Gen. Dan Caine and dismissing top Judge Advocates General, prioritize loyalty over legality, potentially eroding military professionalism.

The authors draw historical parallels, comparing the deployment to the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942, suggesting that military culture favors compliance with civilian orders, even when morally or legally questionable.

They warn that Trump’s policies, including redesignating National Guard duties to allow direct interaction with ICE detainees, could fuse military and homeland security functions, risking clashes with citizens and normalizing executive overreach.

They pin their hopes on judicial intervention, citing California’s legal challenge and expressing skepticism about the Supreme Court’s willingness to curb presidential power, while acknowledging that military officers are unlikely to defy lawful orders.

Trump’s Legal and Strategic Approach to Public Safety

The Trump administration’s deployment, authorized under Section 740 of the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act, shows the length the president is willing to go to address safety challenges in Washington, D.C., a city with a unique federal status.

Trump’s executive order, issued on August 11, cited crime as a public safety emergency, justifying the temporary federalization of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the deployment of National Guard troops. The administration points to incidents like the August 3 assault on Edward Coristine, a Department of Government Efficiency staffer, during

Clinton and Trump have never liked each other. That’s why no one can believe this happening.

Because Hillary Clinton made jaws drop after giving Donald Trump a massive compliment.

Clinton’s Surprising Nobel Peace Prize Endorsement for Trump Amid Ukraine Talks

In an unexpected turn, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a long-standing critic of President Donald Trump, stated she would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize if he successfully negotiates an end to the Russia-Ukraine war without territorial concessions to Russia. The remarks, made on the August 15, 2025, episode of the “Raging Moderates” podcast, come as Trump engages in high-stakes talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, aiming to resolve the three-year conflict.

Clinton’s Conditional Support for Trump’s Peace Efforts

During the podcast with host Jessica Tarlov, Clinton outlined her criteria for supporting Trump’s nomination: “Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war, if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, could really stand up to Putin — something we haven’t seen, but maybe this is the opportunity — if President Trump were the architect of that, I’d nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.”

She emphasized her goal of preventing “capitulation to Putin,” aligning her support with a resolution that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Clinton’s offer is notable given her history of sharp criticism of Trump, including her 2016 campaign remarks labeling his supporters a “basket of deplorables” and questioning his fitness for office, citing his praise for Putin and temperament.

As recently as February 2025, she described his administration as “dumb” and “feeble” in a New York Times op-ed, and in October 2024, called him “more unhinged” than during their 2016 race.

Trump’s Diplomatic Push and Global Context

Trump’s summit with Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on August 15, 2025, marks his first face-to-face meeting with the Russian leader since his first term. Trump expressed optimism about the talks, estimating a 25% chance of failure and telling reporters on Air Force One that he would let Ukraine decide on territorial swaps, per Al Jazeera.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, absent from the summit, has firmly opposed ceding land to Moscow.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a long-standing aspiration for Trump, who has criticized former President Barack Obama’s 2009 award and received nominations from leaders in Pakistan, Israel, Cambodia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan for his mediation in various conflicts, including the Abraham Accords and ceasefires between India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran.

However, a prior nomination by Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko was withdrawn in June 2025 due to stalled peace talks and perceived leniency toward Russia.

Broader Implications and Public Reaction

Clinton’s remarks reflect a pragmatic acknowledgment of the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough, despite her past critiques of Trump’s foreign policy.

Posts on X highlight mixed sentiments, with some praising Trump’s deal-making potential and others questioning Clinton’s motives, suggesting her endorsement may be an attempt to reframe her legacy. The talks’ outcome remains uncertain, with Politico reporting that Russia and Ukraine are “nowhere close” to an agreement.

The summit and Clinton’s statement have drawn global attention, as a successful deal could reshape perceptions of Trump’s foreign policy and bolster his administration’s focus on assertive diplomacy.

America has been spending beyond its means for decades. But things have reached a tipping point.

