Bill Clinton’s camp is stirring the pot with a bold demand for the Department of Justice to spill every last Epstein file, accusing the Trump administration of playing hide-and-seek with the truth, Fox News reported.
The saga centers on a partial document dump by the DOJ last Friday, sparking a fiery clash between Clinton’s team, the Trump administration, and political heavyweights over transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
This mess kicked off when President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, a bipartisan law mandating the DOJ to release all unclassified Epstein-related records within 30 days.
Last Friday, the DOJ dropped a batch of files, including some eyebrow-raising photos of Clinton—think shirtless swims and a snapshot with Michael Jackson.
By Monday, Clinton’s spokesman, Angel Ureña, was on the warpath, demanding Trump and Attorney General Bondi release every remaining document mentioning or picturing Clinton.
“We call on President Trump to direct Attorney General Bondi to immediately release any remaining materials referring to, mentioning, or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton,” Ureña declared in a statement. Let’s unpack that—sounds noble, but isn’t this a convenient way to shift the spotlight from those awkward pics?
The DOJ didn’t take kindly to the jab, with a spokesperson snapping back that Ureña’s claims are “ridiculous” and accusing Clinton of finger-pointing to dodge scrutiny over the photos.
They’ve promised to keep rolling out thousands of pages without shielding any big names—refreshing, if true, in an era where trust in institutions is thinner than a dime.
Still, Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer aren’t buying it, blasting the DOJ for slow-walking releases and slapping on what he calls unlawful redactions.
Under the new law, the DOJ can redact or withhold certain files—think victims’ names or classified info—but Clinton’s team insists the partial release reeks of a cover-up.
Ureña even took to X, claiming the White House isn’t protecting Clinton but guarding its own interests with these late-Friday document drops. Clever spin, but isn’t it just a tad self-serving to paint this as everyone else’s problem?
Meanwhile, Trump himself weighed in on Monday, expressing distaste for the photo leaks while noting that Democrats largely pushed for these disclosures. There’s a whiff of fairness in his tone, admitting respect for Clinton despite the mess, which is more grace than we often see in today’s political cage matches.
Conspiracy theories still swirl—some MAGA folks and Democrats alike demand more files, despite the DOJ debunking tales of a blackmail “client list” earlier in 2025. It’s a reminder that in the court of public opinion, facts often fight an uphill battle against suspicion.
At the end of the day, this clash isn’t just about dusty files—it’s a proxy war over trust, accountability, and who gets to write history. With more releases on the horizon, expect the political fireworks to keep lighting up the sky, and let’s hope the truth, not agendas, wins out.
Is a Hanukkah celebration just a photo op when it’s orchestrated by a politician under fire for divisive rhetoric?
Breitbart reported that New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, has ignited a firestorm of criticism after posting a social media video of himself celebrating Hanukkah with actor Mandy Patinkin and his family, an act many see as a calculated move to polish his image amid accusations of antisemitic and anti-Israel stances.
The video, which has racked up over one million views on X as of Sunday, shows Mamdani lighting candles and joining in traditional Hanukkah rituals alongside Patinkin, his wife Kathryn, and their son Gideon.
The setting, described by many online as a carefully curated “staged performance,” has fueled skepticism about Mamdani’s sincerity, especially given the timing of the release during a period of intense scrutiny over his record.
Critics have pointed out that Hanukkah commemorates Jewish sovereignty over Israel, a historical triumph of reclaiming the Temple in Jerusalem from foreign occupiers—a narrative some argue clashes directly with Mamdani’s well-documented anti-Israel positions.
From refusing to denounce the chant “globalize the intifada” to labeling Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” on Qatari state TV, Mamdani’s rhetoric has long drawn ire, making this holiday video seem to many like a hollow gesture.
Commentators and X users have been quick to call out the apparent disconnect, with some accusing the Patinkin family of ignoring Hanukkah’s deeper significance by aligning with Mamdani.
