— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) September 30, 2025
The US Senate on Tuesday afternoon voted on measures to avert a looming midnight government shutdown.
The Senate is currently voting on two bills.
The Hill reported:
The Senate is voting on two competing bills to avert a government shutdown at midnight.
The chamber will first vote on a Democratic proposal that pairs a funding extension with health care provisions, then the GOP’s House-passed “clean” stopgap bill.
Both are expected to fail, plunging Washington into its first shutdown in more than five years.
WATCH:
President Trump suggested to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that if the Democrats force a government shutdown, he will take “irreversible” measures to implement his agenda.
“The last person that wants it shut down is us. Now, with that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like,” Trump said.
“They’re taking a risk by having a shutdown,” he added, pointing to the waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars that he plans to cut.
DEVELOPING…check back for live updates…
Update: OMB Director Russel Vought said agencies should “execute their plans for an orderly shutdown.”
Government Shuts Down After Lawmakers Fail to Reach Funding Deal
Republicans ask for a simple, short-term spending extension while Democrats seek extensive changes in health care funding.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), joined by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), speaks during a press conference as the government is on verge of shutdown amid partisan standoff, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 30, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
Lawrence Wilson,Nathan Worcester,Joseph Lord
9/30/2025|Updated: 10/1/2025
The government has officially shut down after lawmakers on Tuesday evening adjourned early with no agreement on government funding.
Lawmakers will return on Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET.
Ahead of its adjournment, the Senate’s 55–45 vote in favor of advancing the package fell five short of the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, joined Republicans in voting for the bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who voted against the GOP funding bill when it last came before the Senate, flipped her vote in favor of the measure.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the only Democrat to back passage of a Republican funding bill in March, voted against the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) broke with his party and voted against the funding bill.
After the Senate failed to secure a supermajority for the White House-backed funding bill, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on Sept. 30 ordered federal officials to begin executing “their plans for an orderly shutdown.”
“Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of [a government funding extension] in the Senate due to Democrats’ insane policy demands, which include $1 trillion in new spending,” Vought said in the Tuesday evening memo to executive branch administrators.
Earlier this week, Vought directed agencies to prepare plans for layoffs in the event of a shutdown.
Ahead of the shutdown, a resolution sponsored by Democrats was rejected 47-53 along party lines.
Prior to the votes, representatives of each party said they wanted to avoid a shutdown and that their counterparts were responsible for the result.
Republicans sought a short-term extension of current spending levels to allow lawmakers time to finalize appropriations for 2026, while Democrats are refusing to back any continuing resolution that does not include changes to health care-related funding passed by Congress in the most recent budget bill. Both parties appear to believe public opinion is on their side.
Democrats insisted on the need to reverse as much as $1 trillion in health care-related spending provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and make the COVID-era Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits permanent.
Democrats say their plan is necessary to prevent a loss of health coverage by tens of millions of people and avoid a sharp increase in health insurance premiums.
Republicans have said the Democrats’ proposal would add $1.5 trillion in spending and is an unserious starting point for discussions.
A Sept. 29 meeting of congressional leaders with President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Vought failed to produce a resolution.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), joined by other Senate Republicans, speaks to reporters as the government is on the verge of shutdown amid a partisan standoff, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 30, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
Ahead of the Senate vote, both parties doubled down on their position.
Democrats repeated their ideas that health care reform is vitally important and requires immediate action.
“Health care creates an urgency,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told The Epoch Times on Sept. 30. “Republicans are saying, ‘Agree to a clean CR and we'll talk about this stuff later.’ But people get sick regardless of the Republican timetable.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told reporters she would not trust Republicans’ word that they would negotiate over health care during the normal appropriations process.
“There’s no trust,” DeLauro said. “Remember McCarthy–Biden, they walked away from the deal,” she added, referring to a negotiated spending agreement in 2023 that was not passed into legislation.
Republicans continued to say that Democrats’ insistence on placing complex health-related negotiations on a short-term spending agreement was confusing and unnecessary.
“They’re kind of all over the map,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told The Epoch Times. “I can’t tell what they want.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Sept. 29 that he had made proposals to Republicans related to health care, but did not specify what they were.
When asked by The Epoch Times which health care issues Democrats were advancing, Blumenthal spoke instead about the urgency of addressing health care, adding, “I think it ends with some serious compromise on health care.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), joined by other Senate Democrats, speaks to reporters as the government is on verge of shutdown amid partisan standoff, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 30, 2025.Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
During a White House press conference, Trump said the administration could do things that are “irreversible” during a shutdown, such as “cutting vast numbers” of federal workers.
“I think the record shows that he is firing people regardless of the shutdown,” Blumenthal said. “He just seems to be on that path.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) expressed optimism that the two sides could strike a deal centered on extending ACA enhanced premium tax credits.
“I just don’t think you’re going to have that much opposition on either side to giving an extension this year to the Obamacare subsidies,” Rounds told The Epoch Times.
Rounds said that could be coupled with a 45-day continuing resolution to allow further appropriations work. However, he said: “I don’t know whether Democrat leadership can actually accept not going to a shutdown. They may very well feel they have to do a shutdown just to show their far left base that they'll do it.”
Jackson Richman contributed to this report.
Those without legal status aren't entitled to federally funded health insurance.
ByFritz Farrow
As the nation careens towards a likely government shutdown, President Donald Trump and top Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have falsely accused Democrats of demanding that free health care be given to “illegal aliens.”
Leaving the White House Tuesday morning, Trump claimed Democrats “want to be able to take care of people that are coming into our country illegally,” adding they “want to give them full health care benefits.”
After a meeting between Trump, Republican leaders and Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries meant to hash out differences to avert a shutdown, Vance made the same claim.
The vice president said the Democrats’ proposal was sending the message that they “want to give massive amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, to illegal aliens for their health care while Americans are struggling to pay their health care bills.”
But those claims are false.
Immigrants in the country without legal status are not eligible to get federally funded health insurance. But certain migrant groups in the “lawfully present” category are considered authorized immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, or green card holders. Asylum recipients and refugees could have been eligible for Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, but they lost eligibility under Trump's spending and policy bill that he signed in July.
Democrats’ negotiation demands include reversing the Medicaid cuts and extending ACA subsidies that are set to expire in December, and to reinstate people who lost their eligibility but lawfully reside in the U.S.
Democrats’ proposal would give access to federally funded health care back to “lawfully present” authorized migrants, but it does not give free coverage to those without legal status -- or "illegal aliens," as Vance and other Republicans claim.
Asked Tuesday if there was any truth to Republicans’ claims, Jeffries rejected them.
“Of course not,” Jeffries said in a CNBC interview. “And thank you for asking that question, because this is also an outright lie.”
Trump’s Crypto Revolution: How Long Awaited Policies Might Rescue America from Its Debt Abyss
Sep. 30, 2025
By Mike Robertson
The National Debt Issue
America’s national debt is a ticking time bomb, exploding right under our noses. As of September 2025, the gross national debt has ballooned past $37 trillion, a staggering figure that’s not just numbers on a ledger but a crushing burden on every hardworking American. Interest payments alone are gobbling up 17% of federal spending, sucking the life out of our economy like a vampire at a blood bank.
But here’s the good news: President Donald J. Trump, in his triumphant return to the White House, is unleashing a crypto revolution that’s poised to slay this debt dragon. These bold policies aren’t some pie-in-the-sky gamble—they’re a smart, innovative strike at the heart of our fiscal woes, restoring American dominance in the digital age.
