On
Monday, the White House said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer was
leaving office. She was the subject of a continuing inspector-general
probe related to misused funds and a relationship with her security
guard. She has denied wrongdoing, but her problems didn’t seem to be
going away.
This came just
three weeks after Attorney General Pam Bondi was removed by President
Trump. Four weeks before that, Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary
Kristi Noem.
There is always some degree of
churn in a White House’s cabinet, but losing three secretaries in such a
tight span is somewhat remarkable. As Trump remains under stress
related to the uncertain outcome of the Iran war, there are other
leaders who are under enormous pressure.
Energy
Secretary Chris Wright, for example, drew a rare rebuke from Trump on
Monday when Wright’s recent comments about gas prices startled many in
Washington.
On Sunday, Wright said on CNN that gasoline prices might not drop below $3 a gallon until 2027.
On Monday, Trump told The Hill that Wright’s sentiment was “totally wrong.”
Everyone
looks around and wonders, "Am I next?" Tulsi Gabbard, Howard Lutnick,
Ka$h Patel, Pete Hegseth, etc. They all look around at one another. Nick Bryant (THE I PAPER) adds:
Washington
is abuzz with talk of a firing purge, as Donald Trump tries to reboot
his embattled presidency by restaffing his administration. Because of
the Iran war, his approval ratings have cratered. The Maga movement is splintering. His “Jesus of Mar-a-Lago” meme infuriated evangelical Christians. His battle with Pope Leo XIV has angered Catholics, who make up roughly a fifth of the US electorate.
This
conspiracy theorist-in-chief has himself become the target of
conspiracy theories. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was once
such a devoted cheerleader, has added her penetrative voice to those
within Maga raising questions about whether the July 2024 assassination
attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, was staged. Talk of a fake
assassination attempt is ludicrous. But it speaks of the turmoil in
Trumplandia that the instantly iconographic picture of the
then-candidate punching the air, with blood dripping down his face and
the Stars and Stripes fluttering in the background, is now being brought
into question.
Up until recently, a striking
feature of Trump 2.0 was that the administration was staffed by Trump
loyalists to whom the President remained loyal. Trump 1.0, by contrast,
felt more like The Apprentice, where the Oval Office had the feel of
Trump’s mahogany boardroom and the former reality TV star revived the
catchphrase which in the early part of the 21st century fuelled his
fame: “You’re fired!” A conga line of senior administration officials
lost their jobs.
Victims of that two-word
catchphrase included his first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who
had once described the President as a “moron”. A string of White House
chiefs of staff, the second most important figure in any
well-functioning West Wing, were shown the door. Trump fired his FBI
director James Comey and his first attorney general Jeff Sessions, the
country’s two most senior law enforcement officials. Then, of course,
there was Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci, the star now of the hit
podcast The Rest is Politics: US, who survived as White House
communications director for just 11 days. Thereafter, a “Scaramucci”
became a unit of time. The longevity of White House appointees was
judged not only in the number of days but the number of “Scaramuccis”.
Now, the President is reverting to type. Since the beginning of the year, he has gone on a sacking spree.
And
with each firing, Mr. Chump has to wonder, "Is this the person who will
leak on me to the press?" And some will. Each firing is another
person who might be able to bring his card house down. He is already in
trouble as the midterms approach. Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes:
White
House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles summoned dozens of Republican
political consultants from across the country for a meeting Monday at
the Waldorf Astoria, a person familiar with the plan told Politico’s
Playbook.
The gathering of Republican
operatives comes as the White House is developing its strategy and
aligning the broader party apparatus to face November’s midterm
elections amid Donald Trump’s rather unpopular “excursion” to the Middle
East.
[. . .]
Trump’s overall
approval rating has hit a new low of just 37 percent, according to an
NBC News poll Monday. Two-thirds of Americans disapproved of Trump’s
handling of inflation and the Iran conflict, which has upended global
trade and sent energy prices skyrocketing.
April is almost over. They have not prepared well for the midterms.
Tuesday, Apri 21, 2026. What did Chump do with the money donated for
his library, why can't he offer a consistent explanation for the war or
even for the gas prices, he's lost another Cabinet member, he wants to
put a structure up in DC that will dwarf and minimize Arlington
Cemetery, and much more.
Let's
start with a press release regarding Chump and disappearing money.
Senator Elizabeth Warren's office issued the following yesterday:
Paramount, ABC, Meta, X
indicated that they have no explanation or are unwilling to share
information about where millions in settlement money have gone — or
where it will go
As much as $63 million in settlement payments to Trump Presidential Library slush fund missing
“These are troubling
answers…particularly given the vast tide of corruption and
self-enrichment that has occurred during your Administration, and your
ongoing attempts to seek massive personal payments from the federal
government.”
Washington, D.C. – In new responses to U.S. Senators
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and
Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Big Tech CEOs indicated that
they have no public explanation for where as much as $63 million in
settlement money to Donald Trump’s now-dissolved Presidential Library
fund has gone. The lawmakers released
these responses today and sent a new letter to President Donald Trump
pressing for answers to solve the ongoing mystery of the missing
millions.
“These are troubling answers…particularly given the vast tide of
corruption and self-enrichment that has occurred during your
Administration, and your ongoing attempts to seek massive personal
payments from the federal government,” wrote the lawmakers.
The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund, Inc. was incorporated
in late 2024 with a stated purpose “to preserve and steward the legacy
of President Donald J. Trump and his presidency.” From late 2024 to
mid-2025, four Big Tech companies — Paramount, ABC, Meta, and X —
contributed as much as $63 million in settlement payments to President
Trump's future presidential library." But in September 2025, the Fund
was administratively dissolved for failure to submit a mandatory annual
report, and in December, the incorporator filed articles of dissolution —
with no explanation.
The lawmakers wrote to the four companies in March 2026, seeking answers about the funds. Key points from the companies’ responses include:
ABC reported that its “parent company made a payment by wire on
December 19, 2024, to . . . the escrow account established by the
Plaintiff’s counsel” and that “[i]n response to our recent ask for a
status update, Plaintiff’s counsel, on Thursday, March 19, 2026,
provided written notice to us that the IRS has recognized the 501(c)(3)
status of ‘The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, Inc.,’
and requested that we provide written authorization for release of the
funds to that entity.” This response appears to indicate that ABC had no
knowledge of the whereabouts of the contents of the Fund in the
immediate aftermath of its dissolution, and the response still fails to
provide clarity on whether the ABC settlement has been transferred to
the Foundation.
Paramount noted that it made a payment of $16 million and that
“[w]ith respect to your questions regarding the disposition of funds and
subsequent developments concerning the presidential library fund, the
Company’s involvement was limited to making the payment as specified in
the Settlement Agreement” — providing no answers about the disposition
of funds following the dissolution of the Foundation.
Meta confirmed that it paid $22 million “to support a presidential
library for President Trump . . . for the purpose of settling the
pending claims” but refused to provide further “confidential” details.
X likewise confirmed that it paid $10 million in a group settlement
that included President Trump but refused to comment further on
“confidentiality” grounds.
“The companies do not know or are unwilling to share their
information about what happened to the millions of dollars given to the
Fund,” wrote the lawmakers. “This leaves the public
completely in the dark about what happened to the Fund, whether there
was any money in it when it was dissolved, what happened to that money
upon the Fund’s dissolution, and why a second entity with the same
purpose as the Fund was created in the first place.”