As political columnist Moshe Hill noted, “Chanukah is about Jewish sovereignty over the Jewish homeland, something that both Zohran Mamdani and Mandy Patinkin actively fight against.”
That’s a sharp jab, and it lands hard when you consider Patinkin’s own history of controversial statements, like blaming Jews for the Gaza conflict and sidestepping the hostage crisis in public remarks.
The backlash isn’t just online chatter—high-profile figures like Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) have branded Mamdani a “raging antisemite,” while Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of a Hamas co-founder, recently called him a “trojan horse” for a radical agenda.
Adding fuel to the fire, a senior appointee, Catherine Almonte Da Costa, resigned last Thursday after old social media posts surfaced mocking Jews and criticizing law enforcement, further tarnishing Mamdani’s administration before it even begins.
Meanwhile, Mamdani’s own words in the video’s caption seem almost tone-deaf to his detractors: “It was such a joy to celebrate Hanukkah with Mandy, Kathryn and their son, Gideon.”
That sentiment might have been intended as heartfelt, but to many, it rings as a polished script from a politician raised by an actress and posing with an actor—hardly the authentic connection to everyday Jewish families his critics say he avoids.
With accusations flying that Mamdani is using progressive allies like Patinkin to reshape narratives around Israel and Jewish issues, as warned by New York-based writer Jason Curtis Anderson, the mayor-elect’s every move is under a microscope.
Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming just dropped a political bombshell by announcing she won’t run for a second term in 2026, Breitbart reported.
After serving in the U.S. House and then the Senate since 2021, Lummis revealed on Friday her decision to step away, citing the grueling demands of recent Senate sessions while pledging to push key legislation and Republican unity until her term ends.
Having cut her teeth in Congress before moving to the Senate, Lummis has been a steadfast voice for Wyoming’s interests.
She admitted the relentless pace of the job has taken its toll, stating she lacks the stamina for another full term.
“I am a devout legislator, but I feel like a sprinter in a marathon,” Lummis wrote, acknowledging her shift in perspective on reelection.
That’s a candid confession—Senate work isn’t for the faint-hearted, and her honesty about burnout is a rare glimpse behind the curtain of political life.
Throughout her tenure, Lummis has been a fierce advocate for energy policy, particularly during the Trump administration’s drive for American energy independence.
She celebrated milestones like the opening of the Brook Mine, describing it as a “triumph” for curbing U.S. reliance on China for critical minerals.
Wyoming, as she often highlighted, exports far more energy than it uses, playing a pivotal role in national priorities like powering artificial intelligence advancements.
Lummis expressed deep appreciation for colleagues like Senator John Barrasso and Representative Harriet Hageman, crediting their shared focus on Wyoming’s needs.
She’s not coasting to the finish line either, vowing to collaborate with President Trump on significant legislation in 2026.
Her commitment to maintaining Republican control of the Senate shows she’s still in the fight, even if it’s her final round.
Beyond energy, Lummis has been vocal about government overreach, especially after learning the FBI accessed her phone records in 2023 under the Biden administration’s Department of Justice.
She didn’t mince words, calling it an assault on constitutional rights and pushing for investigations alongside Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Her warnings about encrypted FBI systems hiding further abuses add a chilling layer to her critique of federal overreach—clearly, she’s not bowing out quietly on issues of liberty.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz just turned a Senate hearing into a masterclass on defending free speech with a side of cinematic flair, the Daily Caller reported.
During a fiery Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday, Cruz, a staunch Republican, took on FCC Chair Brendan Carr over a prior warning to Disney about late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s controversial remarks, igniting a broader debate on government overreach into private media.
This saga kicked off earlier when Kimmel made tasteless comments about conservative figure Charlie Kirk, leading to a suspension by ABC, Disney’s subsidiary.
Back in September, Cruz stood up for Kimmel’s right to speak, however crude his words, arguing that any consequences should come from ABC, not government pressure.