Let’s face it: the debt avalanche has been barreling down for decades, picking up speed like a runaway train. Back in 2000, the debt stood at a “mere” $5.7 trillion. By 2025, it’s skyrocketed over 550%, hitting that eye-watering $37 trillion mark.
The acceleration kicked into high gear after 9/11, with wars and tax cuts adding $5 trillion under Bush. Obama’s administration with its healthcare push doubled it to $20 trillion. Then came the COVID chaos: Trump added about $7 trillion in his first term, but that was amid unprecedented growth before the pandemic hit. Biden’s failed presidency piled on another $7 trillion with his bloated infrastructure and relief bills, fueling inflation that still haunts us. Per capita? That’s over $283,000 per household—a debt sentence for our kids and grandkids. It’s like watching a bad horror movie where the monster just keeps growing.
Government’s Actions on the Debt Monster
And what has the government done about it? Not much, if we’re honest. Since 2000, administrations have talked a big game but delivered peanuts. Bush’s tax cuts spurred growth but didn’t curb deficits. Obama claimed recovery, yet debt doubled on his watch with little surplus to show.
Trump’s first term was the closest to efficiency: pre-COVID, he delivered record-low unemployment and GDP boosts without the austerity that tanks economies. What about sleepy Joe Biden? His “Inflation Reduction Act” was a joke—$1.2 trillion later, prices soared, and debt kept climbing.
Up to now, U.S. leaders have been playing “presidential relay race” where each POTUS passes the debt baton. Not a single president since Clinton has run a surplus, and even then, it was smoke and mirrors. Traditional fixes like slashing spending or hiking taxes? They’d crash the economy faster than a Democrat’s green energy scam. Trump’s approach? Balance growth with innovation—no wonder he’s the one breaking the cycle.
Trump’s Crypto U-turn
Back in 2020, Trump was cautious on crypto, but by his 2024 campaign, he flipped the script, vowing to make America the “crypto capital of the planet.” As the 47th president, he wasted no time. In March 2025, he signed Executive Order 14233, establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve—a “digital gold” stockpile using over 200,000 seized Bitcoins worth billions. By July, he inked the GENIUS Act into law, regulating stablecoins under the Bank Secrecy Act to combat money laundering while unleashing innovation.
He even appointed pro-crypto SEC Chair Paul Atkins, ending the Gensler-era witch hunts that stifled the industry. Within months, these moves propelled the U.S. crypto market cap toward $4 trillion, drawing in institutional giants like JPMorgan and boosting jobs in blockchain tech.
It’s not hype—it’s happening, and it’s putting America back on top against rivals like China.
Orange Whirlwind of Energy
At 79, Trump has zero in common with the fossilized politicians who cling to the past like it’s their last breath. These old-guard types reject anything new—tech, crypto, you name it—because it threatens their cozy swamp. Not Trump. He’s a whirlwind of energy, surrounding himself with sharp young minds like Vivek Ramaswamy as crypto advisor and entrepreneurs who think big. Remember Elon Musk hailing Trump’s policies as a “game-changer”? Or Mike Novogratz predicting Bitcoin at $200,000 by year’s end?
Trump is proving age is just a number in the digital era, rallying millennials and Gen Z with policies that scream opportunity. While the left whines about obvious “inequality,” Trump’s crew is building a future where America innovates and wins.
A Crypto Weapon Against Debt
Why is crypto the right way to tackle this monstrous debt? Because the old playbook is busted. The debt’s so massive—$37 trillion—that severe budget cuts would spark a recession, and tax hikes would kill jobs. Crypto flips the script: the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve diversifies our holdings like gold did in the old days, hedging against inflation and appreciating wildly. Analysts forecast massive gains, potentially offsetting trillions without touching entitlements.
It fosters innovation, creating high-paying jobs in DeFi and Web3, and attracts foreign capital fleeing unstable fiat systems. Low correlation to stocks means it’s a buffer in crises, and with bipartisan backing for laws like the GENIUS Act (passed 68-30 in the Senate, no less), it’s not partisan—it’s practical.
Think of it as an economic moonshot: post-WWII, we rebuilt with bold vision; now, crypto’s our digital Marshall Plan, slashing interest burdens by 2030.
Crypto-deniers. Why the Fuss?
Of course, the crypto-deniers in our domestic politics are out in force, and surprise—most hail from the Democrat party or left-leaning circles. Folks like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who’s built a career bashing crypto as “risky” and pushing her own restrictive “principles,” lead the charge.
They blocked stablecoin overhauls, fretting about fraud and energy use, even as the industry booms safely under Trump’s regs. Is it blind hatred for Trump, or just outdated thinking? Either way, their opposition ignores crypto’s wins: financial inclusion for the unbanked, resilience against hacks better than fiat’s vulnerabilities. Sure, some concerns like environmental impact are valid, but resistance reeks of partisanship—post-election backlash from sore losers. Yet polls show 43% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats favor smart regulation, proving this isn't a red-blue divide; it’s progress vs. stagnation.
Skeptics risk getting left in the dust as the digital economy surges.
In the end, Trump’s swift crypto policies might transform debt dread into a golden opportunity. By harnessing blockchain’s power, we’re securing U.S. leadership, taming the fiscal beast, and igniting growth that benefits everyone—not just the elites. Americans are fed up with the Democrat party’s failed experiments; it’s time to embrace innovation. Invest, advocate, demand more—because in the face of fiscal Armageddon, crypto isn’t just good—it’s America’s ace in the hole. The revolution is here, and the Trump team made it!
The QAnon Shaman withdrew his support for Trump after the president refused to release the Epstein files.
By Owen Scott
The QAnon shaman has sued Donald Trump for $40 trillion in a rambling lawsuit that targets Elon Musk, T-Mobile, and Warner Bros.
Jacob Chansley, infamous for wearing a horned warrior outfit while storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6, has claimed that he is the rightful commander-in-chief.
In his 26-page complaint, he has claimed that an elite group has launched a conspiracy to violate the Constitution. The entire complaint, which is more akin to a manifesto than a formal legal document, is presented in a single paragraph.
He has named Trump, the Federal Reserve, the National Security Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the State of Israel, Elon Musk’s X-Corp, T-Mobile, and Warner Bros. Studios in court documents.
In the lengthy complaint, Chansley states that he is the “true” American president and that America should only have two laws: the Bill of Rights and the original U.S. Constitution.
The QAnon shaman would also print a one-ounce gold coin, valued at $40 trillion, to pay off the country’s debts.
Bizarrely, one section in the lawsuit suggests that plots for Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and James Cameron’s Avatar were plagiarized from his own writing.
Also, Chansley has alleged that the National Security Agency catfished him as Michele Rodriguez, to persuade him to use his “shamanic” abilities to deal with “other-worldly matters.”
He also claims that Donald Trump personally emailed him just two days after the Capitol Riots in 2021.
Trump has recently blamed the FBI for inciting the Capitol riot, claiming that there were 274 federal agents hidden in the crowds on January 6.
However, the Department of Justice confirmed that the agents sent to the Capitol had been ordered to investigate reports of pipe bombs and to prevent Trump loyalists from interrupting the peaceful transfer of power to the then-president-elect Joe Biden.
In 2020, Biden won 306 electoral votes alongside his running mate Kamala Harris. Meanwhile, Trump won just 232 electoral votes, as well as 7,059,526 fewer votes than his rival.
