Tag: TRUMP

Posted on

Three Questions Alex Acosta Must Answer Re Epstein

MSNBC’s Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin appeared on the 09/19/25 edition of Deadline White House show where she made a compelling argument as to how Congress can and should go about getting Jeffrey Epstein-related information from former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta.

Rubin said that there are a bunch of Epstein-related documents that Acosta either saw, or was involved in creating. This, she argued, meant the said documents were either currently in the possession of the Department of Justice, or even by Acosta himself.

The first question Congress needs to ask Acosta is about the 60-count federal indictment drafted by prosecutor Ann Marie Villafaña in 2007. DOJ definitely has this document, and the allegations therein, may shed a lot of light as to Epstein’s illicit operation, and potentially, the actions of his his co-conspirators, most of who were later granted immunity.

The second question regards the lengthy prosecution memo that aforementioned Villafaña wrote regarding the federal case re Epstein. Rubin says this can shed a lot of light as to the evidence the feds had against Epstein to support the 60-count indictment

Finally, Rubin says Congress should ask Acosta about his own interview transcript from the office of professional responsibility investigation that was conducted at DOJ in 2020. That was an investigation started at the instigation of Republican Senator Ben Sasse. Rubin argues that Acosta must have that transcript in his possession because he and his lawyers were given an opportunity to review it and suggest any corrections.

Long story short, the lingering questions about Jeffrey Epstein and his child sex trafficking operation must be answered, and key players like Acosta must not be allowed to come before Congress and just gaslight the public. These crucial documents are currently in the possession of the DOJ and/or Acosta, and the public deserves to see them.

An alternative route would be to have Ann Marie Villafaña testify before Congress. Who knows, she might have “kept receipts”.

Posted on

Is FHFA Boss Targeting Dems?

Bombshell segment on the 09/18/25 edition of MSNBC’s All In w/Chris Hayes delved into the current head of the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA), William Pulte, and specifically whether he is the source of all the mortgage fraud allegations currently leveled at prominent Democrats

Hayes correctly pointed out that it does appear odd, that Democrats who President Trump has publicly feuded with, and expressed contempt for, are suddenly facing accusations of mortgage fraud. Importantly, the person who President Trump has appointed to head FHFA, which among other things, overseas the U.S. mortgage market, is a diehard MAGA and a major donor to the Trump campaign. Per Hayes, he’s an heir to a major construction company.

Could he be the one digging into Trump opponents’ mortgage files for “dirt”? Hayes certainly seems to be making that argument in this segment. If true, this would not only be a blatant abuse of power, but could potentially also be a legal infraction pertaining to privacy. 

But let’s not put the cart before the horse here. The prudent thing is to first confirm that it is indeed Mr Pulte who is leaking people’s mortgage files. After that, we can consider the potential legal ramifications

 Bottom line, this is the classic issue that begs for congressional oversight. Americans are already struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments. The last thing they need is some politically-motivated fat cat rummaging through their mortgage files digging for “political dirt”. There are federal agencies already in place to independently deal with mortgage fraud.

Posted on

New Questions About Trump And His Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta

As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal continues to heat up, new questions are being raised about the infamous 2008 sweetheart plea deal he received from then U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who later joined the Trump administration as Labor Secretary in 2017

The running narrative thus far, has been that after details of the sweetheart plea deal started getting a lot of media coverage, the Trump administration was forced to cut ties with Acosta—he became a liability, if you will.

However according to Kristy Greenberg, herself a former federal prosecutor, President Trump might have known all along about Alex Acosta’s shady Epstein deal when he made him his labor secretary. As Greenberg further put it, “he [President Trump] didn’t seem to care.”

If Greenberg’s account holds up, it would reflect very poorly on the president as America’s moral leader. Republicans have for decades, put a premium on moral values, so it will be interesting to see how they navigate this Trump-Acosta relationship. 

Posted on

Epstein Survivor Press Conference Set For 090325

Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA) appeared in a segment of MSNBC’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki (08/14/25) where he confirmed that together with Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY), they had arranged a 09/03/25 press conference with the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

It cannot be understated just how important this presser may turn out to be , not just for curious public, but also for the victims. Reps Massie and Khanna are giving them an avenue to vent out their grievances and frustrations, something they were denied when Epstein died before his criminal trial. They were robbed of an excellent opportunity to confront their abuser publicly in a court of law.

The presser will of course serve another very important function, and that is, bring back the media’s focus to the heinous crimes committed by Epstein and Maxwell, and how both shared a close relationship with Donald Trump, now President.

The Trump administration has moved heaven and earth to keep the Epstein story away from the mainstream media’s focus, so it will be very interesting to see what “shiny object” they dangle out there on 09/03/25.

Posted on

Trump Frees Triple Murder Convict

A segment on the 08/11/25 edition of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (TRMS) delved into the Trump administration’s “tough on crime” facade. The gist of the segment was that while President Trump and his administration go to great lengths to project a “tough on crime” stance, they have been super lenient with some very serious criminals the president favors. In other words, there are glaring double standards with the said tough on crime policy.

One of the shocking examples host Maddow pointed to was a triple murder convict—yeah you read that right—a triple murder convict serving a 30 year sentence, that the Trump administration recently released from a Venezuelan prison and flew into the United States. Reasonable people can agree that this is not the kind of person a “tough on crime” administration would be bringing into the country. 

He apparently committed the murders at a law office in Madrid, Spain, realized the Spanish authorities were onto him, fled to Germany, and then ran from Germany to Venezuela. Venezuela has a no-extradition policy, so they didn’t send him back to Spain, but agreed to prosecute him for the Madrid murders in Venezuela. It was there that he was convicted and received a 30 year sentence. 