Enter FCC Chair Carr, who had warned Disney they could handle the Kimmel situation “the easy way or the hard way,” as he told interviewer Benny Johnson—a line Cruz didn’t let slide.
“That’s right out of ‘Goodfellas,’” Cruz fired back during the hearing, likening Carr’s words to a mobster’s shakedown of a defenseless shopkeeper.
Cruz didn’t mince words, calling out what he sees as a dangerous precedent of government officials strong-arming private companies into silencing voices.
He acknowledged Kimmel’s remarks as distasteful but insisted that the decision to discipline or drop the comedian rests solely with ABC and its affiliates, not Washington bureaucrats.
Several Republican senators echoed Cruz’s alarm, warning that such threats from the FCC could cast a chilling shadow over free expression in media.
Cruz also took a swipe at past Democratic silence on similar issues, pointing to what he described as the Biden administration’s pressure on social media platforms to suppress conservative viewpoints.
“I welcome them, now having discovered the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights,” Cruz quipped, extending an olive branch to Democrats who joined in criticizing Carr’s stance.
Still, he maintained that neither party should play referee over truth or opinion, a principle he sees as non-negotiable for a free society.
Carr, for his part, held firm, agreeing on the importance of free speech but stressing his obligation to follow Communications Act guidelines on broadcast content and public interest.
Democratic senators, including Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar and Hawaii’s Brian Schatz, piled on with their own critiques, questioning whether Carr would target others for similar provocative statements.
Klobuchar pressed Carr on whether he’d try to yank Kimmel off the air if the comedian had echoed controversial remarks akin to those by former President Donald Trump, a hypothetical Carr dismissed as an attempt to push him into policing online discourse.
Brace yourselves, TikTok fans -- a blockbuster deal might just save your favorite app from a US ban, keeping those viral dances alive for millions.
ByteDance, the Chinese parent of TikTok, has finalized binding agreements to sell over 80% of TikTok’s American assets to a trio of investors, hoping to sidestep a government shutdown over national security fears, as the New York Post reports.
This saga began back in August 2020, when then-President Donald Trump first pushed to ban the app, sparking a long-running battle over its future in the States.
Now, ByteDance has teamed up with Oracle, Silver Lake, and Abu Dhabi-based MGX to create a new entity dubbed TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC.
The ownership split of this venture sees Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX each taking 15% for a combined 45%, while ByteDance holds onto 19.9%, and the remainder goes to affiliates of existing ByteDance investors.
Set to close on January 22, this deal builds on terms floated in September when Trump delayed a ban enforcement to January 20, contingent on a sale meeting US divestiture rules.
Trump confirmed the arrangement aligns with government demands, addressing years of concern that TikTok’s Chinese ties could jeopardize American user data.
While the White House has deflected questions to TikTok and Oracle stayed silent, the deal’s implications are massive for the app’s future here.
TikTok itself spun the news positively, stating it will allow “over 170 million Americans to continue discovering a world of endless possibilities as part of a vital global community.”
That’s a charming sentiment, but let’s not ignore the elephant in the room -- ByteDance retaining nearly 20% ownership hardly feels like a clean break from potential foreign influence.
On Thursday, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew shared the update with staff, likely aiming to ease tensions after a rollercoaster of uncertainty for the company’s U.S. operations.
For over 170 million American users, this could mean stability, but conservatives might question if partial divestiture truly shields against data privacy risks.
This joint venture may end a drawn-out clash, but ByteDance’s lingering stake could still fuel skepticism among those wary of Big Tech and overseas control.
Still, the deal offers a pragmatic step forward, tackling at least some national security worries while preserving an app that’s become a cultural staple for millions.
Whether this compromise satisfies critics or just delays deeper scrutiny remains to be seen, but for now, TikTok’s American heartbeat keeps ticking.