Following the election, Trump claimed that he would “never concede” the race to his opponent.
“Get smart Republicans. FIGHT,” he tweeted on the morning of the riots.
During his speech on the same day, his supporters could be heard shouting “invade the Capitol”, “fight for Trump,” and “take the Capitol.”
The QAnon Shaman, Jacob Chansley, was convicted of obstructing an official proceeding because of his role in the riots.
He was later pardoned by Trump, alongside 1,500 other individuals, in January 2025 for his crime.
Chansley takes his nickname from QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory movement that claims that Donald Trump is leading a fight against a secret sex-trafficking ring led by a global elite cabal.
However, Chansley rescinded his support for Trump because the president refused to release the Epstein files.
The Independent has contacted The White House, the Federal Reserve, the National Security Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Israeli government, Elon Musk’s X-Corp, T-Mobile, and Warner Bros. Studios for comment.
Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo to Instagram of President Donald Trump throwing a sex toy off the roof of The White House onto a Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) game
By Anjali Thakur
Donald Trump Jr recently shared a photoshopped image of his father, US President Donald Trump, throwing a green sex toy onto a WNBA court from the White House roof during a live game. The meme, emerging amid a strange wave of sex toys being thrown onto WNBA courts, sparked a wave of mixed reactions across social media platforms.
The post was captioned simply, “Posted without further comment,” alongside several laughing emojis.
Instagram divided over the post
Reactions to the meme were sharply divided. While some users found it hilarious, dubbing Trump Jr’s Instagram account “the greatest ever,” others slammed it as disrespectful and immature. One critic commented, “I’m Don Trump Sr for for life but this kind of stuff is classless it and it screams “my daddy is the president and I don’t know to act.”
The third user was blunt, stating, “No funny at all … I’m looking at the comments seriously, do you honestly think this is funny and this is America is back?"
“I don’t understand. I know it’s a supposed joke but the President throwing a green d*ldo at young female basketball players is funny how?,” the fourth user asked on Instagram.
The fifth wrote, “Like seriously, were you high when you posted this … sober up yet? Please take this down it’s stupid !”
Judge Who Hid Illegal from ICE Gets Worst News of Her Career
Sep. 30, 2025
By Martin Walsh
Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping a criminal alien evade justice, won’t be able to hide behind her black robes to escape accountability under the law.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Dugan’s motion to dismiss charges based on “judicial immunity” was rejected by a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that Dugan is not entitled to judicial immunity and found that the actions she is accused of fall outside the protection normally afforded to judges acting in their official capacity.
“Ultimately, as the Supreme Court has stated, ‘the official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question,’” Adelman wrote in the ruling. “I cannot say as a matter of law that the defendant’s alleged conduct falls within even this more limited version of immunity.”
Dugan was indicted in April following an incident on April 18 at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Prosecutors allege that Dugan became aware of plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents waiting in the courthouse to detain a defendant in her courtroom, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a foreigner facing three misdemeanor battery charges.
According to the indictment and surveillance footage reviewed by authorities, Dugan confronted the agents in a courthouse hallway, advised them they needed a judicial warrant to make the arrest, and directed them to the chief judge’s office.
Prosecutors say she then conducted the matter off the record instead of holding a scheduled hearing and allowed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit the courtroom through a rear entrance, allegedly to avoid ICE detection.
Despite these efforts, Flores-Ruiz was arrested by ICE agents later that day.
Dugan’s legal team filed a motion arguing that she was acting in her judicial capacity and was therefore immune from prosecution.
Her attorneys claimed that the charges against her violate the Tenth Amendment and the constitutional principle of separation of powers, asserting that the federal government does not have the authority to criminally charge a state judge for courtroom decisions made while discharging judicial duties.
The defense further argued that judicial immunity extends to all judicial acts short of criminal behavior wholly unrelated to the judge’s duties, such as bribery or intentional violations of constitutional rights, neither of which Dugan is accused of.
Adelman rejected those arguments, writing, “There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job.’”
He concluded that the specific actions alleged—interfering with a federal arrest, misleading agents about legal requirements, and facilitating a physical escape—go beyond the normal scope of protected judicial activity.
The ruling does not determine Dugan’s guilt or innocence but allows the case to proceed. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Oct . 3 in federal court.
Both federal prosecutors and Dugan’s defense attorneys have stated that they would like to begin trial proceedings before the end of the year. No trial date has yet been set.
The case has drawn national attention due to its unusual nature. While tensions between local and federal authorities over immigration enforcement have become more common in recent years, it is rare for a sitting judge to face criminal charges for obstructing federal agents in the line of duty.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how courts interpret the boundaries of judicial immunity in relation to federal law enforcement.
Flores-Ruiz remains in ICE custody pending immigration proceedings, according to officials. The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office has not commented on whether the local criminal charges against him are still active.
If convicted, she could face fines or imprisonment, though the specific penalties will depend on the outcome of trial proceedings. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has declined to comment further on the pending case.
REPORT: Dem candidate spends anti-drug money pushing kids to be LGBTQ
Takes opioid settlement cash to transport children to center offering 'medical transition' seminars
By Bob Unruh
September 29, 2025
Some of the money given to officials in Pennsylvania as part of a settlement with opioid makers is being used to take children to LGBT indoctrination classes.
It is a report in the Free Beacon that explains how Democrat House candidate Bob Harvie, a county commissioner, manages a local fund distributing money from the drug makers settlement.
"While the money is supposed to go toward 'Prevention, Treatment and Recovery' services, Harvie used some of it to transport kids as young as 14 to an 'LGBTQ-youth' center that offers 'medical transition' seminars," the report said.
It was the Bucks County commissioners, a board headed by Harvie, that handed out $13,500 to Planned Parenthood Keystone for "Expanding Services and Transportation" to the Rainbow Room, a local center that caters to gay and trans youth, the report said.
The Delaware Journal said the cash handout was actually used to take students to Rainbow Room events.
BREAKING: Dem House Candidate Used Funds Meant for Recovering Opioid Addicts To Transport Kids to an ‘LGBTQ+ Youth’ Center Offering ‘Medical Transition’ Seminars
“Bob Harvie (Pa.), a county commissioner in Pennsylvania, oversees a local fund that distributes millions of dollars… pic.twitter.com/tHimHdVDhK
BREAKING: Dem House Candidate Used Funds Meant for Recovering Opioid Addicts To Transport Kids to an ‘LGBTQ+ Youth’ Center Offering ‘Medical Transition’ Seminars
“Bob Harvie (Pa.), a county commissioner in Pennsylvania, oversees a local fund that distributes millions of dollars… pic.twitter.com/tHimHdVDhK
PA Democrat Congressional Candidate Bob Harvie used taxpayer funded grants to take kids to an lgbtq center which taught about s*x, m*sturbation, and transitioning
There’s a word for people who take other people’s kids to talk about s*x pic.twitter.com/nOLj26Li6h
🚨PA Democrat Congressional Candidate Bob Harvie used taxpayer funded grants to take kids to an lgbtq center which taught about s*x, m*sturbation, and transitioning
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 29, 2025
The report noted that such facilities promote events about the "Fun facts, weird history, busting myths, breaking stigma" on topics like "SEX ED NIGHT MASTURBATION."
"The Rainbow Room hosted a 'Queer Prom,' where attendees as young as 13 were given goody bags with condoms, lubricant, and dental dams, used to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex," the report explained.