There have been no disclosures about the Fund’s disposition of any
funds, and the White House press office has not responded to requests
for comment. There appears to be no individual taking responsibility for
the closure of the Fund and disposition of its money: no Fund board
members were ever appointed, and the only person to sign any of its
public documents has minimized his role.
In May 2025, a second nonprofit, the Donald J. Trump Presidential
Library Foundation Inc., was incorporated with the same stated purpose
as the Fund. Questions remain as to why the Foundation was formed when
the Fund already existed and whether any money held by the Fund was
transferred to the Foundation once the Fund was dissolved.
“You owe the public an explanation,” wrote the lawmakers to
President Trump, requesting answers to a series of specific questions by
May 1, 2026.
Donald Trump’s poll numbers have plunged to their lowest point of his second term, a brutal new poll has revealed.
The NBC News poll,
conducted between March 30 and April 13, found Americans are
particularly concerned about the economy, the continuing war in Iran,
and how the president is handling these issues.
With an approval rating of just 37 percent, Trump’s already dwindling popularity has dropped 10 points since last June.
Overall, 63 percent of adults said they disapprove of the president’s performance, with 50 percent strongly disapproving.
Peter Aitken (NEWSWEEK) focuses on another finding in the NBC NEWS poll, "President
Donald Trump is set to see his worst approval ratings of this second
term as new polling from the NBC News Decision Desk released Sunday
found that eight out of 10 Gen Z voters say the country is on the wrong
track. The poll, conducted powered by SurveyMonkey, found
that that not only is Trump seeing a 76 percent disapproval among voters
aged 18 to 29, but that young Republicans are driving the downward
trend, marking a troubling shift in a demographic largely credited as
key to the party retaking the White House." Kinsey Crowley and Kathryn Palmer (USA TODAY) also note his poor polling:
Trump's
approval rating has been net negative for about a year and has been
fluctuating but trending more negative over the last six months. Here is
Trump's average approval rating on April 20, according to aggregators:
A Quinnipiac University national poll
found 38% of voters approve of how Trump is handling his job as
president, compared to 55% who disapprove, comparable to the poll's
results from March 25. The poll was conducted April 9 - 13 among 1,028
self-identified registered voters with a margin of error of plus or
minus 3.8 percentage points.
The
poll also found a majority of voters (65%) blame Trump for the rise in
gas prices, while 34% don't blame him much or at all. It is split along
party lines, with a vast majority of Democrats blaming him and a
majority of Republicans not blaming Trump.
The poll also asked about Trump's threat to Iran that "a whole civilization will die tonight." Sixty-four percent of voters found it unacceptable, while 28% thought it was acceptable.
As Chump chokes in one poll after another, his attacks on Pope Leo last week didn't help and aren't helping. George Chidi (GUARDIAN) notes Catholics:
Many
expressed admiration for Leo’s uncompromising position against war as a
fundamental expression of Catholic doctrine, and said they viewed
attacks on the pope’s call for peace as absurd.
“The
president was saying that the pope wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons,
and I don’t think the pope said that. The president just says stuff
that people haven’t said,” said James Echols after mass at St Patrick’s
Catholic church in Norcross. Asked if he viewed the president’s comments
as an attack on his religion, Echols replied: “I don’t think he really
cares about religion. I think he just says things to try to get people
on his side.”
Echols voted for Kamala Harris in
2024. His wife, Maribic Echols, voted for Trump. The president’s
comments have caused her to reconsider her support, she said.
“I’ve
changed, because this is not what I was expecting when I was voting for
him – about the war, and about people being arrested who are not
supposed to be arrested,” she said.
About 55% of American Catholics cast a vote for Trump in 2024. Polls suggest Catholic support for the president is eroding as the war, high gas prices, the revelations in the Epstein files and a litany of scandals within the administration take their toll.
“I like Donald a lot, but he needs to calm down,” said Lola Reese after attending Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s.
Growing up Catholic in New Orleans taught her the importance of the separation of church and state, Reese said.
The
president’s back-and-forth with the pope might hurt his relationship
with his supporters, she said. She called for the president to “back off
and kind of calm down his little bitty, tiny streak of a little
meanness here and there.”
Reese’s sentiment was
shared by several churchgoers, including those who said they had voted
for the president but saw his recent comments as out of line.
Anita Bauman, a Catholic Trump voter from Pennsylvania, said the president’s comments were “colossally stupid.”
“I
don’t think it helps the president at all,” said Bauman, who supported
the president’s actions in Iran, where in early April US-based rights
group HRANA said more than 3,600 people had been killed since a joint
US-Israeli bombing campaign began in February.
“I
do think that things needed to be done in Iran,” she said. “I think
that regime was dangerous, but I don’t think picking a fight with the
pope or trying to school the pope on theology is a good idea at all.”
A
new survey shows that nearly 60% of Catholic Republicans did not
believe President Trump was right to criticize Pope Leo XIV, as the
president continues an ongoing feud with the Vatican.
The
survey shows that 59% of Catholic Republicans disapprove of the
president’s attacks against the pope, a figure that differs greatly from
that of their other Christian Republican counterparts: 68% of
Evangelicals believed he was correct, while 63% of Protestants also
thought he was correct. Overall, 59% of Christians felt Trump was right
to criticize the pope, while 37% disagreed.
The poll, conducted by the Democracy Institute,
comes as the president had a very public feud with Pope Leo XIV in
response to the pontiff’s criticism of the war in Iran and appeals for
peace.
A
Catholic bishop who runs the Diocese of Palm Beach in Florida, which
encompasses President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, issued a public
rebuke of the president’s ongoing feud with Pope Leo XIV on Sunday.
Bishop
Manuel de Jesús Rodríguez, recently appointed to lead the diocese,
delivered the criticism during Sunday Mass by displaying a statement
onto a giant screen during the service.
“The
Diocese of Palm Beach stands firm with our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV,
and strongly rejects the disrespectful and violent attacks that Donald
J. Trump has directed against the Holy Father,” it read, according to an
image shared online.
It continued: “These
attacks also constitute a grave violation of the religious freedom
enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and, as such, harm
the rights of the American Catholic faithful.”
Rodríguez concluded the message with a call to the congregation: “Please pray for the safety of the Holy Father.”
Traditionally,
that's the response. By that I mean, historically, as opinion settles,
it settles along those lines. Right now, it's still being formed. But
historically, as a flock has time to absorb an event and form an
opinion -- not a quick take, not a hot take, an actual opinion -- it
tends to be along the lines of what Father Rodriguez expressed.
And,
remember, there was also the image he posted of himself as Jesus Christ
healing people (he later insisted he thought he was a doctor in the
image). Fernando Alba (THE MIRROR) notes:
A new Democracy Institute-The Mirror US poll found that most Christian Republicans didn't buy Trump's defense of the AI image, which stoked backlash from prominent MAGA figures.
The poll found 57% of Christians surveyed didn't believe the president
when he said the image actually showed him as a Red Cross doctor.
Chump's
participating in a week long marathon of BIBLE reading -- he's already
recorded his portion -- and appears to think that will even things up. I
don't imagine many devout believers will feel that qualfies as enough.
[. . .]
