Politics

خلاصہ: ‘He got tired of me winning’: How Thomas Massie outmaneuvered Trump on EpsteinPresident Donald Trump's call for House Republicans to support releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents was a stunning capitulation after a months-long campaign to block the vote. It was also a specific defeat for Trump at the hands of a despised GOP opponent: Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. “He got tired of me winning,” Massie said of Trump’s U-turn in an interview Monday morning. Insisting “I DON’T CARE!” in a late-night Truth Social post, Trump was bowing to the inevitable — a broad House Republican mutiny on a vote that was only scheduled because Massie forced it. It was the result of Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) launching a discharge petition aimed at sidestepping senior GOP leaders who desperately wanted to avoid bringing the issue to the House floor. The campaign to avoid the vote got remarkably ugly in the days before Trump finally conceded, with the president personally attacking Massie for recently remarrying after the sudden death in June 2024 of his wife of more than 30 years. Just hours before Trump’s reversal, one of his top political advisers called him “garbage” in an X post. That adviser, Chris LaCivita, is carrying out a Trump-ordered effort to unseat Massie from the rural northern Kentucky seat he has held since 2012. Trump recently endorsed a challenger, former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, in the GOP primary. Massie has not flinched from the threats. Politically, he has seen the best fundraising of his congressional career, entering October with more than $2 million in his campaign coffers. As for the personal attacks, Massie said Monday he and his wife were laughing them off. “She said, ‘I told you we should have invited him to the wedding!’” Massie said. Massie’s efforts around Epstein have been no laughing matter for the White House, with top aides and legislative affairs staff furiously scrambling late last week to head off the completion of the discharge petition. That included pulling Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) into the White House Situation Room in the final hours to try to persuade her to remove her name from the petition she had signed alongside GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a survivor of sexual assault. All three have cast their support for the petition as an effort to protect women. Trump's pressure campaign failed. The three female House Republicans held firm, and the petition notched its final and 218th signature Wednesday moments after Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) was sworn in following her September special election win.Despite a final barrage of attacks from the president over the weekend — which included Trump calling his once-close ally Greene a “traitor” and threatening a GOP primary against her — backers of the Massie-Khanna discharge effort knew they had the president beat. There were emerging signs that it was Massie, not Trump, who had his fingers closer to the pulse of the MAGA base. Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a top Trump ally in the House, posted online he would be “voting NO on the Epstein Hoax” as he sought to rally Republicans to “stand by” the president’s side. Nehls received an immediate barrage of online pushback, suggesting a position against full transparency on Epstein would not be sustainable. Massie, in conjunction with the three GOP women who signed the discharge petition, have sought to put Epstein’s victims front and center amid the battle. They invited several to Capitol Hill in September to keep the fight in the public eye as members returned from the summer recess. They are tentatively scheduled to appear together again Tuesday ahead of the final House vote. “This shouldn’t have been a battle, and unfortunately, it has been one,” Greene said as she left a meeting with Epstein victims in September. Yet for months, senior White House officials labored to convince rank-and-file Republicans to keep their names off Massie’s discharge effort. That, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, included warnings that any effort to support an Epstein vote would be viewed as a direct and personal move against the president. Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein allegations, and no evidence has suggested that Trump took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation. The president also has maintained that he and Epstein had a falling out years ago. “President Trump has been consistently calling for transparency related to the Epstein files,” said Abigail Jackson, a deputy White House press secretary, in a statement. “The Democrats knew about Epstein and his victims for years and did nothing to help them until they thought they could weaponize the files against the President.” In an effort to undercut Massie's effort, GOP leaders and the Justice Department worked to release 30,000 pages of DOJ documents in early September, right after Massie could begin gathering signatures on his petition. But lawmakers quickly realized most of the materials had been previously released. Around that time, the White House’s key legislative affairs liaison to the House, Jeff Freeland, was on the Hill, seeking to head off Massie right after lawmakers returned from recess. “Jeff introduced himself to me outside of the Capitol, and he said I was moving too fast for him,” Massie said in the interview. “I told him I made a mistake by getting 12 sponsors , because I had given him his whip list to block the most likely signers” of the discharge petition. Over the past week, it became clear to House GOP leaders that they would no longer be able to keep the Epstein measure off the House floor. Shortly after Grijalva signed, Speaker Mike Johnson announced he would expedite the vote, holding it this week rather than next month as required under the discharge petition. Still, with Trump opposing the effort, he maintained Massie’s legislation was reckless and “moot” now that the House Oversight Committee was heading up its own probe. Last week, Johnson tried calling one of the...