Just recently it promoted a seminar "meant to teach kids as young as 14 'the basics of transgender identities, social transition, medical transition, and more!'"
Harvie currently is a Democrat candidate running against Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who won his last race by 10 points.
Further complicating Harvie's legitimacy as a candidate is the fact he and other Democrat Bucks County officials voted last year to defy state law and count invalid mail-in ballots during an election recount.
"The Rainbow Room's sexually explicit programming has been a hot-button issue for years in Bucks County, a northern suburb of Philadelphia. In addition to local news coverage of its controversial activities, state senator Doug Mastriano (R.) proposed a bill in 2023 to classify drag shows as an 'adult oriented business' after learning the Rainbow Room hosted a drag show for children," the report said.
HUGE WIN: Tech Giant Agrees to Pay $24.5 MILLION Settlement to President Trump
Sep. 29, 2025
by Kaley
Wow, this is amazing…
In a gigantic victory for President Trump, Youtube has just agreed to pay him a whopping $24.5 million settlement in his lawsuit over the suspension of his account.
Check it out:
🚨 BREAKING – BIG TRUMP WIN: YouTube agrees to pay $24.5 MILLION to settle a lawsuit over the company suspending President Trump's account following January 6th.
This is an ADMISSION it was overt political, unjustified censorship. VICTORY. pic.twitter.com/afcmIfULbs
🚨 BREAKING - BIG TRUMP WIN: YouTube agrees to pay $24.5 MILLION to settle a lawsuit over the company suspending President Trump's account following January 6th.
This is an ADMISSION it was overt political, unjustified censorship. VICTORY. pic.twitter.com/afcmIfULbs
BREAKING: YouTube to pay $24.5M to settle lawsuit brought by Trump over the suspension of his account.
Trump is using the money to fund the ballroom at the White House. Incredible.
“Trump’s share of the settlement—$22 million—will go to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, earmarked for the construction of a Mar-a-Lago-style ballroom Trump is building at the White House”
President Trump sued Youtube, Meta (Facebook), and Twitter/X in 2021 after they banned his accounts following the January 6th Capitol protests.
Meta and X have both already agreed to pay out huge settlements of their own.
And now, Youtube’s settlement marks the triumphant end of that lengthy court battle!
The Wall Street Journal has more:
YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a 2021 lawsuit that President Trump brought against the company and its chief executive over its suspension of Trump’s account after that year’s riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to court papers.
The settlement makes YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet’s Google, the final Big Tech company to settle a trio of lawsuits Trump brought against social-media platforms in the months after he left the White House. Meta Platforms agreed in January to pay $25 million, most of it to a fund for Trump’s presidential library, and X agreed to pay $10 million, much of it going directly to Trump, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.
Google executives were eager to keep their settlement smaller than the one paid by rival Meta, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump’s share of the settlement—$22 million—will go to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, earmarked for the construction of a Mar-a-Lago-style ballroom Trump is building at the White House, according to the court documents. The White House has said the ballroom, expected to cost $200 million, would be funded by donations from Trump and “other patriot donors.”
A further $2.5 million will go to the other plaintiffs on the case, a group that includes the American Conservative Union and writer Naomi Wolf. The settlement doesn’t mention attorney fees.
This is wonderful news.
However, as you know, censorship of conservative accounts and videos on platforms like Youtube remains a widespread issue — this site included!
We are too dangerous for them!
Here’s an idea:
DJT collecting checks from legacy media and woke tech companies is hilarious.
People need to follow and file civil action suits.
— The Narrator (@Fight_Club_Lad) September 29, 2025
"It is not about the law," the Minnesota senator said of the indictment of the former FBI director.
By Cheyanne M. Daniels
Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Sunday accused the White House of seeking “vengeance” following the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as the top federal prosecutor in Virginia and the subsequent indictment of former FBI director James Comey.
In an interview with Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Klobuchar said she plans to speak with Republican colleagues on the Justice Committee, of which is she a ranking member, about Halligan’s appointment and Comey’s indictment.
“When I questioned Attorney General [Pam] Bondi during her confirmation hearing, she assured me that politics would not play a role, that they would make independent decisions,” the Minnesota Democrat said. “That’s not what this is. This is a vengeance prosecution. It is not about the law.”
Halligan was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after the former attorney, Erik Seibert, resigned after pressure from the White House. Seibert had also failed to bring charges against New York Attorney Letitia James despite urging from President Donald Trump.
Two days after she was sworn in, Halligan — who has no prosecutorial experience but represented Trump in the criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith over his hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago a — filed charges against Comey.
The two charges stem from the fromer FBI director’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about the bureau’s investigation into possible connections between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
Notably, the charges came after Trump called on Bondi to prosecute his perceived political enemies, including Comey.
“What I see, this as a former prosecutor myself, this is weaponizing the Justice Department,” Klobuchar said on Sunday.
For his part, Comey, who Trump fired in 2017, expressed disappointment in the DOJ but confidence in the justice system.
“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either,” Comey said. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent, so, let’s have a trial.”
If a government shutdown wasn’t already exceedingly likely, President Donald Trump might have made it a near certainty Monday night.
By Meredith Lee Hill
The president posted a vulgar AI-generated deepfake video to his Truth Social slamming the top Democratic leaders — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — just hours after he hosted the two for an Oval Office meeting.
The video depicts Schumer and Jeffries as if speaking to reporters following the meeting, but the fabricated audio has Schumer saying Democrats “have no voters anymore, because of our woke, trans bullshit” and that “if we give all these illegal aliens health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us.”
That appears to be a crude reference to a shutdown talking point pushed by Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP leaders noting that one Democratic demand is to reverse health care provisions in the recently enacted GOP megabill — including provisions aimed at excluding noncitizens from public benefits.
Jeffries is depicted in a sombrero and mariachi music plays in the background. Trump sat down with the top House Democrat for the first time ever Monday.
Jeffries appeared to reply on X: “Bigotry will get you nowhere. Cancel the Cuts. Lower the Cost. Save Healthcare. We are NOT backing down.” Schumer in his own reply said, “If you think your shutdown is a joke, it just proves what we all know: You can’t negotiate. You can only throw tantrums.”
After looking over the video, one senior GOP aide granted anonymity to speak candidly said, “This might top the last shutdown.” That’s a reference to the 2018-2019 shutdown under Trump that lasted a record 35 days.
Conservative media outlets suggested undercover federal agents incited the insurrection. U.S. President Donald Trump amplified that claim.
By Anna Rascouët-Paz
In late September 2025, a rumor began to spread that, contrary to the assertions of former FBI Director Christopher Wray, the federal law enforcement agency had sent agents undercover in the crowd of protesters on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. and the agents then incited the violence that resulted in the U.S. Capitol riot.
For example, a Sept. 25 X post (archived) claimed "275 undercover agents" were in the crowd of Jan. 6 rioters:
The claim appeared elsewhere on X as well as on Reddit. Further, Snopes readers emailed asking to confirm whether the rumor was true.
The claim was not new. Snopes identified posts from 2024 making the same claim. This rumor circulated widely in an attempt to find attenuating circumstances for Jan. 6 rioters convicted of crimes, including trespassing, assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy.
This time, however, the rumor stemmed from reports by conservative news outlets The Blaze and Just the News, both published on Sept. 25, 2025.