Cracks
begin forming over the AI image. About 50% of respondents say the
social media post was wrong while 46% indicated it was a non-issue.
Catholics disapproved of the post the most at 57%, and protestants found
the least problems with it at 53%.
Patrick
Basham, founding Director of the Democracy Institute and former adjunct
scholar and senior fellow of the Cato Institute, said the poll appears
to show that Trump has lost his "Midas touch."
As gas prices continue to soar, Donald has a different claim every other week. Aaron Blake (CNN) provides a walk through:
President Donald Trump on Monday directly contradicted Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s comments just a day earlier
about how long gas prices could linger. While Wright had told CNN that
we might not see gas under $3 per gallon until 2027, Trump called him
“totally wrong.”
Days
before, Trump contradicted his own words on the very same subject.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has contributed to some inconsistent
messaging here, too.
In other words: It’s a
mess. The Trump administration doesn’t seem to have taken any care to
drive a consistent message that wouldn’t ultimately come back to bite it
in the backside. And the situation reinforces how Trump and his team
seemed to anticipate a much shorter war or at least underestimated how
much damage Iran could cause to the global oil supply.
Let’s recap.
On
March 8, about a week into the war, Wright told CNN’s Jake Tapper that
gas would be back under $3 per gallon “before too long.” When pressed on
how long, he indicated it was just weeks away.
“In the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing,” Wright said.
But
as the weeks rolled on and the Strait of Hormuz remained closed,
Wright’s prediction was proven false. More than seven weeks into the
war, gas remains around $4 per gallon, according to Gas Buddy.
By
April 12, reality seemed to set in. Fox News aired an interview in
which Trump said gas and oil prices might not even drop at all before
the November midterm elections.
“It could be [lower], or the same, or maybe a little bit higher, but it should be around the same,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo.
But when Trump spoke with Bartiromo just days later for her Fox Business Network show, his tone shifted dramatically.
He said that “gasoline is coming down very soon and very big.”
“I think they’ll be much lower before midterm,” he added. “Much lower.”
All of Chump's statements regarding the Iran War -- even on gas prices -- change repeatedly.
Meanwhile,
Donald Chump's Big Beautiful Give Away to The Epstein Class is allowing
them to pay less taxes while the average person, if they are lucky, are
getting a few dollars more in this year's tax refund. Due to inflation
under Chump, that money's not even going to register. Jordan Major (FINANCEBUZZ MONEY) notes what we all saw coming:
Tax
refunds are landing in bank accounts across the country, but for many
Americans, that extra cash may not go as far as expected.
Gas
prices have surged in recent weeks, cutting into household budgets just
as refunds are arriving. As of April 9, the national average price for
gasoline has climbed to $4.16 per gallon, marking the first time in four
years that prices have crossed the $4 threshold.
[. . .]
The
impact of higher gas prices adds up faster than many people expect. A
driver using about 15 gallons per week would now spend roughly $62 per
fill-up at the national average. Just weeks ago, that same fill-up cost
closer to $45.
The increase comes to about $17
per week, or nearly $70 per month. Over the course of a year, that adds
up to more than $800 in additional fuel costs for a typical driver. A
$3,600 tax refund could see a large portion absorbed by higher gas
expenses alone.
In other news, another Cabinet member has been fired by Chump.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, President Trump’s embattled labor secretary, stepped down on Monday as multiple scandals and investigations closed in on her.
“Labor
Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving the Administration to
take a position in the private sector,” Steven Cheung, a White House
spokesman, posted on social media. He said Keith Sonderling, the deputy secretary of labor, would serve as acting secretary.
Pressure on Ms. Chavez-DeRemer had mounted in recent weeks,
as investigators and congressional leaders homed in on questions about
her conduct in office, and that of her aides and members of her family.
The
Labor Department’s inspector general’s office is nearing the end of a
monthslong investigation into a whistle-blower’s allegations of
professional misconduct by Ms. Chavez-DeRemer and her closest aides. The
claims include that she was having an affair with a member of her
security team and used department resources for personal trips. Ms.
Chavez-DeRemer was expected to be interviewed in the matter in the
coming days.
Her husband was banned from Labor Department grounds after he allegedly assaulted two female staffers.
The
writing may have been on the wall for Chavez-DeRemer. After
unceremoniously firing ex-Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump was
apparently on the warpath
against his own Cabinet. An administration official anonymously told
Politico at the start of the month that Trump was “very angry” with his
advisers and was looking to move some of them around or even axe them
entirely.
Chavez-DeRemer and Commerce Secretary
Howard Lutnick were at risk of losing their jobs “imminently,” three
anonymous sources told Politico at the time.
They addressed Chavez-DeRemer's departure today on MORNING JOE.
Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian are suing
Donald Trump, according to 9News (1). They argue that his plans to build
a 250-foot "triumphal arch" near the Arlington National Cemetery's main
entrance lacks congressional approval, violates federal law, and would
be disrespectful of those buried there.
If erected, the triumphal arch — inspired by Arc de Triomphe in Paris —
would be the largest in the world. And critics worry that the sheer size
of it alone would dominate the landscape, leaving nearby landmarks like
the Lincoln Memorial — and our veterans — in its shadows.
"What has happened here is that the president has decided that he can
just unilaterally go ahead and erect this monument," Wendy Liu, who
represents the veterans who feel personal ties to the cemetery, told
9News. "The thought of being buried in the shadow of what they have
described as a vainglorious arch is profoundly disrespectful."
Let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:
Hegseth has made deep cuts in funding, personnel for civilian harm mitigation programs
More than 1,700 civilian
deaths, strikes on more than 30 schools, health care facilities since
the start of President Trump’s illegal war in Iran
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) led nine senators in opening a
new investigation into Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s role in
weakening civilian harm prevention programs and the catastrophic
civilian impacts of President Trump’s war in Iran.
“The high human toll of this war reflects the administration's
broader disregard for the strategic, legal, and moral imperative to
minimize civilian harm,” wrote the lawmakers. ”We call
on the administration to immediately end the war in Iran and fully
restore Congressionally authorized programs and staffing to mitigate
civilian harm.”
Since the start of President Trump’s illegal war in Iran, attacks on
civilian infrastructure have led to more than 1,700 civilian deaths,
along with strikes on more than 20 schools and a dozen health care
facilities.
“We are concerned that these were all preventable tragedies…This is a
concerning pattern and raises questions about whether the
administration is upholding international law and the laws of war,” wrote the senators.
The Senators called on DoD to answer questions about reported attacks
on two separate elementary schools in Iran that killed more than 170
people, most of them children.
Prior to the war, Secretary Hegseth made deep cuts to the military’s
civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) programs, fired personnel
at DoD’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, and slashed CHMR
staff at the U.S. combatant commands “by more than 90 percent.” All the
cuts were reportedly made over the objections of veterans organizations and top military officials, including admirals, generals, and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“We are also concerned that your leadership is further harming the
credibility of our armed forces, exacerbating threats to civilians and
U.S. servicemembers alike,” wrote the senators.
Secretary Hegseth has mocked “stupid rules of engagement” and
threatened to offer “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies” in Iran,
which would violate international law and the military’s own Law of War
Manual.
“These statements not only harm civilians and undermine established
standards, but also endanger U.S. servicemembers with greater risk of
reciprocation and erode good order and discipline,” warned the senators.