And now the US government is on the verge of bankruptcy according to a shocking new report.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT SOARS PAST $37 TRILLION AMID CONTROVERSIAL SPENDING BILL

The U.S. national debt has officially exceeded $37 trillion, raising alarm among fiscal watchdogs and lawmakers who warn the country’s unchecked borrowing is jeopardizing future economic stability.

The figure, reported this week by the Treasury Department, comes years ahead of previous projections and has sparked debate over whether recent legislation is easing or accelerating the fiscal crisis.

The Congressional Budget Office had projected in January 2020 that the gross debt would not surpass $37 trillion until after fiscal 2030. However, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered massive government stimulus spending under both the Trump and Biden administrations, and this year, President Trump and congressional Republicans passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” expected to add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

“Thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the debt just officially passed the $37 trillion mark,” Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky wrote on X. Massie was one of only two House Republicans to oppose the bill in July.

LAWMAKERS AND WATCHDOGS WARN OF UNSUSTAINABLE SPENDING

Trump and his allies argue that the legislation will generate long-term economic growth, citing tax cuts, increased military and border spending, and Medicaid eligibility changes. The administration also points to aggressive tariff policies as a source of revenue, which have raised nearly $130 billion this year—more than double last year’s total at this point.

Critics counter that tariffs act as hidden taxes on U.S. consumers and could slow economic growth. “It has been proven, that even at this late stage, Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers,” Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social.

Fiscal experts remain unconvinced. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said:

“Spending and revenue are woefully out of balance — to the tune of nearly $2 trillion annually and rising — and instead of addressing this imbalance, Congress keeps choosing to make things worse.”

MacGuineas warned that the U.S. is on track to spend $1 trillion this year on interest payments alone. “Interest is now the second-largest item in the budget, surpassing the entire defense budget as well as Medicare,” she said.

Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, noted that the U.S. debt now exceeds the combined economies of the 20-country Eurozone and China. Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly flagged the long-term unsustainability of the debt, highlighting potential consequences such as higher borrowing costs, stagnant wages, and higher consumer prices.

“BREAKING: National debt just hit $37 TRILLION. Not just a number but a bill our kids can’t afford to pay,” Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a Republican running for governor, wrote on X. Social media users quickly responded with criticism, including “community notes” reminding her of her support for the Trump bill that is expected to worsen the debt.

ACCELERATING GROWTH OF DEBT

The U.S. debt has been climbing at unprecedented speed. According to one congressional monitor, the debt is growing by $59,361.77 per second, reaching $34 trillion in January 2024, $35 trillion in July 2024, and $36 trillion in November 2024. Experts warn the pace of borrowing and interest costs is unsustainable without immediate reform.

Americans are entitled to their beliefs. But that’s not what some activists on the bench think.

And now a federal court threw out the First Amendment and set up a Supreme Court showdown.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious order serving the elderly poor, must once again include contraception coverage in their employee health plans, overturning conscience protections established under the Trump administration. The ruling reignites one of the most visible and prolonged religious liberty battles of the past decade.

The Little Sisters have fought the federal contraception mandate since 2011, when the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) first required nearly all employers to provide birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The mandate included drugs and devices the Catholic Church considers morally objectionable, except when used strictly for medical treatment unrelated to contraception.

LONG LEGAL HISTORY

The case quickly became a flashpoint in the national debate over the limits of religious freedom and the scope of government mandates. With legal representation from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Sisters challenged the mandate in multiple courts, arguing it forced them to violate their beliefs or face ruinous financial penalties.

“The Court sided with Pennsylvania and New Jersey in their years-long effort to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptive and abortion coverage in their healthcare plans,” Becket stated Aug. 13. “Today’s ruling keeps that effort alive, and the Little Sisters have vowed to appeal the decision.”

Becket stressed the Sisters’ charitable mission: “The Little Sisters of the Poor are an order of Catholic nuns who have cared for the elderly poor for nearly 200 years. They have been in court for over fourteen years, fighting for protection from the contraception mandate which requires them either provide services like the week-after pill in their healthcare plan or pay tens of millions of dollars in fines.”

PREVIOUS SUPREME COURT VICTORIES

The order’s legal journey has included multiple trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2016, the justices unanimously sent the case back to lower courts, effectively shielding the Sisters from the mandate at that time.