Citing one anonymous congressional source, The Blaze said the FBI had admitted to sending "274 plainclothes agents" in the Jan. 6 crowd. It also reported that 26 FBI informants also joined the crowd, four of whom entered the Capitol.
Just the News linked to an "after-action report" it said it had obtained and also reported that 274 agents were in the crowd.
The reports appeared to suggest that the long-standing rumor that undercover FBI agents had incited the violence was true. Two days later, on Sept. 27, President Donald Trump relayed the claim on Truth Social, in a post that has since been deleted (archived):
In the post, Trump called Jan. 6 a hoax. He also said these claims directly contradicted Wray's testimony.
After Jan. 6, 2021, a House subcommittee on Jan. 6 began to conduct an investigation. This subcommittee disbanded in January 2023 after 18 months of work. However, in early September 2025 the House voted to open a new subcommittee chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican from Georgia, to reinvestigate the matter, including the conclusions of the first subcommittee. The new subcommittee included Democrats.
Snopes reviewed the after-action report published by Just the News, which did not support the claims in the outlet's story. We could not identify who The Blaze's anonymous source was, therefore we could not confirm its report. We have contacted both the FBI and the new House subcommittee and we will update this report should they respond.
However, we found a Sept. 26, 2025, post on X (archived) by the new subcommittee on Jan. 6, which included the apparent screen capture of a spreadsheet:
The row concerning the deployment of FBI agents during Jan. 6 read:
Deployment date: 1/6/2021
Position type: Agents
Event: 1/6 incident
Field Office/HQ Division: WFO [Washington Field Office]
Total Personnel Count: 274
Notes: This number includes agents that responded to the Capitol grounds as well as inside the Capitol, the pipe bombs, and the red truck that was believed to contain explosive devices as well as CDC/ADCS.
While the number matched the reports by The Blaze and Just the News, the notes did not corroborate the claim that the FBI agents were undercover.
While the exact number of FBI agents deployed had not been publicly reported before, the allegations that the FBI and its former director, Wray, had attempted to keep it secret did not hold up, either. For example, a December 2024 report by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General acknowledged that in light of the intelligence the FBI was gathering on the Jan. 6 protest, "hundreds of highly trained specialized teams" would "be meeting DC."
It falls under the FBI's responsibility to support a law enforcement response for crowd control should the circumstances call for it, as this DOJ report explained. However, the same report said the investigation had revealed no proof this had been the case. "We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6," the report said.
Instead, the FBI deployed agents after the riot began. The report read:
Indeed, after the Capitol was breached by rioters on January 6, the FBI was in a position to deploy tactical assets to help clear the Capitol of protesters and to help USCP secure the perimeter around the Capitol Complex. The FBI told Congress that its posture for January 6 preparations was "extraordinary," and we found that the FBI effectively carried out its tactical support function on January 6.
Citing the DOJ report, The Blaze's story included one sentence that appeared to seed doubt. "Depending how one reads 'undercover' agents versus 'plainclothes agents,' both statements could be true," it read.
It is important to note that most FBI agents do not wear uniforms in the field, unlike local law enforcement. Instead, most wear civilian clothes, except for tactical teams, who instead may wear tactical gear. As a rule, the dress code is business casual. The Blaze's and Just the News' reports did not cite "undercover" agents, but plainclothes agents, which is consistent with FBI standards for dress.
In sum, despite suggestions by these two news outlets and the now-deleted post by Trump, there was no evidence that the FBI agents deployed on Jan. 6 were undercover. We could not independently confirm the number, though it is in line with the DOJ report published in December 2024.
This is a reckoning of James Comey’s own making — and Dems for weaponizing justice system first
Former FBI Director James Comey in a frame grab from a video feed as he is sworn in remotely from his home during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing exploring the bureau’s investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian election interference in Washington, on Sept. 30, 2020. REUTERS
By Miranda Devine
Published Sep. 28, 2025, Updated Sep. 29, 2025
In the wake of James Comey’s indictment, Democrats like Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Eric Swalwell are issuing dark warnings with a straight face that “what goes around comes around” and that anyone who cooperates with Donald Trump’s “vengeance prosecutions” will face retribution when Dems are back in charge.
But their threats fall on deaf ears because they started it. Democrats long ago weaponized the justice system against their political opponents.
Let us count the ways.
On President Joe Biden’s watch, Trump faced four separate indictments with 88 criminal charges; more than 1,500 Trump supporters were arrested and over-prosecuted in the J6 investigation; Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were jailed for contempt of Nancy Pelosi’s J6 star chamber; Trump adviser Roger Stone was arrested at dawn in a heavy-handed SWAT raid; Comey entrapped Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn; the DOJ, FBI and IRS covered up Biden corruption and jailed whistleblowers Gal Luft and Alexander Smirnov. To name a few.
Conservatives of every stripe were under legal assault. The FBI spied on school board meetings and Catholics at Latin Mass.
FBI agents were subjected to politically motivated loyalty tests to weed out those suspected of supporting Trump.
Biden pressured AG Merrick Garland to investigate Trump and lay off his son — only he did it through anonymous leaks to the New York Times rather than out in the open on Truth Social.
‘Unforgivable’
“James Comey deserves our utter contempt for the damage he did to our system of justice along with the rule of law in America,” says Flynn.
Like Comey, Flynn was charged with making false statements to government officials during an official proceeding, Flynn to the FBI, Comey to Congress.
In January 2017, days after Trump took office, Comey sent two FBI agents to visit Flynn, the newly appointed national security adviser, to question him about legitimate phone calls he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak after the election.
Flynn was charged with making false statements to the FBI, which he denied, but when prosecutors threatened to charge his son, he pleaded guilty.
“I sent them [the agents],” Comey bragged of his violation of policy, in an on-stage interview with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace.
“Something I wouldn’t have done or got away with a more organized administration, in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration,” he said. “[But] I thought: It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.”
The audience laughed.
For Flynn, a military veteran and patriot, of whose advice Trump never got the benefit, Comey’s idle abuse of power led to years of torment.
He lost his house, his business, and most of his savings fighting the case before Trump pardoned him.
“What he did to my family, the Trump administration and to the people of America is unforgivable,” says Flynn. “He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
Another Trump intimate, Stone, was charged with the same offenses as Comey: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, like Flynn over fake Russia collusion allegations.
Yet, unlike Comey, Stone wasn’t afforded the genteel route of turning himself in to authorities at his leisure.
In the predawn darkness of Jan. 25, 2019, a heavily armed FBI SWAT team stormed Stone’s house with a CNN camera crew in tow to capture his distress as he and his wife were marched outside in their pajamas at gunpoint. Stone lost his home, his savings, his insurance and even his car in the endless legal saga, which also only ended when Trump pardoned him.
“There is no better example of the two-tiered justice system,” says Stone.
“The judge issued a broad gag order preventing me from defending myself in public, arguing that my public defense could ‘taint the jury pool’ which, of course, does not explain why she left the gag order in place after my conviction, and after I was sentenced,” he says, wondering, “Why is there no gag order on James Comey?”
Justice ‘hot and cold’
Good question. As soon as he was indicted last week, Comey posted a self-righteous, self-pitying video on Instagram declaring his innocence and posing as a resistance hero.
“My family and I have known for years that there are costs for standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees,” he said.
Navarro, another senior adviser in Trump’s first administration, was jailed last March for four months for defying a congressional subpoena from the J6 committee, the first time in 40 years that anyone has been sent to jail for contempt of Congress.