Senior military officials in the Trump administration agree that
mitigating civilian harm is vital for national security. Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby wrote to Congress that, “it is in
the U.S. national interest, as well as morally right, to seek to reduce
civilian harm to the degree possible.” During his confirmation, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said that combatant commanders
who incorporated CHMR personnel into planning “see positive impacts from
the program.”
“Your attempts to gut DoD’s civilian harm institutions contradicts
more than a decade of bipartisan consensus and DoD-led reforms,
initiated during the first Trump administration,” noted the senators.
“The importance of protecting civilian life to the greatest extent
possible is central to effective military operations and differentiates
the United States from our adversaries…We call on the administration to
immediately end the war in Iran, fully restore Congressionally
authorized programs and staffing to mitigate civilian harm,” concluded the senators.
The lawmakers asked Hegseth to explain the cuts to civilian harm
programs and explain what steps the Pentagon is taking to protect
civilian lives in Iran by May 4, 2026.
Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mark
Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and
Peter Welch (D-Vt.) joined in signing the letter.
The
combination of endless flattery from courtiers, unbridled ego, lack of
restraint from constitutional processes – and, quite often, the effects
of an increasingly superannuated brain – drives many despots in this
direction. Democratically elected leaders are usually immune: they’re
not in office for long enough, they have to worry about what voters
think, and as a result they just don’t get the chance to become so
unmoored from reality.
Donald Trump is
spectacularly bucking that trend. Trump has only been back in office for
15 months, but he has managed to check off almost every item on the
bucket list of the late-era autocrat.
Trump’s relatives are routinely accused of using his presidency to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. Trump has tried to add his name to the US Institute for Peace, the Kennedy Centre, and more than once has “joked” he should be added to Mount Rushmore. He is obsessively trying to build a ballroom several times larger than the White House, along with a 250ft triumphal arch that will dominate the DC skyline.
This
apparent speedrunning by Trump to the end zone of dictatorial behaviour
is an interesting curiosity in its own right, but more because it tells
us something about Trump, as well as the state of American democracy.
The
latter is more important: if the US constitution or its democratic
system was functioning as it should be, none of this would be happening.
Trump has no fear that either Congress or the judiciary will punish him
for his excesses.
He’s also been proven
correct, time and again, not to worry about constitutional checks and
balances. He assumes, correctly, that Congressional Republicans will let
him get away with anything – and, given he was re-elected after
inciting the January 6 riots, he has good reason to assume his voters
won’t punish him either.
The Republican Party
is set to take a battering in November’s midterm elections, but Trump
has never shown much concern about any election in which his name isn’t
on the ballot. Democrats promised they would crack down on Trump’s
excesses if they reclaim Congress – but their efforts to do that in his
first term were hardly a triumph.
Donald
Trump’s presidency is a morality lesson. He is a living example of what
happens when a man is given power that far exceeds his character. It is
time for America to acknowledge the lesson and move on.
Trump
is engaged in a constant struggle for respect, seeking affirmation to
maintain his facade of respectability. In reality, he seems to have
starved his soul in pursuit of material wealth, power and fame.
This
facade is as unstable as a Jenga tower. Trump fears that someone will
pull out the piece that makes it topple, so he relentlessly punishes
anyone who might try.
He
doesn’t understand, or perhaps will not admit, that he is memorializing
a decade in which he caused decay, division, degradation, degeneration
and disgrace. Once Trump leaves office, the plaques on his monuments
will explain how the government failed America and nearly allowed the
world’s continuing democracy to slip away.
He
is our nightmare. We have got to turn out this November and vote in
the midterms. It is the only way to save this country.
Monday, April 20, 2026. Chump's caught lying again, oil prices may be
high for the rest of the year a member of the administration admits, New
Mexico continues to investigate the last Jeffrey Epstein, Melania's
distraction may have been for naught, Ka$h Patel's drinking may be an
issue, and more.
President Trump said that a U.S. Navy destroyer had fired on an
Iran-flagged vessel that was trying to evade a blockade. He also said an
American delegation was heading to Pakistan for more peace talks, but
an Iranian official said there were “no plans” for negotiations.
Things ave not been going Chump's way for some time. And Friday, Chump was claiming victory in his war of choice on Iran.
Didn't work out that way. No, like most things out of Chump's mouth,
this was a lie. Sarah-Jane Collins (DAILY BEAST) reports:
It
took less than 12 hours for President Donald Trump’s latest claims of
victory in Iran to blow up in his face, as an Iranian Revolutionary
Guard ship fired on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Saturday.
Iran’s
military announced that it was against closing the vital waterway and
putting it under “strict control” until the U.S. ended its blockade. It
was a dizzying reversal after Iranian officials and Trump had said the
strait was open to commercial vessels again on Friday.
The 79-year-old president had called journalists with the news of his triumphs on Friday afternoon. In a phone interview, he told USA Today that the standoff over the crucial waterway was “over.”
“It’s over, it’s a great victory,” he said. “We’ve had a great victory and we’re going to finish it off.”
The
lesson should have been learned years ago. Chump is a known liar.
He's been one his entire life. If he makes a statement, present it as
"Chump claims . . ." Not as a fact, never as a fact, until you can
verify his claim. Many in the press didn't learn that lesson as Ben
noted Friday on MEIDASTOUCH NEWS.
Scarlett O'Toole (THE IRISH STAR) notes, "News anchor Richard Quest appeared live on CNN on Friday, April 17, to tell viewers the Strait of Hormuz is still closed amid the ongoing Iran war. This is despite the president insisting the strait is open."
Chump
lies. For example, he repeatedly claims prices will be back to normal
shortly, another member of his administration says differently. Minho Kim and Tim Balk (NEW YORK TIMES) report:
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said on
Sunday that gasoline prices in the United States had probably peaked but
acknowledged that they could remain elevated for months, undermining
President Trump’s earlier claim that high fuel prices would be
“short-term.”
Mr. Wright had said in
early March that the average gas price in the United States would fall
below $3 a gallon within “weeks” after President Trump and Israel
initiated airstrikes against Iran in late February. But on Sunday, Mr.
Wright appeared to backtrack in an appearance on the CNN program “State
of the Union” after the host, Jake Tapper, asked him when it would be
“realistic” for Americans to see $3 per gallon prices at the pump.
“I
don’t know,” Mr. Wright said. “That could happen later this year. That
might not happen until next year. But prices have likely peaked.”
When
asked again if he meant that gas prices might not return to prewar
levels until 2027, Mr. Wright suggested that such price levels were
“pretty tremendous” after accounting for inflation.
I
apologise for my use of rather blunt language. A reader cautioned me
that the use of such terms was stigmatising of people with mental health
issues. Of course, Donald Trump himself would regard this as woke
nonsense. Only this week, he used the phrase “NUT JOBS”
to describe four former cheerleaders who dared criticise his chaotic
and murderous adventure in Iran. Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace
Owens and Alex Jones were not only NUT JOBS, but they were also LOSERS
with low IQs.
In
this spirit, I think Donald Trump would appreciate others using direct
speech. So let’s not pussyfoot around talking about his “erratic” or
“unpredictable” behaviour. Let’s just say all the signs are that he is
positively unhinged.
Let’s consider four episodes this week in which the president’s behaviour was straightforwardly loony.
The first was the Jesus image thing.