خلاصہ: Marjorie Taylor Greene Takes a Flamethrower to Trump and ‘Weak Republicans’ for His Attack on Rep. Massie’s WifeTom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) took a metaphorical flamethrower to President Donald Trump for a post he wrote attacking Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) wife — and had some scorching words as well for the “weak Republicans” who “stay silent” instead of defending their colleague. Once a staunch supporter of Trump and one of the most MAGA-fied members of Congress , Greene has soured on the president and his supporters, dropping a series of rhetorical bombs even as she complained of threats she’s faced as a result after Trump branded her a “ traitor .” Over the weekend, Greene went so far as to declare the MAGA movement “ all a lie .” A particular bitter point of dispute between the two erstwhile allies is the ongoing controversy over the release of the Epstein files (and the content therein ), with Greene having spent her last few months in Congress vehemently supporting Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna’s (D-CA) bill requiring the DOJ to release the files. After mounting pressure — including from Massie, Greene, and other Republicans — Trump signed a law last November to release the files related to deceased child sex predator Jeffrey Epstein , with a deadline of Friday, Dec. 19. The law required a wide release of millions of documents, photos, videos, and other files, with redactions limited to victims’ names and other identifying information. The Department of Justice missed that deadline, and since then, there have been additional releases of files that have revealed additional powerful people who were in communication with Epstein, thousands of mentions of Trump , and controversial failures to redact victims’ names . In the most recent release, the files also included nude images of victims that the DOJ had failed to redact . All the while, critics argue that the DOJ has failed to disclose documents that are required to be released by law and redacted information that should not be concealed, including names and other details about the men who allegedly participated in Epstein’s child sex trafficking and abuse. Trump viciously blasted Massie in a Truth Social post last November in the wake of the bill passing, and also took some swipes at his wife, Carolyn Moffa Massie , whom he married in Nov. 2025 after his first wife, high school sweetheart Rhonda Howard Massie , died in July 2024. Trump again targeted Carolyn Massie on Monday in a post accusing her of turning her husband into a “Liberal.” “So now he’s attacking my wife who voted for him three times,” Massie posted in response. “Maybe someone told him she’s actually the one who suggested I ask Pam Bondi in person at a dinner when we would get Phase 2 of the Epstein files. Bondi said there were no more files. As they say, the rest is history.” So now he’s attacking my wife who voted for him three times. Maybe someone told him she’s actually the one who suggested I ask Pam Bondi in person at a dinner when we would get Phase 2 of the Epstein files. Bondi said there were no more files. As they say, the rest is history. pic.twitter.com/czvVJQeKvF — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 2, 2026 Greene reacted to Trump’s latest post attacking the Massies on Monday evening by sharing her former House colleague’s tweet and adding a long post of her own that shredded Trump for “treat those who support him the most like crap” and the “weak Republicans in the House” who “stay silent refusing to utter even a word of support for their ‘friend’ Thomas Massie.” “Shame on every one of you,” Greene wrote. “Cowards. You make me sick.” President Trump treats those who support him the most like crap. Thomas’s wife voted for him 3 times. She’s not a “radical left flamethrower.” And Thomas Massie votes with the President 91% of the time, but won’t vote to protect Epstein’s sick pedophile and rapists friends or… https://t.co/VunjRiChgt — Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (@FmrRepMTG) February 3, 2026 The full text of Greene’s post: President Trump treats those who support him the most like crap. Thomas’s wife voted for him 3 times. She’s not a “radical left flamethrower.” And Thomas Massie votes with the President 91% of the time, but won’t vote to protect Epstein’s sick pedophile and rapists friends or send American’s hard earned tax dollars to Israel’s wars or any other foreign country. The President should be more concerned with voters, who put him in office, like Thomas Massie’s wife, not super rich donors and their favorite foreign countries and business demands. Losing elections to Democrats in super red districts, like TX senate, where Trump endorsed, should be sending warning alarms across the President’s desk. But instead he’s attacking REPUBLICAN Thomas Massie with one of the most conservative voting records in the House and his new wife with a three time MAGA voting record. And all the weak Republicans in the House stay silent refusing to utter even a word of support for their “friend” Thomas Massie. Shame on every one of you. Cowards. You make me sick. — The post Marjorie Taylor Greene Takes a Flamethrower to Trump and ‘Weak Republicans’ for His Attack on Rep. Massie’s Wife first appeared on Mediaite .Source InformationPublisher: Politics | MediaiteOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: No filibuster deal with House conservatives, Thune saysSenate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Tuesday he has made no decisions about bypassing Senate filibuster rules to skirt the normal 60-vote margin required to advance legislation in the chamber. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said Monday she had White House-brokered "assurances" that the Senate would allow for a "standing" or "talking" filibuster that could allow the SAVE Act, a House-passed elections bill pushed by conservative hard-liners , to be enacted into law. Thune was not party to Luna's conversation with President Donald Trump, which prompted Luna to indicate she would support a massive spending bill moving through the House on Tuesday. Many GOP senators have long opposed weakening the 60-vote margin, believing it would open the door to far-reaching Democratic policies. "Some of our colleagues in the Senate are interested in it," Thune said. "We will have a conversation about it. Nothing decided."Source InformationPublisher: CongressOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Trump says Republicans 'should take over the voting' and 'nationalise' US electionsAmerican elections are primarily run by state law, and voting is administered by local officials across the country.Source InformationPublisher: BBC NewsOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docketEmpirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future. By the middle of January of this term, the Supreme Court had issued seven decisions in argued cases. For casual observers, this might seem unremarkable. But anyone tracking the court’s recent patterns knows that something unusual is happening: the 2025-26 term represents a striking departure from a recent trend that had seen early decisions nearly vanish from the court’s calendar. An analysis of more than 1,700 argued cases decided between 2000 and the beginning of the 2025-26 term reveals a dramatic transformation in when the Supreme Court releases its opinions. The court that once regularly issued a fifth of its decisions before February has, in recent years, pushed an overwhelming majority of its work to the final weeks of June. This shift raises questions about the court’s internal processes, the complexity of its docket, and whether institutional changes have significantly altered the rhythm of Supreme Court decision-making. The disappearing act: early-term decisions in decline The numbers tell a stark story. From the 2000-01 term through the 2015-16 term, the court routinely issued between 15% and 30% of its decisions in the period between October and January. These early releases often involved straightforward cases with broad agreement among the justices, allowing the court to clear its docket and focus attention on more contentious matters scheduled for later in the term. Then something changed. Beginning around 2016, the proportion of early-term decisions began to plummet. By the 2023-24 term, the court issued only two decisions between October and January – a modern anomaly. The 2024-25 term was only marginally different, producing just a single decision between October and January, representing less than 2% of that term’s output. For two consecutive terms, the court thus essentially abandoned its practice of issuing opinions in the fall months. In other words, the tradition of the “fall docket” – a recognizable feature of the court’s calendar for decades – effectively disappeared. This year’s rebound to seven decisions by late January (12.5% of the term’s expected output) therefore stands in sharp contrast to the prior two terms. Whether it represents a course correction or merely a temporary deviation, however, remains to be seen. The June crunch: when everything happens at once What is clear is that, as early-term decisions dwindled, the court’s output became increasingly concentrated at the opposite end of the calendar. June, traditionally the court’s busiest month, evolved into something approaching a decision-release marathon. The numbers are, again, striking. Since 2000, June accounted for roughly 30-35% of the court’s annual decisions. In recent terms, that figure has exploded. During the 2023-24 term – the same term that produced only two decisions between October and January – a staggering 84.5% of all decisions came in the April-through-June window, with June alone accounting for 50% of the term’s output. The 2024-25 term showed a similar pattern, with 76% of decisions concentrated in the final three months. This concentration has practical consequences. News coverage of the court becomes compressed into a few frantic weeks, with multiple high-profile decisions often released on the same day. The public’s attention, already fragmented, must somehow absorb and process complex constitutional questions in rapid succession. The compression also affects how the court’s work is perceived. When contentious decisions cluster at the term’s end, it can create the impression – accurate or not – that the justices deliberately hold controversial cases until the last possible moment. (Whether this reflects strategic calculation, the natural complexity of divided cases, or simply the randomness of when opinions are ready for release remains a subject of some debate .) A lengthening deliberation: time from argument to decision The court’s timing shift is not merely about when in the term it releases its decisions, but also about how long cases take from oral argument to an opinion. This next metric provides insight into the court’s internal deliberative process, and here too, the data reveals a significant change. In the early 2000s, the average argued case took approximately 85-90 days from oral argument to decision. That figure has risen steadily. The 2022-23 term marked a recent peak, with cases averaging 122.6 days from argument to decision – nearly three weeks longer than the historical average. During this period, a case argued in early November would, on average, not see a decision until mid-March, and potentially much later. Several explanations present themselves, none mutually exclusive. First, the court’s docket may have grown more complex. Cases involving novel questions of statutory interpretation, constitutional first impression, or conflicts among multiple circuit courts require more extensive research, writing, and internal negotiation. Second, the court’s increasingly polarized composition may lead to longer negotiations over opinion language, particularly in cases in which a justice’s vote is uncertain. Third, the practice of separate opinions – concurrences and dissents – has proliferated in recent terms , and each of these opinions requires time to draft, circulate, and refine in response to the majority opinion. Fourth, the timing may have slowed down towards the end of the 2022-23 term and possibly into the 2023-24 term due to additional security protocols related to the leak of the Dobbs opinion . Finally, with the rise of the emergency application docket in around 2016, the justices have had the added burden of focusing on such applications over the summer and early into the term, which may lead to a delay in writing merits opinions until the end of each term. Whatever the cause, the lengthening gap between the argument and decision contributes to the back-loading of the court’s term. Cases argued in October and November, which in earlier eras might have been decided by late January, now frequently extend into April or May, compressing the decision calendar even further. The unanimity dividend:...

خلاصہ: House GOP leaders set noon deadline for Clintons to reach deal on testifyingSpeaker Mike Johnson said in an interview Tuesday morning that Republicans have given Bill and Hillary Clinton a noon deadline Tuesday to provide details of how they plan to comply with a pair of subpoenas issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which have until this point gone unheeded. Otherwise, Johnson said, Republicans will move forward with votes later this week to hold the former president and secretary of state in criminal contempt of Congress. “We're holding off until noon,” Johnson said. “They have a deadline until noon to work out the details, and if it's not done satisfactorily, then we'll proceed with the contempt.” Majority Leader Steve Scalise also said in an interview that, if the details aren't provided, then Republicans will proceed with a vote Wednesday as leadership had initially intended before the Clintons surprised Capitol Hill by reversing course. They had for months been resisting subpoenas to testify in the House Oversight investigation into the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, saying the process was invalid and designed to embarrass and put them in prison. According to a person granted anonymity to share internal discussions between the Oversight Committee and the Clintons' legal team, the GOP-led panel is seeking clarification that the Clintons will accept the standard deposition terms for which they were originally subpoenaed. That includes transcribed, filmed depositions to take place in February, with no time limits.Source InformationPublisher: CongressOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just lost out on a major award to the Dalai Lama. To understand why they were in competition, look to the Morning Reads section below. SCOTUS Quick Hits On Jan. 20, a group of California Republicans asked the court on its interim docket to block the state from using its new map in this year’s elections. The case is now fully briefed, and the court’s decision could come at any time. The court also could rule at any time on an interim docket case on California’s policies for parental notification when public school students choose to use different pronouns or a different gender identity. The court has not yet indicated when it will next release opinions. If the court follows its typical pattern, the earliest the next opinion day may be is Friday, Feb. 20, when the justices are next scheduled to be in the courtroom. The court will next hear arguments on Monday, Feb. 23, the first day of its February sitting. Morning Reads How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive (Jodi Kantor, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Citing five unnamed sources familiar with the inner workings of the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported on Monday that Chief Justice John Roberts began asking court employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in November 2024. “The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices,” according to the Times. The nondisclosure agreements build on “softer measures” used in the past “to preserve confidentiality,” such as codes of conduct and pledges. “Former clerks and academics, told by The Times about the Supreme Court’s new nondisclosure agreements, said they were a sign that the justices felt they could no longer rely on more informal pledges or longstanding norms to guard their internal workings from public view.” Republican congressman introduces bill to set term limits for federal judges (Aileen Wingblad, The Oakland Press) — U.S. Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican from Michigan, “has introduced a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for federal judges,” according to The Oakland Press . “Introduced Jan. 30, H.J. Resolution 145 — the Judicial Term Limits Amendment — would limit federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to a 20-year term. It would also prevent judges who complete a 20-year term from being reappointed to the same federal court.” In a press release , Barrett contended that ending lifetime appointments would strengthen the judiciary. “Lifetime appointments were designed to protect judicial independence, but instead have too often emboldened judges to wield their enormous power long after they should have retired. When our Constitution was ratified, 20 years practically was a lifetime appointment,” he said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gets shout out but no win at Grammys (Maureen Groppe, USA Today) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attended the Grammys on Sunday “as a nominee for best audio book, narration and storytelling recording for the audio of her 2025 memoir ‘Lovely One,'” according to USA Today . The camera cut to her during the broadcast as host Trevor Noah joked about the power of a Supreme Court justice. “With her being here, you know what that means,” Noah said. “For the first time ever, if you lose a Grammy, you can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.” Jackson did not win the award, which went to the Dalai Lama. Biden Monuments Case to Focus on State Lawmakers’ Ability to Sue (Bobby Magill, Bloomberg Law) — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear argument on “whether state lawmakers have standing to challenge” a president’s “use of the Antiquities Act to create national monuments,” according to Bloomberg Law . If the 9th Circuit – or, eventually, the Supreme Court – holds that state legislatures have standing to sue the federal government without the support of their state’s governor or attorney general, it could pave the way toward “more litigation on many fronts,” said Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at the University of California College of the Law. Another environmental law professor, Andrew Mergen of Harvard Law School, described the case as “one to watch” because of broader uncertainty surrounding the standing doctrine. “I suspect that if the legislature loses here, they will seek Supreme Court review,” he said. Donald J. Trump: My Tariffs Have Brought America Back (Donald J. Trump, The Wall Street Journal)(Paywall) — In a column for The Wall Street Journal , President Donald Trump defended his trade policy, arguing that his tariffs “have created an American economic miracle.” He continued, “ith the help of tariffs, we have cut that federal budget deficit by a staggering 27% in a single year, and even more incredibly, we have slashed our monthly trade deficit by an astonishing 77%—all with virtually no inflation, which everyone said could not be done. … I sincerely hope the Supreme Court is watching these numbers, because our country has never seen anything like them!” A Closer Look: How the Black Robe Became the Supreme Court Standard Justice Neil Gorsuch once described the court as “just nine old people in polyester black robes that we have to buy at the uniform supply store.” Nevertheless, those black robes are one of the court’s most recognizable features – some say a visual emblem of unity, others authority, and others detachment from a justice (or judge’s) personal convictions. The judicial robe itself derives from English practice , where judges wore elaborate garments in scarlet, green, violet, or black (colors varied by season, court, or occasion) often trimmed with fur and paired with powdered wigs. In the new United States, republican ideals prompted resistance to such ornamentation (Thomas Jefferson supposedly decried the “monstrous wig” and unnecessary official apparel as remnants of the monarchy). A compromise thus took hold: colorful robes were kept, sans wigs . The shift to plain black, some...

خلاصہ: Capitol agenda: Shutdown hinges on razor-thin rule voteHouse Republican leaders are facing a white-knuckle vote Tuesday morning as they move to end the partial shutdown after four days. Here’s what we’re watching on both sides of the aisle as an unpredictable day shakes out in the House. — Razor-thin rule vote: Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump got involved in wrangling hard-liner holdouts Monday who were threatening to oppose the procedural measure setting up final debate of the $1.2 trillion spending package. Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) started the day threatening to tank the rule if the SAVE Act, a partisan elections bill, wasn’t attached. But a White House meeting left the duo in a better place, with Luna telling reporters Monday night she got “assurances on the standing filibuster” that would allow the bill to pass the Senate. One big caveat: There’s been no acknowledgment from Senate Majority Leader John Thune that any such deal is in place. Various proposals for a “standing filibuster” or “talking filibuster” have been rattling around for years on both sides of the aisle — most recently from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — but that hasn’t convinced the vast majority of Senate Republicans who want to keep the 60-vote threshold in place. While Luna said she expected “an announcement” on a rules change that would force Democrats to hold the floor in order to block the bill, no such announcement appears imminent. But her remarks — and a big midday Truth Social nudge from Trump — were enough to buoy GOP leaders. Asked Monday night if he was confident he had the votes to move forward and end the shutdown, Johnson said, “I think we do.” — Dems fume over another Senate jam: While Democrats are expected to unite against the rule, party leaders declined to comment on how they