Like Stone, Navarro wants to know why Comey is being treated with kid gloves in contrast to his own brutal arrest in 2022 at Reagan National Airport as he boarded a plane for Nashville.
Navarro was handcuffed, shackled in leg irons, strip-searched and thrown in a jail cell.
“How come Comey is allowed to self-surrender when they sent five armed FBI agents to take me down?” he asked.
“My message to the Republican National Convention the day I got out of prison was simple: If we don’t hold them accountable, they will do it again,” says Navarro, who just published a book about his ordeal: “I Went To Prison So You Won’t Have To.”
“They include not just Comey but [Barack] Obama, [Hillary] Clinton, [James] Clapper, [Lisa] Page, [Peter] Strzok, [Rod] Rosenstein and the FBI agent who put me in leg irons, Walter Giardina,” he says. “No martyrs among them, only perpetrators.”
He could have added other devious former coup plotters, such as CIA Director John Brennan, New York AG Letitia James and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, who are currently under investigation.
Bannon is another former Trump adviser attacked with Democratic lawfare who, like Navarro, was jailed for contempt of Congress.
He describes the Comey indictment as merely “an appetizer for a full meal we are going to ram down the throat of the Deep State.”
“The internal enemies of our country better lawyer up because justice is being served in the best way possible — cold and hard.”
Back when the shoe was on the other foot, the same Democrats and their media handmaidens who are now hyperventilating about Comey getting the start of his just deserts, couldn’t wait to get to a microphone to say: “No one is above the law.”
Even when the FBI conducted an armed raid on the home of a former president — Trump’s Mar-a-Lago — and rifled through Melania Trump’s underwear drawer, Dems just smirked and said: “We believe in the rule of law.”
So spare us the outrage.
Tit-for-tat indictments
The indictment of Comey is only “unprecedented” in the sense that Republicans have not played the game before.
Now they’re on the field and it’s scorched earth time.
Expect more indictments as soon as this week.
The indictment of Comey is only “unprecedented” in the sense that Republicans have not played the game before.
Now they’re on the field and it’s scorched earth time.
Expect more indictments as soon as this week.
It’s not revenge. It’s accountability. It’s a necessary squaring up, evening the ledger, building deterrence.
As Trump said last week: “You can’t let this go on. They are sick, radical left people, and they can’t get away with it.”
“I Think We’re Headed to a Shutdown” – Vance SLAMS Schumer, Democrats For Trying to Hold Americans Hostage to Fund Healthcare for Illegal Aliens (VIDEO)
Sep. 29, 2025
By Cristina Laila
Top Democrat and Republican lawmakers met with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance to discuss a stopgap bill that will avert a government shutdown.
Two stopgap bills have stalled in the Senate over the last two weeks because Democrats are blocking President Trump’s agenda.
The government will shut down on Wednesday because the Democrats are seeking $1.5 trillion in spending that will fund healthcare for illegal aliens and sex reassignment surgery for children.
Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer came out of the meeting on Monday claiming he tried to guilt-trip President Trump by bringing up a child with cancer.
“I told him how I met a mother who was crying because her daughter has cancer…and what has happened with healthcare with what they have done, she’s gonna watch her daughter suffer and maybe die. And he seemed to understand the magnitude of this crisis,” Schumer said.
WATCH:
BREAKING: Chuck Schumer says he tried to guilt-trip President Trump in the Oval Office, bringing up a child with cancer while demanding Trump back his spending plan that funds illegal alien healthcare and trans surgeries for kids.
“I told him how I met a mother who was crying… pic.twitter.com/ggDLgCJ8rx
🚨 BREAKING: Chuck Schumer says he tried to guilt-trip President Trump in the Oval Office, bringing up a child with cancer while demanding Trump back his spending plan that funds illegal alien healthcare and trans surgeries for kids.
Vice President JD Vance came out of the meeting and slammed Schumer and Democrat lawmakers in remarks to reporters outside of the White House.
“I think we’re headed to do a shutdown because the Democrats won’t do the right thing,” Vance told reporters.
“Democrats want a $1.5 trillion spending package that funded free health care for illegals. We told them that was absurd, and now they’re willing to shut down the government over it. It’s unacceptable,” he said.
“You will hear a lot from Democrats about the fact that American health care policy is broken…every single thing that they accuse about being broken about American health care is policy that Democrats have supported for the past decade,” Vance said as Speaker Mike Johnson nodded in agreement.
“So if they want to talk about how to fix American health care policy, let’s do it. I’d love to do it. The Senate Majority Leader would love to do it. Let’s work on it together, but let’s do it in the context of an open government that’s providing essential services to the American people. That’s all that we’re proposing to do, and the fact that they refuse to do that shows how unreasonable their position is,” Vance added.
WATCH:
BREAKING: JD Vance tells Democrats to SHOVE IT, says a shutdown is coming.
“I think we’re headed to do a shutdown because the Democrats won’t do the right thing.”
“Democrats want a $1.5 TRILLION spending package that funded free health care for illegals. We told them that… pic.twitter.com/Tf4fp3rMeF
🚨 BREAKING: JD Vance tells Democrats to SHOVE IT, says a shutdown is coming.
"I think we're headed to do a shutdown because the Democrats won't do the right thing."
"Democrats want a $1.5 TRILLION spending package that funded free health care for illegals. We told them that… pic.twitter.com/Tf4fp3rMeF
Obama Presidential Center’s $470 Million Pledge To Protect Taxpayers Is Nearly Empty
By Jon Dougherty
Sep. 29, 2025
When the Obama Foundation won approval to build the Obama Presidential Center on 19.3 acres of Chicago’s Jackson Park, it promised a $470 million reserve fund to protect taxpayers if the project failed.
But new tax filings show the foundation has deposited just $1 million into that endowment and has not made additional contributions in years, prompting critics to warn the shortfall could leave Chicagoans liable for hundreds of millions of dollars.
The endowment was a condition of the city agreement that transferred control of the parkland to the foundation as construction of the center proceeded. City officials and foundation representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment, Fox News reported.
“The foundation ultimately secured the public land for just $10 in 2018 under a 99-year deal,” said the outlet.
When former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama turned the first sod at the site in September 2021, the Obama Foundation had deposited just $1 million — roughly 0.21% of the $470 million reserve it pledged — into the required endowment, and that amount has not increased since, according to recent filings.
With construction proceeding slowly and project costs rising from an initial estimate of $330 million to at least $850 million, critics say the lack of progress on the endowment raises the prospect that Chicago taxpayers could be left responsible if the center’s finances sour, Fox reported.
The foundation’s most recent tax return also shows volatile year-to-year revenue, fundraising shortfalls and unfulfilled donor commitments, underscoring concerns about the project’s financial footing.
Illinois GOP Chair Kathy Salvi called the development an “abomination,” saying Democrats’ deal with the foundation risks exposing local taxpayers to large liabilities.
“It should come as no surprise that the Obama Center is potentially leaving Illinois taxpayers high and dry — it’s an Illinois Democrat tradition,” Salvi told Fox News Digital. “Democrats in this state, when not going to prison for corruption, treat taxpayers like a personal piggy bank giving sweetheart deals to their political benefactors.”
Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor emeritus who also teaches at New York University, has long warned about the endowment and advised the local nonprofit Protect Our Parks in its legal efforts to block construction of the Obama Presidential Center.
Epstein says the foundation’s failure to fund the reserve vindicates his long-standing contention that the city should not have ceded the large swath of Jackson Park to the project, Fox reported.