Tragedy struck São Paulo when a young Brazilian influencer met a heartbreaking end, plummeting from her high-rise home on November 29 under suspicious circumstances that led to the arrest of her husband days later.
The devastating fall of 25-year-old Maria Katiane Gomes da Silva from her 10th-floor condominium balcony has left a community reeling, with her husband, Alex Leandro Bispo dos Santos, now in custody on suspicion of femicide.
Hailing from Crateús, Brazil, Maria carved a new life in São Paulo after humble beginnings in restaurants and supermarkets, eventually tying the knot with Santos.
As a lifestyle content creator, she inspired nearly 6,500 Instagram followers with posts on travel, makeup, and wellness, her final update showing her dancing with carefree joy just weeks before the tragedy.
Yet behind the polished posts, a grim reality emerged on November 29, 2025, when neighbors heard piercing screams and a loud bang, spurring them to alert authorities.
Officers arrived to a harrowing sight: Santos, 40, holding Maria’s lifeless body, insisting she ended her life after a heated dispute that day.
Authorities weren’t quick to accept that narrative, labeling the death suspicious from the outset in a society often too eager to overlook domestic shadows.
Surveillance footage soon painted a darker picture, showing Santos allegedly striking Maria in a parking garage, reaching for her neck in an elevator, and dragging her out with brutal force.
Later, cameras captured him crumbling in the elevator, head in hands—a moment that raises more doubts than clarity in this tragic saga.
Neighbors’ accounts of chaos clash starkly with the glossy veneer of social media, where personal struggles are too often buried under curated perfection.
Days after, at Maria’s funeral on December 1, Santos knelt beside her casket, visibly weeping—an image of sorrow or something more sinister?
By December 9, law enforcement had seen enough, taking Santos into custody for femicide, with suspicions he may have hurled his wife from their balcony.
This isn’t merely a personal loss; it’s a sobering wake-up call about hidden battles, often ignored by a culture fixated on image over grim reality.
As investigators dig deeper, Santos remains in temporary custody, while a nation grieves a vibrant soul snuffed out far too early.
Let this case remind us to look beyond the filters and hashtags, demanding justice for those whose cries are silenced behind closed doors.
Well, folks, it looks like Ford Motor Co. just slammed the brakes on its electric vehicle (EV) dreams with a jaw-dropping $19.5 billion write-down.
Ford announced on Monday a strategic pivot away from its struggling EV division, racking up a historic impairment charge and refocusing on gas-powered vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids to stem the bleeding, Breitbart reported.
This isn’t just a minor detour; it’s the biggest financial hit ever taken by a Detroit automaker, reflecting a staggering $13 billion in losses for Ford’s EV segment since 2023.
Let’s be real—Ford’s all-in bet on EVs hasn’t panned out, and the company is now scrambling to redirect capital to more profitable ventures like traditional engines and hybrid options.
The decision to halt production of the all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck—a flagship in their EV lineup—speaks volumes about the disconnect between corporate green agendas and what everyday Americans actually want.
Instead, Ford is doubling down on an extended-range version of the F-150, hoping to bridge the gap for consumers who find pure EVs too impractical or pricey.
Currently, only 17% of Ford’s global vehicle volume comes from hybrids, extended-range models, and EVs, a clear sign that the market isn’t ready to ditch gas anytime soon.
Yet, Ford projects that by 2030, roughly half of its global sales will shift to these reduced-emission options, a cautious nod to environmental concerns without ignoring consumer hesitancy.
This pivot isn’t just about numbers; it’s an admission that hybrids and plug-in models are more affordable and realistic for folks who can’t—or won’t—shell out for a full EV.
Ford CEO Jim Farley, once a vocal cheerleader for EVs, is now singing a different tune, citing the need to stop throwing money at unprofitable electric projects.
“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting,” Farley said, per Ford’s official statement, signaling a pragmatic retreat from EV idealism.