Let’s say just say this slowly so that the full insanity of what
happened can fully sink in. The most powerful political leader in the
world posted an AI image of himself dressed up as the son of God,
healing the sick.
How
narcissistic do you have to be to do such a thing? What kind of
delusions of grandeur do you have, what degree of messianic complex or
hypomania?
A
useful measure of abnormality would be to consider how an averagely
well-run business or organisation would deal with a leader who behaved
so aberrantly that it became routine for observers to suggest they had
lost their marbles.
His mental capacity isn't the
only thing he's losing, he's also losing support. The polls have made
that clear. But so did an appearance last night. Tom Boggioni (RAW STORY) reports:
Donald Trump's ability to pack arenas is evaporating.
According to the Washington Post, Trump was the featured speaker at a Turning Point USA
rally in Phoenix at Dream City Church. Despite his boast earlier in the
day on Truth Social about addressing a "BIG CROWD," the turnout was sparse and underwhelming.
The
attendance numbers tell the story. A Turning Point USA spokeperson
claimed only about 3,000 people attended — meaning the church was
roughly two-thirds full at best. For a president who once commanded
arena-sized audiences, the half-empty megachurch represents a stunning
reversal.
The
demographic breakdown was equally telling, reports the Post. The
megachurch was supposed to be a venue for Trump to drum up support among
young voters. Instead, he found an audience whose members skewed older
and were focused on divisions within their own party.
On Friday, April 10, as
FBI Director Kash Patel was preparing to leave work for the weekend, he
struggled to log into an internal computer system. He quickly became
convinced that he had been locked out, and he panicked, frantically
calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White
House, according to nine people familiar with his outreach. Two of
these people described his behavior as a “freak-out.”
Patel
oversees an agency that employs roughly 38,000 people, including many
who are trained to investigate and verify information that can be
presented under oath in a court of law. News of his emotional outburst
ricocheted through the bureau, prompting chatter among officials and, in
some corners of the building, expressions of relief. The White House
fielded calls from the bureau and from members of Congress asking who
was now in charge of the FBI.
It
turned out that the answer was still Patel. He had not been fired. The
access problem, two people familiar with the matter said, appears to
have been a technical error, and it was quickly resolved. “It was all
ultimately bullshit,” one FBI official told me.
But
Patel, according to multiple current officials, as well as former
officials who have stayed close to him, is deeply concerned that his job
is in jeopardy.
The Atlantic report,
published Friday evening, claimed that Patel is known to drink to the
point of obvious intoxication at clubs in Washington, D.C. and his home
city of Las Vegas, violating FBI conduct standards and potentially
leaving the nation’s top law enforcement official vulnerable to coercion
or exploitation.
The
director’s drinking reportedly angered President Donald Trump, who is
famously sober, and whose brother died from alcoholism-related health
issues. Trump called Patel after the director was seen chugging beer with members of the victorious U.S. Olympic men’s hockey team to express his displeasure, according to the report.
Sources told The Atlantic
that Patel’s alleged conduct at the helm of the FBI has alarmed
officials about what would happen if the bureau was needed in a national
crisis, such as a terror attack.
Friday’s Atlantic
story also stated that Patel has drunk “to the point of obvious
intoxication” in public, often at Ned’s in Washington, D.C., and at the
Poodle Room in Las Vegas, where he lives. On occasion, the FBI has even
reportedly had to reschedule meetings “as a result of his alcohol-fueled
nights, six current and former officials and others familiar with
Patel’s schedule” told The Atlantic.
In
some cases, the director’s FBI security detail had difficulty waking
him because he was so drunk. In one incident, the FBI had to use
“breaching equipment” of the sort SWAT teams use:
On
multiple occasions in the past year, members of his security detail had
difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated, according
to information supplied to Justice Department and White House
officials. A request for “breaching equipment”—normally used by SWAT and
hostage-rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings—was made last
year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors, according
to multiple people familiar with the request.
The
report mentions Patel’s appearance in the U.S. men’s hockey team locker
room after its win over Canada in the Olympic gold medal game in Italy.
Patel was captured on camera chugging a beer. The scene reportedly prompted Trump to let Patel know he was unhappy with the director’s behavior.
Ka$h
Patel. It's a long list of potential fires Chump's considering --
there's Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and Ka$h are just a
few of the names. That's what happens when you nominate unqualified
people to posts. In most cases, they are not able to handle the job.
And that means that they're always in danger of being fired.
Ka$h
has misused government funds and resources on his girlfriend and on his
hobby as a hockey nut and he's done a very poor job as FBI director --
one screw up after another, always quick to run to the press with
self-congratulations only to have the 'we've done it!' explode in his
face.
Bongino's gone, Bondi's gone. Ka$h is the last big name in his department and he could be next.
He
gets so drunk apparently, per what Fitzpatrick told Jen Psaki, that the
FBI had to force open his front door one morning when they couldn't
reach him by phone and he wasn't answering his door. He apparently got
blotto drunk and was passed out and unable to awaken on his own.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) took to Bluesky and suggested an
exclusive from The Atlantic would be enough to see Patel removed from
his post. He wrote, "Stooge Patel getting sloshed at the 'Poodle Room' in Vegas? You simply cannot make this up!! Too good. Start the clock."
Former Trump administration staffer Olivia Troye, who is running for a Democratic Party House seat nomination in Virginia, added,
"Remember when I warned this would happen if Kash Patel became FBI
Director? I said he was unfit. He threatened to sue me. Now he is the
Director—and it’s happening."
Patel has exhibited erratic behavior, including unexplained absences and what witnesses described as "bouts of excessive drinking" that have alarmed FBI staff, according to Sarah Fitzpatrick's investigation in The Atlantic.
The
lawyer FBI Director Kash Patel has enlisted to help him go to war
against The Atlantic for a report accusing him of “excessive drinking”
is known for several unsuccessful MAGA-aligned lawsuits.
Jesse
Binnall represented former North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark
Robinson in a failed defamation lawsuit against CNN and also worked on
President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
“See you in court,” Binnall posted on X following the publication of a Friday report by The Atlantic,
which cited sources familiar with Patel, 46, alleging he was alarming
officials with excessive drinking, erratic behavior, and unexplained
absences.
More than two decades after she was sexually abused at Jeffrey Epstein’s
New Mexico ranch, Rachel Benavidez is still waiting for someone to be
held responsible for crimes there.
She is among at least 10 girls and young women
who have alleged they were groomed or assaulted at Zorro Ranch,
Epstein’s gated compound, beginning in the late 1990s. Benavidez and
others said they were lured by promises of money or career help, then
found themselves trapped, surrounded by miles of dry grassland with no
neighbors in sight. They said they were groped, forced into nude
massages, assaulted with sex toys, raped. They overcame paralyzing fear
to share their ordeals again and again. And yet authorities have never
fully investigated what happened at the ranch.
“Until we are heard, until survivors are heard and believed, then I
don’t think there’s ever going to be any justice,” Benavidez, 52, said
in a recent interview, her first since the Justice Department in January
released millions of documents that brought renewed attention to Epstein’s activities at the ranch, and missed opportunities to investigate them.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said he is committed to finishing an investigation that should have been done years ago. His office searched the ranch
in March, the first time law enforcement had done so. And he promised
to give survivors a safe place to share their experiences.