The following year, the Trump administration issued new federal rules granting religious and moral exemptions to groups like the Little Sisters.

That policy quickly faced challenges from several Democratic-led states, with Pennsylvania and New Jersey leading the charge. In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump-era exemptions, granting the Sisters a significant—though temporary—victory.

“But,” Becket continued, “Pennsylvania and New Jersey have continued to fight in court to strip the Little Sisters of that protection.”

ONGOING NATIONAL DEBATE

Supporters of the contraception mandate argue it is a matter of health care equity, ensuring women have access to comprehensive reproductive services regardless of their employer’s beliefs.

Religious liberty advocates counter that forcing faith-based organizations to cover such services amounts to government overreach and an erosion of First Amendment protections.

Becket’s latest statement minced no words about the implications: the court “blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty.”

The nuns plan to appeal the Aug. 13 decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, ensuring that this high-profile case—symbolizing a broader national conflict over the balance between religious conscience and state mandates—will continue into yet another round.

In politics, everything is forever. You only have to remember Howard Dean to know that’s true.

And now a top Democrat contender blew up his career with one brainless slip of the tongue.

Beto O’Rourke’s Inflammatory N-zi Comparisons Stir Controversy

Former Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke’s provocative comparison of the Trump administration to N-zi Germany during a podcast appearance with California Governor Gavin Newsom has drawn sharp criticism, casting a shadow over his political judgment as his Powered by People PAC faces legal scrutiny for allegedly funding Texas Democrats’ efforts to obstruct state redistricting.

O’Rourke’s Extreme Rhetoric on “This is Gavin Newsom” Podcast

On August 13, 2025, O’Rourke joined Newsom on the “This is Gavin Newsom” podcast, where he praised Texas Democrats who fled to New York and Illinois to block a quorum during a redistricting session, calling them some of the “very last lines of defense” of democracy. He then drew a stark parallel between current Republican actions and the rise of Adolf Hitler’s regime. “I can only imagine the history books written 100 years from now looking at the people of 2025,” O’Rourke said.

“It’s the way, you know, you and I when we were in school, we’re looking at the people in Germany in 1933. That guy’s named chancellor in January of that year. In 53 days, he has destroyed German democracy.”

He continued, “The parliament or the congress, their legislature, passed these enabling laws just like the Republicans are doing in Congress today that said anything you want, you go out and do it. And he goes from being this buffoonish, clownish thug who can barely hold power to the undisputed master and dictator of the German people. And I know this s— doesn’t repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.”

O’Rourke’s hyperbolic language risks alienating voters who view such comparisons as inflammatory and disconnected from substantive policy debate.

Pattern of Controversial N-zi Analogies

O’Rourke has a history of equating President Donald Trump’s policies with N-zi Germany, a tactic that has drawn backlash for its lack of nuance. In 2019, he criticized Trump’s family separation policy at the border, stating, “Now, I might expect someone to describe another human being as an infestation in the Third Reich. I would not expect it in the United States of America.”

He later defended this, saying, “Calling human beings an infestation is something that we might’ve expected to hear in N-zi Germany… Describing immigrants — who have a track record of committing violent crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans — as rapists and criminals. Seeking to ban all Muslims — all people of one religion — what other country on the face of the planet does that kind of thing?”

In 2021, despite Trump’s 2020 election loss, O’Rourke warned that the U.S. could mirror N-zi Germany within a decade, further fueling perceptions of his rhetoric as divisive and alarmist.

Legal Scrutiny of O’Rourke’s PAC Amid Redistricting Standoff

O’Rourke’s comments come as his Powered by People PAC faces investigation for allegedly funding Texas Democrats’ travel to avoid a quorum, a move aimed at stalling Republican-led redistricting efforts.

On August 13, 2025, Fox News Digital reported that Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) urged the Justice Department to probe whether the PAC violated federal election and public corruption laws by covering airfare, lodging, and fines for the lawmakers.

This follows a similar call from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sought O’Rourke’s arrest for defying a court order against such fundraising.