Call it a reality check—his words reveal a hard truth that the U.S. market isn’t bowing to the progressive push for an all-electric future, and Ford can’t afford to ignore that.
Farley also touted EV manufacturing simplicity as a cost-saver, saying, “Half the fixtures, half the work stations, half the welds, 20% less fasteners,” according to Ford’s release.
While that sounds slick on paper, it’s tough to buy the hype when the balance sheet shows billions in red ink—simpler doesn’t mean successful if buyers aren’t biting.
As Ford commits to a $30,000 EV pickup by 2027 to anchor a low-cost lineup and slashes distribution and advertising costs to stay competitive, one can’t help but wonder if this is too little, too late for a company burned by overzealous green ambitions.
Is the FBI’s leadership on shaky ground, or just shaking things up?
Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is reportedly mulling over his next steps at the bureau, with sources indicating a decision could come in the coming weeks, though nothing is set in stone, Fox News reported.
According to insiders speaking to Fox News Digital, Bongino hasn’t finalized any plans about his tenure.
Rumors of his potential exit have swirled, but claims that his office stands empty have been firmly denied by those close to the matter.
Still, the possibility of a departure looms large, and it’s hard not to wonder if the mounting pressure on his leadership is a factor.
Bongino, alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, has faced a barrage of criticism in recent weeks over their approach to running the bureau.
Earlier this month, a group of active and retired FBI personnel issued a scathing report, painting the agency as lacking direction under the current duo.
Not content to let that stand, a separate internal 115-page document, as reported by New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, doubled down on the critique of Bongino and Patel’s performance since taking the helm.
But let’s not pretend these reports are gospel—could there be an agenda behind the timing of these leaks?
Bongino didn’t mince words when addressing Devine’s reporting, accusing her of bias and pushing a narrative against their reforms.
“You can always count on Miranda for a timed hit piece when the Director and I make big changes,” Bongino posted on X, adding, “Miranda prefers the old-guard. I don’t. Full steam ahead.”
That’s a spicy jab, and it’s clear Bongino isn’t about to let detractors slow down his vision for a retooled FBI.
In response to broader criticism, Bongino has staunchly defended the changes he and Patel have implemented, arguing they’ve brought much-needed accountability.
“When the director and I moved forward with these reforms, we expected some noise from the small circle of disgruntled former agents still loyal to the old Comey–Wray model,” Bongino told Fox News.
That’s a fair point—change always ruffles feathers, especially when it challenges entrenched bureaucratic habits. But are these reforms truly delivering, or is this just bravado in the face of a PR storm?
Well, folks, it seems the long arm of federal enforcement has reached into the personal life of Rep. Ilhan Omar, with the Minnesota Democrat claiming ICE agents pulled over her son for no apparent reason other than a quick glance at his heritage.
On a recent broadcast, Omar shared a troubling account of her 20-year-old son’s encounter with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, an incident unfolding against a backdrop of escalating tensions over immigration policies in Minnesota, the Daily Caller reported.
This story kicked off on a Saturday evening when Omar’s son, after a mundane stop at Target, found himself detained by ICE agents.
Thankfully, the young man had his passport handy—a habit Omar says he maintains—and was released once he proved his citizenship.
But let’s not gloss over the irony here: a U.S.-born citizen needing to carry travel documents just to shop without hassle in his own country speaks volumes about the current climate.
Omar didn’t mince words on “WCCO Sunday Morning,” hosted by Esme Murphy, where she voiced her unease about the incident and the broader ICE operations in Minneapolis.
“They are racially profiling. They are looking for young men who look Somali that they think are undocumented,” Omar stated, pointing a finger at what she sees as targeted enforcement (Ilhan Omar, “WCCO Sunday Morning”).
Now, while it’s critical to secure our borders, if ICE is indeed zeroing in on individuals based solely on appearance, that’s a slippery slope away from the principles of equal justice we hold dear.