would vote on the overall package ahead of Tuesday morning’s closed-door caucus meeting. It appears it will be a vote of conscience: A whip alert circulated Monday night urged a “no” vote on the rule but did not offer any guidance for the underlying bill, which funds most federal agencies but ends Department of Homeland Security funding after Feb. 13. Still, many House Democrats have been left grumbling — again — after being sidelined in negotiations between Senate Democrats and the White House. Top leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are playing down tensions over the deal, but many in the rank-and-file are miffed at getting jammed with a spending bill they oppose for a third time in less than a year. “We end up having to answer for what won’t do, and it can be very frustrating,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said. What else we’re watching: — House moves to overturn DC tax law: The House Rules Committee teed up floor consideration this week for a bill that would roll back a D.C. law that declines to apply key tax cuts from last summer’s megabill to local income taxes in the city. In that measure, the D.C. Council decided not to adopt 13 separate tax provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including several key incentives the GOP restored for businesses and the deductions for tipped income, overtime pay, new car loan interest and seniors. The Senate Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to consider its version of the resolution Wednesday. Meredith Lee Hill and Bernie Becker contributed to this report.Source InformationPublisher: CongressOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Despite razor-thin margin, House speaker is optimistic partial shutdown will end soonSpeaker Mike Johnson is voicing optimism that the House can quickly bring an end to the partial government shutdown, but he is dealing with a razor-thin majority and a restive GOP caucus.Source InformationPublisher: NPR Topics: PoliticsOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Rep. Jim McGovern discusses the ongoing partial government shutdownRep. Jim McGovern, D- Mass., talks about the ongoing partial government shutdown and the negotiations over funding for the Department of Homeland Security.Source InformationPublisher: NPR Topics: PoliticsOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Jimmy Kimmel slams Trump and Musk over latest Epstein files releaseAfter a long wait, the DOJ has finally released thousands more Epstein files — and there's a lot of disturbing stuff in there . In the monologue above, Jimmy Kimmel unpacks mentions of Donald Trump and Elon Musk , leading in to the latter with a reminder of Musk's post on X last year , accusing the president of being in the files. "What neglected to mention is he is in there too," says Kimmel. "His name comes up more than a thousand times, including in 2012 when he and Epstein were planning a visit to the island. Elon claims he never went to Epstein island, he says his correspondence is being deliberately misinterpreted by his enemies. For example, when he wrote Jeffrey Epstein — a registered sex offender, by the way — to ask 'What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?', he was asking so he could avoid that night. He had a lot of work to do, he didn't want to be distracted by wild parties, you understand?" Elsewhere, Kimmel responds to Trump saying there's "nothing on me" in the Epstein files. "I'm almost surprised he's not bragging about how much he's mentioned in the Epstein files," says Kimmel, launching into a Trump impression. " I'm in there more than any other pr...more than Abraham Lincoln! "Source InformationPublisher: MashableOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Australia needs to get real about Trump’s AmericaCanadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech should unsettle Australian strategic thinkers, who have been raised in the belief the US alliance is the unshakeable foundation of Australia’s regional security. Carney’s point – that American leadership is no longer a reliable anchor for the international system – had strong appeal in Europe and Canada. But The post Australia needs to get real about Trump’s America appeared first on Asia Times .Source InformationPublisher: Asia TimesOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Is Trump Launching a New Coin? TMTG Teases Token Debut as Traders Turn BullishThe crypto market could be set to see another Trump-affiliated coin through one of its firms. Trump Media hinted that its token is set to make its debut in the market joining other tokens already related to the President. TMTG Confirms Launch Plans for New Trump-Linked Coin In a recent press release, Trump Media and The post Is Trump Launching a New Coin? TMTG Teases Token Debut as Traders Turn Bullish appeared first on CoinGape .Source InformationPublisher: CoinGapeOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Privatizing Fannie Mae is risky. Would it be a win for taxpayers or Trump's donors?The idea has alarmed critics, who warn it could rattle financial markets and drive up mortgage rates, while potentially generating large profits for key Trump supporters. (Image credit: J. David Ake)Source InformationPublisher: NPR Topics: PoliticsOriginal Source: Read more

خلاصہ: Kilmar Abrego Garcia becomes symbol of mistaken deportationsImmigration lawyers said Kilmar Abrego Garcia's landmark case highlights the pitfalls with the speed and scale of the Trump administration's goal of mass deportations. (Image credit: Anna Moneymaker)Source InformationPublisher: NPR Topics: PoliticsOriginal Source: Read more