In the days since Pam Bondi’s exit from Donald Trump’s
justice department, Jeffrey Epstein survivors and transparency
advocates have been confronted by mixed messaging, prompting questions
about whether a full accounting of his crimes would ever be revealed.
Legal
veterans told the Guardian that authorities’ decisions – such as
Bondi’s failure to appear for a congressional subpoena about her
handling of Epstein investigative files – portend poorly for
accountability. Moreover, her replacement’s comments about the status of
Epstein investigations has been perceived by some as an effort to
acknowledge prior missteps without presenting definitive solutions.
Bondi’s non-appearance at her scheduled congressional deposition did not come as a surprise.
Trump’s Department of Justice, now helmed temporarily by his former criminal defense attorney Todd Blanche, had told
the House oversight committee that Bondi would not appear for the 14
April hearing. Committee members said they were told this non-appearance
was because Bondi “is no longer attorney general and was subpoenaed in her capacity as attorney general”.
A committee spokesperson said:
“Since Pam Bondi is no longer attorney general, Chairman Comer will
speak with Republican members and the Department of Justice about the
status of the deposition subpoena and confer on next steps.”
Comer also reportedly engaged in behind-the-scenes efforts to avoid Bondi’s deposition prior to her removal, according to the New York Times.
Robert
Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, vowed that his
colleagues would take action after Bondi failed to appear. “Pam Bondi is
evading a lawful congressional subpoena by failing to appear before the
oversight committee for a deposition about the Epstein files and the
White House cover-up,” he said in a statement. “She must appear before
the committee, and if she continues to ignore the law, Oversight
Democrats will move forward with contempt proceedings immediately.”
Some
say Chump started the Iran War to distract from The Epstein
Scandal. Recently, Melanie publicly stepped into the picture causing
everyone to wonder what was she attempting to distract from? Sarah Beth Spraggins (THE SPECTATOR) notes:
On April 9, Melania Trump held a lone press conference. She showed up
in a charcoal suit, delivered a speech and turned to exit, runway style,
without pausing. Melania doesn’t take questions from the press.
The facts, according to Melania: Jeffrey Epstein had not introduced
her to Donald Trump. She met her husband, “by chance, at a New York City
party, in 1998.” She and her husband were acquainted with Ghislaine
Maxwell and Epstein, but this was “common in New York City and Palm
Beach.” She had engaged Maxwell in polite “casual correspondence” over
email. That was the extent of the relationship. “I am not Epstein’s
victim,” she said somberly. White House staff were perplexed.
Why had the presser been called? There have been growing rumors that
Paolo Zampolli – the modeling agent Melania credits with encouraging her
to move to the United States – may have used his ties to the Trumps to
have his ex-partner Amanda Ungaro deported.
Ungaro,
who was part of President Donald Trump and Melania’s social circle for
years, issued a number of angry posts on X directed at the first lady,
the president as well as former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. “I will
tear down your corrupt system, even if it’s the last thing I do in my
life. I will go all the way — I am not afraid. Maybe you should be
afraid of what I know … of who you are, and who your husband is,” she
said in a post that was dated April 8 and tagged the first lady’s X
account. She threatened legal action against the first lady “and your
pedophile husband.” To Bondi, she said in a post: “Do you fully
understand the information I possess regarding you and the individuals
associated with you? I strongly advise you to consider the seriousness
of these matters. Any actions taken against me or attempts to escalate
this situation could have significant legal consequences.”
[. . .]
Ungaro,
in a phone interview from Brazil, confirmed that she posted the remarks
on X. She said she felt betrayed by Melania, with whom she had been
friends for two decades. She said she had an expired visa and, before
her arrest, she had applied for a new one. She said she reached out
unsuccessfully to Melania — and then learned that Zampolli was
responsible for having her picked up and jailed by ICE. She spent three
months in a Miami detention center before she was deported in October.
Zampolli, 56, is a former modeling agent who met Ungaro when she was 17.
They were together for nearly two decades, and worked as diplomats in
the first Trump administration. She was a United Nations ambassador to
Grenada, and Zampolli was ambassador to Dominica, both Caribbean
nations. He now serves as a special envoy for global partnerships in the
Trump administration, and remains close to Trump and the first lady.
Zampolli has said that he introduced Trump to Melania. Zampolli, whom
Trump also appointed to the Kennedy Center board, reached out to a top
ICE official and asked that Ungaro be deported, according to The New
York Times. The Times reported that the official, David Venturella,
called ICE’s Miami office “to ensure” that agents would pick up Ungaro
from jail before she could be given bail. “During the call, Mr.
Venturella noted that the case was important to someone close to the
White House,” the Times reported. Zampolli told the Times he only
reached out to inquire about the process for Ungaro’s deportation. The
Miami Herald was unsuccessful in reaching Zampolli through the White
House. The White House also did not respond to a request for comments
about Ungaro’s allegations.
[. . .]
Ungaro
gave an interview last week with the Spanish publication El Pais, where
she described the flight she took on Epstein’s plane to the U.S. with
her then-agent, Jean-Luc Brunel, and more than a dozen other girls in
2002, just before she turned 17. She declined to tell the Herald what
information she has about Epstein or the Trumps, or others associated
with them. But she did say she has damaging information.
Amanda Ungaro, a Brazilian former model, has leveled fresh accusations about first lady Melania Trump and alleged ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during an interview that published Saturday.
Towards the end of the interview,
Ungaro stated that while Melania never threatened her directly, the
first lady "knows that I witnessed highly compromising interactions"
over the two decades she was married to Paolo Zampolli, President Donald Trump's former business partner and current Special Envoy for Global Partnerships.
"Melania felt threatened, and
while she did not threaten me directly, she knows that I witnessed
highly compromising interactions over the course of 20 years," Ungaro
said. "She does not know the full extent of what I know—for I lived with
Paolo for 20 years."
She
did not specify what those interactions might be, but when asked if she
would testify before the House Oversight Committee, Ungaro said:
"Absolutely."
The relationships the financier maintained with elites multiplied after
his 2008 sentence: in at least 65 cases, their last contact with the
magnate came after his prison term. Among others, the tech executive and
one-time right-hand man of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, wrote to Epstein in
2012 to coordinate a visit to the island, though Musk says that the
trip never came to pass. In 2018 and 2019, Epstein sought advice from
the renowned linguist Noam Chomsky, who he had met in 2015, on how to
rehabilitate his public image after the abuse charges. “What the
vultures dearly want is public response, which then provides a public
opening for an onslaught of venomous attacks, many from just publicity
seekers or cranks of all sorts,” the philosopher told the magnate.
Some of the relationships lasted for decades. Larry Summers,
former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, met Epstein when Summers was the
president of Harvard, their friendship blossoming after the financier
made a $6.5 million donation to the university. Richard Axel, a Nobel
Prize winner in medicine in 2004, resigned from his multiple positions
at Columbia University after it came to light that the two had been
linked since the 1980s.
Epstein met supermodel Naomi Campbell around 2001, and she invited him to her exclusive 40th
birthday party in Cannes in 2010 and sent emails asking to see him in
2015, although her lawyers say that she didn’t know that he had been
accused of sexual assault.