“They put a million dollars into a $400 million endowment, so it’s endowed. That gets you in jail as a securities matter,” Epstein told Fox News Digital. “An endowment means that you have the money in hand. But they have nothing. They just have the same $1 million that they put in in 2021 as far as I can tell. So, I regard this as something of a public calamity.”
An endowment is a fund designed to generate sufficient interest annually to cover operating expenses without using the principal, thereby eliminating the need for taxpayer assistance.
“Without an endowment, they’ll have to scramble every year to cover $30 million in operating costs,” Epstein said. “The whole point of an endowment is to avoid that volatility. They just haven’t endowed it. Of that I’m 100% sure.”
Epstein argues that if the foundation or center fails, the public could be burdened with costs for traffic rerouting, environmental impacts, or even the expenses of an incomplete building.
“Nobody knows exactly who is responsible for what if the project is abandoned or incomplete,” he told Fox. “There is a risk that the public will then have to bear that loss because the foundation won’t have the money.”
Epstein said the city has effectively looked the other way, labeling the foundation “compliant” on the endowment despite only $1 million ever being deposited — a sign, he argued, that officials never intended to enforce the requirement.
As I mentioned here, ABC reported that the lie charged in the Jim Comey indictment pertains to whether he authorized Dan Richman to share information anonymously, not whether he authorized Andrew McCabe to do so.
Sources told ABC News that “PERSON 1” is Clinton and “PERSON 3” is Richman, a longtime law professor who — as ABC News previously reported — met with federal prosecutors last week after being subpoenaed in the matter.
Charlie Savage has the best piece on the likely theory of the indictment. I’d like to expand on that to explain why I think it more likely we’ll obtain proof that Kash Patel lied to Congress as a result of this prosecution than that Jim Comey did.
As you read the following remember that Kash assured the Senate Judiciary Committee — including in this exchange with Mazie Hirono — that he would not “go[] backwards” to investigate Jim Comey.
Senator Hirono (02:18:49):
Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who’s on your list?
Kash Patel (02:18:54):
I have no intentions of going backwards-
Except it appears that Kash did precisely that.
The indictment appears to accuse Comey of authorizing Dan Richman to serve as a source for this article on the Hillary and Trump investigations, especially this passage about the SVR document purporting to report that Loretta Lynch had told Amanda Renteria she would intervene to protect Hillary (the charge the grand jury rejected was also focused on these SVR documents, which I explained here).
During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.
The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.
Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.
Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?
The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.
[snip]
But some time after that meeting, Mr. Comey began talking to his advisers about announcing the end of the Clinton investigation himself, according to a former official.
“When you looked at the totality of the situation, we were leaning toward: This is something that makes sense to be done alone,” said Mr. Steinbach, who would not confirm the existence of the Russian document.
Former Justice Department officials are deeply skeptical of this account. If Mr. Comey believed that Ms. Lynch were compromised, they say, why did he not seek her recusal? Mr. Comey never raised this issue with Ms. Lynch or the deputy attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, former officials said.
Importantly, Richman was a named source for the story, which will make it hard to prove that Comey authorized Richman to serve as an anonymous source. (Hilariously, Pat Fitzgerald’s meticulous mapping during the Scooter Libby trial of the difference between an “anonymous” source and a “background” source might, by itself, defeat this case.)
As part of an investigation into the sources for this story (which targeted Jim Baker closely), John Durham seems to have discovered either details of how the FBI authorized people to weigh in on stories or that Dan Richman served as a cut-out for Comey, I’m not sure which.
The reopened Arctic Haze investigation was biased against Comey
That discovery led DOJ to reopen a bunch of investigations into 2017 stories pertaining to the Russian investigation, documented in these filings, which I wrote up here.
As part of that, DOJ investigated whether Richman was the source for the SVR details in the April 2017 NYT story. Before closing the investigation, DOJ asked Comey for the phone he used at the time, and found nothing relevant.
[redacted] on June 29, 2021, Comey provided consent, via his counsel, for the FBI to conduct a limited search of his Apple iPhone. The FBI conducted a forensic examination of the telephone. The examination indicated the telephone contained four voicemail messages, four instant messages, two email messages, and 51 images from December 1, 2016 to May 1, 2017. None of this material contained information relevant to this investigation.
They also interviewed Richman, who among other things, told the FBI that, “Comey never asked him to talk to the media” (though it appears earlier, as described in redacted passages, he may have said Comey did).
The substance of the November 2019 Richman interview confirmed that Comey had told Richman bits about the SVR documents, but that when Mike Schmidt came to Richman and asked him about it in January 2017, Schmidt already knew more about the documents than Richman did.
On November 22, 2019, the Arctic Haze investigative team interviewed Richman. According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the “hammering” Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media.
According to Richman, he and Comey had a private conversation in Comey’s office in January 2017. The conversation pertained to Comey’s decision to make a public statement on the Midyear Exam investigation. Comey told Richman the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton was not the only reason which played into Comey’s statement on the Midyear Exam investigation. According to Richman, Comey told Richman of Lynch’s characterization of the investigation as a “matter” and not that of an investigation. Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention. Comey did not fully explain the details of the information. Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information. Richman understood the information could be used to suggest Lynch might not be impartial with regards of the conclusion of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman understood the information about Lynch was highly classified and it should be protected. Richman was an SGE at the time of the meeting.
According to Richman, he and Schmidt had a conversation shortly after the meeting with Comey in or around January 2017. Richman claimed Schmidt brought up the Classified Information and knew more about it than he did. Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure “with a discount” that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information. Richman did not know who gave Schmidt the Classified Information. Richman acknowledged he had many discussions with Schmidt about the article as an SGE and even after he resigned as an SGE. Richman acknowledged he contributed more to the article than what was attributed to him by name. Richman also stated he knew Schmidt talked to numerous other government sources for information on the article. [my emphasis]
DOJ ultimately decided they couldn’t charge either Comey or Richman, because even if Richman were a source, he would be a confirmatory source, which DOJ had never charged (they claim, though I think that’s incorrect).
They did some more interviews but — and this may sink EDVA’s case even if everything else doesn’t — they only interviewed people who would have a motive to protect Comey, not those with a motive to slam him.
After discussing the status of investigative leads and resources available with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Department of Justice’s National Security Division (DOJ NSD), the FBI investigative team was directed to interview only those officials who might have had a motive to protect Comey. Therefore, the FBI only interviewed eight of these officials who consisted mainly of former FBI officials. All of these officials denied providing the Classified Information to the New York Times. [my emphasis]
At a time when they could have charged this, Bill Barr’s DOJ assumed that the original detailed sources for the SVR story must be Comey allies.
There are at least two reasons why that was a dumb theory.
First, as the DOJ IG Report on this that investigators read — but didn’t explain in the unredacted parts of the case file — Comey and people around him believed the claims in the document were “objectively false” Comey even alluded as such in his 2018 OGR testimony (also cited in this closing document) — which Kash Patel would know personally. “So far as I knew at the time, and still think, the material itself was genuine, which is a separate question, though, from whether it was what it said was accurate.”
This entire passage is premised on the document being true.
More importantly, the sources for it are pissed off that Jim Comey announced the end of the Hillary investigation himself.
Plus, there’s no mention that one of these two SVR documents said that Jim Comey was going to throw the election for the Republicans. If someone were really familiar with the documents themselves, rather than just discussions of them, you’d expect they would suggest that maybe Comey was overcompensating out of worry that he would be deemed partial to Republicans.