Omar also recounted how her son often visits the Cedar Riverside area for Friday prayers and meals with friends, a neighborhood recently spotlighted for ICE presence.
Just the previous Friday, videos from Rep. Mahmoud Noor and others showed agents in that very area, prompting Omar to repeatedly check on her son’s safety.
“I kept calling my son to see if he was okay, if he had any run-ins with them and he wasn’t answering,” she shared, highlighting a mother’s worry amid these operations (Ilhan Omar, “WCCO Sunday Morning”).
It’s hard not to empathize with a parent’s concern, though one wonders if the progressive push for open-border policies has fueled the very crackdowns now causing such personal distress.
Adding fuel to the fire, Minnesota’s Somali community is under intense scrutiny following a massive welfare fraud scandal, with accusations flying that Gov. Tim Walz ignored whistleblowers, leading to a reported $1 billion in fraudulent activity.
With ICE confirming operations in the Twin Cities since early December, targeting hundreds, the atmosphere is understandably charged—though the agency stayed silent when pressed for comment by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
While border security remains a non-negotiable for many conservatives, stories like Omar’s son’s encounter remind us that enforcement must be precise, not a broad brush painting entire communities as suspect. Let’s hope ICE sharpens its focus on actual threats, not just optics, lest we alienate the very citizens we aim to protect.
In a surprising turn of events, the United States has reversed a contentious decision by removing Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes from its sanctions list, a move that’s stirring debate on both sides of the hemisphere.
This development, announced on Friday, December 12, 2025, also extends to de Moraes’ wife and the Lex Institute she heads, marking a significant shift in U.S.-Brazil relations after months of diplomatic tension.
Let’s rewind to August 2024, when de Moraes ordered the suspension of Elon Musk’s X platform in Brazil over claims of failing to curb misinformation, a ban that lasted until October of that year.
At the time, Musk was a key ally of President Donald Trump, even helping to fund his campaign, which made the suspension a personal jab in the eyes of many conservatives.
Fast forward to July 2025, and the Trump administration slapped sanctions on de Moraes, accusing him of stifling free speech and ordering unjust detentions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio didn’t mince words, stating that de Moraes “abused his authority by engaging in a targeted and politically motivated effort designed to silence political critics” through secret orders and censorship (U.S. Department of Treasury).
Adding fuel to the fire, the U.S. also imposed a hefty 40% tariff on Brazilian goods in July 2025, on top of an existing 10% rate, citing Brazil’s handling of former President Jair Bolsonaro’s prosecution as an economic emergency.
Bolsonaro, often called the “Trump of the Tropics,” was convicted and sentenced to over 27 years in prison for allegedly plotting to cling to power after his 2022 election loss, with his sentence beginning in November 2025.
Trump himself labeled Bolsonaro’s treatment an “international disgrace,” a sentiment that resonated with many who saw the trial as politically charged overreach (Trump social media post, July 9, 2025).
Yet, despite the frost, cracks of warmth emerged as Trump and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva began rebuilding ties, starting with a meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025.
Further talks in Malaysia in October 2025 and a pivotal weekend phone call paved the way for the sanctions’ repeal, a gesture Brazil’s government hailed as a triumph over Bolsonaro’s influence.
Interestingly, a senior Trump administration official, speaking off the record, noted that Brazil’s passage of an amnesty bill in its lower house signaled progress on legal fairness, prompting the sanctions’ lift.
Last month, in November 2025, the White House also eased some of the punitive tariffs on Brazilian imports like beef and coffee, a nod to the $6.8 billion trade surplus the U.S. enjoyed with Brazil in 2024.
While this thaw in relations offers hope, it’s hard not to see the irony in Lula’s diplomatic win, especially as he pushes Latin American unity to counter Trump’s military moves against Venezuelan drug-linked vessels.
For conservatives, this reversal might sting, but it’s a pragmatic step—balancing principle with the reality of needing allies in a world where ideological battles often clash with economic and strategic interests.