Some of the public figures
that have been linked to the case say they met the pedophile long before
the first allegations against him were made public, like former U.S.
president Bill Clinton, who took several trips in Epstein’s private jet
between 2002 and 2003. It’s a similar case with Donald Trump, who also
appears in the database, met the pedophile in the ‘80s and was a very
close friend of his. Trump, who has been implicated in the scandal
through photos he took with the multi-millionaire and allegations of
abuse that authorities did not follow up on, says that their
relationship ended in 2004.
The publication of the Epstein files has led to an avalanche of consequences in more than a dozen countries,
which are now investigating whether any of his abuses took place in
their territory. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, Slovakia and Ireland
are among them. At least 16 people related to Epstein have faced some
kind of legal consequence, like judicial proceedings and lawsuits.
Another 56 have encountered either personal or professional impacts.
In
the United Kingdom, the multi-millionaire’s close relationship with the
former Prince Andrew — and Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson — created
one of the worse crises in the history of the British royal family.
Meanwhile, the friendship between the pedophile and Britain’s former
ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, put the Keir Starmer’s administration on the ropes.
Two members of the Labour government have even resigned, despite having
no connection whatsoever to Epstein: Morgan McSweeney, chief of staff,
and Tim Allan, director of communications.
The
pedophile’s tentacles also extended to France, where the Paris
prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into former Minister of
Culture Jack Lang, his daughter Caroline and diplomat Fabrice Aidan,
whose case is also being examined by the Foreign Affairs Ministry. Lang
was forced to resign as the director of the Institut du Monde Arabe
(Arab World Institute), a public organization based in Paris, as a
result of his relationship with Epstein.
Yes,
Chump did meet Epstein in the 80s and began hanging around with him
back then. EL PAIS is correct. Too many outlets want to pretend as
though it was much later than that; however, the two had a friendship
which lasted decades. That lie is not unlike Todd Blanche's lies that
there's no evidence to prosecute anyone for the Epstein crimes. Camaron Stevenson (COURIER NEWSROOM) reports:
The total amount paid by financial institutions, royals, and close
associates of Jeffrey Epstein to keep their involvement in his
international sex trafficking empire out of civil court has now
surpassed $1 billion. At the same time, the Trump administration
continues to insist there is no evidence to warrant any criminal
investigation.
This week, Bank of America began the process of paying $72.5 million
to roughly 75 women abused by Epstein, as part of a March 2026
settlement. Like other institutions, it admitted no wrongdoing. The
settlement follows similar agreements by competitors JPMorgan and
Deutsche Bank, both accused of ignoring Epstein’s blatantly illegal
activity because it benefited them financially.
“Rather than merely providing routine banking services to Epstein,
Bank of America went far beyond what a non-complicit bank would have
done and instead assisted Epstein in setting up the necessary financial
structure to operate his sex-trafficking venture,” the lawsuit alleged.
“Instead of behaving as an ordinary provider of routine banking
services, Bank of America instead assisted Epstein in covering up his
past crimes and committing new ones.”
Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks accused of enabling Epstein’s money laundering and human trafficking are riddled with the names
of his alleged accomplices — Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Harry Beller,
and Lesley Groff, among others. To date, the investigation into
Epstein’s multi-billion dollar enterprise has resulted in just two
arrests and one conviction.
“So the big misconception is that the Department of Justice or me has
ever said ‘case closed,’” acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche told NBC News. “What we have said is that from the information that we have within the Epstein files, we do not have a case against anybody.”
While the DOJ does have an Epstein-related investigation underway, Blanche’s characterization of his department’s inquiry appears to be intentionally misleading. In reality, the DOJ closed its full investigation into Epstein’s sex trafficking operation in July 2025, and opened a narrower one five months later focused on finding ties between Epstein and Trump’s political opponents.
Omitted from the Trump administration’s current investigation are
many of the individuals and institutions tied to Epstein’s operation who
have collectively paid more than $1 billion to insist they were unaware
of his well-documented and highly publicized illicit activity. In each
lawsuit, as soon as trial dates were set, defendants moved quickly to
instead settle for a hefty sum.
Litigation against major banks snowballed over time, after the $150
million fine given to Deutsche Bank in 2020 set the precedent for a
successful case. Since then, victims have pursued cases one by one,
securing settlements from Deutsche Bank in 2023, JPMorgan in 2024, and
Bank of America in 2026. A separate lawsuit filed in October 2025 against Bank of New York Mellon, another longtime financial institution of Epstein’s, is ongoing.
Todd
Blanche appears unwilling or unable to do his job a acting Attorney
General. That job also involves public apologies to those that the
Justice Dept screws over. Chelsie Napiza (INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES) reports:
Epstein survivor Juliette Bryant has publicly accused the US
Department of Justice of publishing an alleged nude photograph of her,
taken by Jeffrey Epstein without her consent, as part of its mass
release of files from the convicted sex offender's investigation.
In
a post to X on 17 April 2026, Bryant, who says she was trafficked by
Epstein from South Africa in 2002, wrote: 'DOJ! SHARING NAKED PHOTOS OF
ME THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN. TAKEN BY EPSTEIN. DOJ IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT
VICTIMS NOT HURT THEM.'
Bryant, who was compensated through the
Epstein Victims' Compensation Programme in 2020 and reached a separate
settlement with JP Morgan Chase in 2023, has been one of the most
publicly visible survivors throughout the file release process. Her
latest allegation is among the most direct: that the agency tasked with
delivering justice for Epstein's victims has itself become an instrument
of their further violation.
Juliette Bryant is
only one person that Blanche owes an apology to. And an explanation.
Every page released was supposed to have been vetted. But somehow they
released a new photo of one of the survivors? Blanche is acting
Attorney General, he should be making a public apology.
He
won't. He couldn't even own the 'mix up' when the Justice Dept refused
to release statements on three interviews they had with Jane Doe who
accused Chump of assault when she was a teenager. Marilyn W. Thompson and Mitchell Black (POST & COURIER) report:
The FBI had a heads-up that the former Hilton Head woman might have explosive charges. On July 8, 2019, a call came into a tip line the FBI set up after arresting Epstein on sex trafficking charges.
William F. Sweeney Jr., then the assistant director-in-charge of the
FBI’s New York field office, had urged women who believed they were
Epstein’s victims to call.
One
person reported that she had knowledge of a friend who claimed to have
been sexually assaulted by both Epstein and Trump as a teenager after
randomly meeting Epstein on Hilton Head. The tipster’s call was logged
into FBI files, and records of it were later made public in such a way
that the caller’s identity was exposed.
An FBI internal memo circulated last year included notes that used the caller’s first name and indicated that she had been charged in a criminal case in South Carolina.
The Post and Courier discovered her full name by reviewing the archived
case, which had been dismissed. She has declined to speak to The Post
and Courier.
The DOJ has said it corrected any errors as soon as it learned of them, and it eventually redacted the caller’s first name.
An
FBI employee recorded her initial tip and sent a file to the Seattle
Field Office, asking agents there to interview the woman. Referring
cases to field offices was common as calls poured in, saving time and
money from having agents fly around the country, according to former FBI
agents.
The downside was that field agents were not as familiar with the
Epstein investigation, which was based in New York and involved a
dedicated team of prosecutors and FBI agents. Investigators there had
interviewed dozens of potential witnesses and resurrected files from
Epstein’s state conviction in Florida in 2008 for soliciting
prostitution of a minor.