He is currently running the streets of some American city as a free man. It will be interesting to hear the rationale the “tough on crime” Trump administration gives for not only freeing such a heinous criminal, but also setting him loose in an American city. 

Maddow also brought up the other unavoidable elephant in the room—convicted child Sec trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell who it appears, is gearing up for a presidential pardon after being transferred to a cushy fed camp in Texas. Maxwell is also serving a 30 year sentence. 

Bottom line, the Trump administration has to decide whether it wants to be tough on crime towards everybody, or just those the president disfavors. As it currently stands, the latter appears to be the case, and it’s not a good look.

Posted on

Proposed Epstein Strategy Session Rekindles Tarmac-gate Memories

An interesting segment on the 08/06/25 edition of MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes (Velshi subbing) delved into the widely reported “strategy session” that was supposed to take place at Vice President JD Vance’s residence to deal with the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The scandal has engulfed the Trump White House and is leading to accusations of a coverup. 

***All In Tweet***

The MSNBC segment aptly pointed out the hypocritical Republican reaction back in 2016, when then AG Loretta Lynch was spotted at an airport tarmac chatting with former President Bill Clinton. The DOJ was at that time investigating Hillary Clinton–then the Democratic presidential candidate–over her email server. Many Republicans were very outraged by that meeting, accusing Bill Clinton and Lynch of conspiring to bury the email server probe. The firestorm surrounding the tarmac meeting almost led to AG Lynch’s resignation.

It is therefore quite interesting how the same Republican party which pushed for Lynch’s resignation sighting DOJ independence, is now very comfortable with the prospect of current AG Pam Bondi sitting down with Trump admin officials for a “strategy session” regarding the Epstein scandal which implicates President Trump. 

What happened to their clamour for DOJ independence? It is a very hypocritical stance, and MSNBC’s All In crew deserves major kudos for calling it out

Posted on

Just How Close Were Trump & Jeffrey Epstein?

Back in February 2019, I wrote about the Trump-Epstein connection. My argument then, as it is now, is that Epstein & Trump were much closer than Trump has led the public to believe.

Well, a bombshell segment on the 07/16/25 edition of CNN’s Outfront with Erin Burnett has just confirmed how close the two were.

It turns out, per a former Trump Hotel C.O.O., that Trump & Epstein once showed up at an Atlantic City casino at 1:30am on a Sunday with three women, one of whom was too young to be there(19). This raised a lot of concerns for the casino management who were afraid they may lose their license due to this.

The point is, you don’t run around at a casino in the wee hours of Sunday morning with just a casual friend. That’s someone you are really really close with.

Posted on

Jeffrey Epstein & The Deep State

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently came out and declared the Jeffrey Epstein case officially closed. Epstein is the billionaire who was charged with child sex trafficking in 2019, but later died in prison while awaiting trial. The government declared his death a suicide, but there have been serious questions raised by some very credible voices, as to whether he really took his own life.

Part of the firestorm that has predictably erupted following DOJ’s abrupt closure of the Epstein case, stems from this theory that he was an intelligence asset tasked with a honey pot scheme aimed at compromising powerful U.S. figures. The argument in a nutshell, is that Epstein would befriend powerful figures and lure them into his illicit activities with minors, while secretly recording them for “kompromat”. These powerful figures, usually politicians, would then feel compelled to go with whatever the Deep State wanted–afraid to be exposed.

Among the loudest voices advancing this Deep State theory is longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, who is now calling for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate everything about Epstein. Bannon argues that it is only through a special prosecutor probe of Epstein, that we will finally break the stranglehold the Deep State has on America.

It will be interesting to see how Bannon’s request for a special counsel probe plays out, or whether Congress decides to look into the matter via its various available investigative tools. 

As someone who has consistently called for a new Church-type probe, I think this push for an Epstein special counsel probe dramatically increases the odds that a Church-type committee investigating our intelligence agencies, is where we will finally end—especially if it turns out that Epstein was indeed an intelligence asset.

Posted on

Are DOGE Cuts To Blame For The Tragedy In Kerr County Texas?

A bombshell report on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes show raises questions as to whether cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency(DOGE) cuts to the National Weather Service(NWS) may have negatively impacted storm preparation efforts in Kerr County Texas flood that has left as many as…people dead

The crux of Hayes’ argument is that the person whose job it was, to issue weather warnings for Kerr County had opted for the DOGE buyouts (early retirement essentially) and that a replacement was never named for him. Hayes argues that had he still been employed, there would have been better coordination of the weather warnings, mitigating the loss of lives and property.

Of course there will never be a way to verify whether this key position would have saved lives and property from the generational floods, but there’s a legitimate debate as to whether DOGE cuts to NWS generally, have negatively impacted their forecasting/warning capabilities. Is NWS for example, even ready for this hurricane season after the DOGE cuts?

These are the types of questions the public needs to start asking now, before another weather-related disaster hits.

Posted on

President Trump’s 062925 Interview On Fox News

U.S. President Donald Trump sat down with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on 06/29/25 for a wide ranging interview that covered the recent U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Big Beautiful Bill, immigration, tariffs and many other topics.

One very interesting exchange happened when host Maria Bartiromo asked President Trump how his administration intends to tackle the massive layoffs/job losses that will assuredly happen as a result of developments in artificial intelligence. Trump responded that he will solve that by “bringing in more companies”–a strange answer that appeared to shock Maria. 

It wasn’t clear whether the president meant bringing in more AI companies to hire more people, or whether he meant bringing in other companies to offset the job losses caused by AI. What’s clear is that neither option adequately addresses the core question raised by Maria. 

I was left wondering whether Fox News, or any other media outlet for that matter, would have let former President Biden off the hook with such an inadequate answer to real and present concerns surrounding AI? My guess is they would would have found a way to tie such an inadequate response to his “mental unfitness for office.”