The employee referring the case to Seattle asked agents to contact
the Epstein team before arranging a sit-down interview. It is unclear if
they did so.
Seattle agents conducted their first interview
on July 24, 2019. The alleged victim discussed how Epstein lured her to
a villa at Sea Pines resort for a babysitting gig, and then plied her
with drugs and alcohol before repeatedly abusing her. The victim ended
the interview without describing her alleged encounter with Trump.
Within
the coming weeks, agents formalized handwritten notes into an interview
summary. As is standard practice, that report offered no opinions about
her credibility.
Donald Chump was Epstein's friend
and Ghislaine Maxwell's friend. That's why Todd Blanche met with
Maxwell last summer and why Ghislaine was moved to a Club Fed type
prison. Maxwell is planning her release, waiting for it. At THE NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER, Rachel Cohen notes:
David Oscar Markus, an attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, plans to eventually ask President Donald Trump to pardon her.
In
an interview with Politico released Friday, Markus said it is “no
secret” that Maxwell — the only convicted co-conspirator of Jeffrey
Epstein — “obviously wants clemency.” But he acknowledged that he does
not believe “now is the best time to do it, with everything going on,”
appearing to reference how the Department of Justice’s handling of files
tied to the late convicted sex offender continues to remain a major
news story.
Lets wind down with this from Senator Alex Padilla's office:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla
(D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Budget Committee, questioned Russell
Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), about
President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget and its eye-popping
42% increase in defense spending. Padilla highlighted the absurdity of
the unprecedented proposal, particularly at a moment when Vought and
this Administration refuse to tell the American people how much the
unauthorized, unconstitutional war in Iran is costing taxpayers on a
daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
“The public has seen this proposal for what it is. It is not a
significant investment in health care. It is not a significant
investment in housing. It is not a significant investment in energy
assistance. It is not a significant investment in disaster preparedness.
It is not a significant investment in job training,” said Senator Padilla. “It is a huge spike in defense spending.”
Padilla further hammered Vought on why he didn’t take the opportunity
during his testimony in the House yesterday to encourage House
Republicans to pass the Senate’s unanimous legislation to fund all elements of the Department of Homeland Security except for ICE and Border Patrol.
Earlier this month, Padilla released a statement
on President Trump’s FY 2027 budget proposal, calling on Congress to
reject it and “fight for one that reflects our values, not the whims of
Donald Trump.”
Video of Padilla’s full questioning is available here.
A full transcript of Padilla’s questioning is below.
Full transcript:
PADILLA: Mr. Vought, several of us have recognized
the $1.5 trillion increase in proposed spending for the Department of
Defense. When that number first came out—that proposed budget first came
out—to recognize a 42% increase, it didn’t just raise eyebrows, I think
it raised alarm bells for a lot of people. Not going to, at this
moment, get into a debate of defense spending versus non-defense
spending and the historical balance we’ve tried to maintain, but just
that 42% increase, $1.5 trillion, seems like a whole lot of money for
someone who has a track record of talking about fiscal responsibility
and concern about the deficit. As I’ve tracked, not just your testimony
in the House yesterday but through public reporting, I understand you’ve
tried to justify it by [saying] “it’s meant for significant paradigm
shifting investment.” I think you used that language earlier today in
this hearing, and that “for the industrial base to double and triple
capabilities and build more facilities, cost has to be booked in the
first year.” Is that still accurate? Then logic would tell me that if we
are booking these costs in the first year, then we should anticipate
significant reductions in your proposed budgets and needs in the next
fiscal year and the fiscal year after that. Is that what we should
anticipate for future budgets?
VOUGHT: This is viewed as one-time increase of this
level. I don’t expect all of the defense levels into the future to be at
this level.
PADILLA: So we would be able to count on significant reductions in your proposed budget next year and the year after that?
VOUGHT: I’m saying that we have not built that into
the budget and it was meant to be a one-time, seize-the-moment, pay for
what we can [to] ensure that we have people that are driving the best
deals possible at the Department of War — what kind of deals can they
secure if they have the money there. That’s where this was. I’m not
going to speak to next year’s budget process other than to say that’s
been our intent.
PADILLA: For somebody who really claims to pay
attention a lot to dollars and cents, it sounds like very vague and
unconclusive. Speaking of your testimony in front of the House
yesterday, did you take the opportunity to urge House members,
particularly House Republicans, to pass the bill that’s been passed
twice unanimously by the Senate to fund TSA, pay those employees, to
fund FEMA, pay those employees, fund the Coast Guard, pay those
employees, fund CISA, pay those employees? Yes or no?
VOUGHT: Senator, you all shut the government down, the whole government down, and then you shut DHS down for a month.
PADILLA: The Senate has passed this bill twice on a unanimous basis.
VOUGHT: After a month, after a shutdown.
PADILLA: Did you take the opportunity to encourage the House to pass it, yes or no?
VOUGHT: Senator, of all those lines — yes, I would
encourage the House to pass it — but all of those TSA lines are as a
result of Senate Democrats’ shutdown of the Department of Homeland
Security. I think the American people need to know that.
PADILLA: It’s not a Democratic shutdown, it’s a
House Republican shutdown. We have a pathway forward and you had a
golden opportunity yesterday and you didn’t take it.
Now, moving forward. As my colleagues have recognized, and every time
we talk about the annual proposed budget, we talk about it being a
statement of our values and our priorities. The public has seen this
proposal for what it is. It is not a significant investment in health
care. It is not a significant investment in housing. It is not a
significant investment in energy assistance. It is not a significant
investment in disaster preparedness. It is not a significant investment
in job training.
It is a huge spike in defense spending. Now, some people, they’re
trying to give us the benefit of the doubt, said “well, whether we like
it or not, because we know it’s not authorized, but there’s this war in
Iran that the President has dragged us into.” Maybe that would justify
the big increase in spending, yet you refuse to give specific numbers.
You refused yesterday in front of the House and you’re refusing here
today to provide specific costs as to what this war is costing us on a
daily, weekly, or monthly basis and going.
We’d expect so much more from the head of OMB. It sounds like, it
seems like you’re not taking this job seriously to stay on top of the
dollars, let alone this being a complete abandonment of a promise that
the Administration supposedly made to the American people to bring down
costs. The cost of housing is still high. The cost of groceries is
growing. The price at the pump that people are paying is still
continuing to spike because of this unauthorized war. That’s not a
question, that’s just my conclusion.
I do have one more question, though. When you were coming through for
confirmation, several of us here raised questions and concerns about
your prior statements—[an] objective you seem to have had to put federal
employees into trauma. You remember those statements. You guys got off
to a great start. Between DOGE experiments last year, funding freezes,
layoffs, pushing people to retirement, the relocation of agencies —
making it harder for people who wanted to stay working in departments
and agencies that they love — the elimination of certain departments.
There’s 350,000 fewer federal employees today, and those that remain, a
good chunk of them are worried whether they may be next. What grade do
you give yourself in successfully putting federal employees into trauma?
VOUGHT: I reject the premise of your question other
than to say I’ll going to let the President of the United States grade
my performance.
PADILLA: If the President asked you what grade you would give yourself, what would you say?
VOUGHT: I’m going to let the President of the United States grade my performance, Senator. Thank you.
PADILLA: We’re going to grade this performance in November real quick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