The blind spot about that part of the SVR documents, notably, is replicated in the HPSCI document on which Kash was the original author.
HPSCI simply leaves out the Jim Comey allegation in one of the SVR reports, which if true, would explain why Putin wouldn’t have to (and didn’t) dump damning intel close to the election: Because Putin believed that “Comey is leaning more to the [R]epublicans, and most likely he will be dragging this investigation until the presidential elections,” something that turned out to be true. In other words, they cherry pick which Russian spy products they choose to parrot, one of the sins they accuse the ICA team of, but they do so with years of hindsight that made clear how foolish that was.
The entire right wing, including the current FBI Director, have vast blindspots about these documents (Kash even seems to believe they’re not fabricated!!). And those blindspots appear to have been replicated in the investigative choices for that investigation. That means the selective prosecution of this prosecution is built on top of the selective investigation of the Richman investigation.
Nevertheless, the investigation was closed without charging Richman for confirming classified details.
Kash did look backward
Where this becomes proof that Kash lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, claiming that “I have no intentions of going backwards” to investigate Comey is that there’s no reason to reexamine the issue (except that Comey answered a question focused on Andrew McCabe on which the statute of limitations has not yet expired).
The leak itself, if it could be pinned on Comey and Richman, could not be charged. Bill Barr did not reopen the investigation after seeing Comey’s September 2020 testimony, even though he remained busy trying to discredit Crossfire Hurricane.
While investigators this time around are chasing a parallel theory that the FBI covered up their focus on SVR documents that only exists in the fevered imaginations of people like Kash (that is, if Comey actually lied about any of this it would be material to their fevered conspiracy theories in the other part of the investigation), it would not have been material at the time, because Ted Cruz was seeking a gotcha about his fevered imagined conflict between McCabe and Comey’s testimony. The underlying 2017 question from Grassley incorporated Richman, but if Cruz’s did, there’s no hint of that. He explicitly focused on McCabe.
Nor would it be material to the Durham investigation. The Durham Report actually says that Comey refused to be interviewed, pointing instead to testimony just like this. So if there’s something in this exchange that would be usable, Durham didn’t do so.
Nevertheless, somehow, the FBI decided to go revisit this gotcha question from five years ago, which — even if Comey were lying — would not change the public understanding of Comey’s self-righteous justifications for his decisions in the Clinton investigation one bit. Outside the fevered imagination of people like Kash, or the decision to look backward to investigate a guy listed on your enemies list, there’s no reason you get to these files.
Now, Comey may have opportunity to ask Kash, under oath, how the FBI decided to go unpack the closing file for an investigation closed over three years earlier — which is why I say we may get proof that Kash lied to SJC.
But the only new information that I could conceive of that would lead the FBI to reconsider this is if the FBI spied on the NYT and found materials from Mike Schmidt saying that Richman was his source and Comey told him to leak it. Which, if it happened, would be a ten times bigger scandal than we’ve already got.
I would be shocked if Comey didn’t ask for some explanation — other than the revenge to which Trump confessed publicly — behind the predication of this investigation. I would be unsurprised if Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the case, offered him that opportunity.
And if he does, Kash is going to be stuck trying to make up some excuse that doesn’t amount to a confession he lied, as a private citizen, to SJC as part of his effort to get the job he’s using to weaponize government against Trump’s enemies.
Kash Patel wrote a book in 2023 targeting Jim Comey.
When asked whether he intended to use the FBI Director position to investigate Jim Comey, Kash claimed, under oath, that he had no intentions of going backward to do so.
And then he proceeded to do just that.
The evidence that Comey lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee is paper thin.
The evidence that Kash lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee is abundant.
Funding authorization for a federal program providing flood coverage to millions of Americans across the country is set to expire on September 30, unless Congress extends it before the looming deadline.
By Giulia Carbonaro
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides $1.3 trillion in flood coverage to about 4.7 million policyholders among homeowners, renters, and businesses.
If the program is allowed to expire, as the standoff between Republicans and Democrats in Congress remains unsolved as of Monday morning, millions could be affected—including homeowners who would not be able to get coverage at a time when disaster season is intensifying.
"Allowing the NFIP to expire will move us in the wrong direction at the worst time," said the Insurance Fairness Project in a statement shared with Newsweek.
America’s Flood Insurance Gap
Flooding is one of the most frequent and most costly natural disasters facing the nation, according to federal authorities, threatening both areas at high-risk as well as those at moderate-to-low-risk.
A 2024 study by the Joint Economic Committee found that flooding costs the nation between $179.8 and $496 billion each year. Nearly one-third (32 percent) of NFIP flood insurance claims, according to federal data, come from outside high-risk flood areas.
Crucially, flood coverage is not included in traditional home insurance policies, which means that many homeowners all across the country go without. According to federal data, 99 percent of U.S. counties have been impacted by flooding since 1999. However, only 4 percent of homeowners have flood insurance.
In this environment, FEMA and the NFIP can be hugely important to homeowners affected by flooding. The program, set up in 1968 and backed by taxpayers, offers up to $250,000 for homes and $500,000 for nonresidential buildings to those living in one of the roughly 22,600 communities adhering to standards set by NFIP and FEMA.
But the program only covers a fraction of the costs Americans often face after a natural disaster. The cost of flood insurance in the private market, meanwhile, has risen in recent years, becoming unaffordable for many.
Another Blow to FEMA and NFIP
Congress’ failure to extend NFIP could make this dire situation even worse. "For years now, dysfunction in meeting September 30 deadlines has created uncertainty for NFIP and delays in disaster relief just as disaster season is intensifying," said Jordan Haedtler, a spokesperson for the Insurance Fairness Project, in a statement shared with Newsweek.
"Federal cuts to FEMA and NOAA have already inflicted huge costs on communities and threatened the availability of insurance throughout the country," he said. "A lapse in the NFIP would make our climate-driven insurance and housing affordability crisis even worse."
First, new flood insurance policies will not be issued, and existing policies will not be eligible for renewal. NFIP policies that were entered into before September 30 will remain in effect until the end of their one-year term.
Second, real estate transactions in flood plains, according to the Insurance Fairness Project, will be frozen.
Third, the NFIP’s ability to borrow from the U.S. Treasury will be slashed from $30.425 billion to $1 billion, significantly limiting the program’s ability to pay claims in the event of a major disaster.
The program has been in debt for a long time now. While the program had a $16 billion debt forgiven in 2017, its total debt has once again ballooned to over $22.5 billion. Earlier this year, it borrowed $2 million from the U.S. Treasury to help cover claims linked to Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
A major hurricane has yet to make landfall this year. However, this has been a devastating year in terms of flooding in America. The National Weather Service has already issued more than 4,000 flash flood warnings so far in 2025, setting a record in U.S. history. More than 130 people, including many children, died in Texas this summer when the Guadalupe River burst its banks.
A Looming Government Shutdown
The nation is facing a government shutdown at midnight on Tuesday, unless Republican and Democrat leaders in Congress and the Senate agree to a deal that would allow the funding bill to move forward and be signed into law.
The two parties have found themselves at odds over what to include in the funding bill. Democrats want the stopgap bill to include health care protections, including extensions of enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act set to expire by the end of 2025. Republicans want to pass the bill without these Obamacare tax credits, and have refused to make concessions to Democrats for the past several weeks.
President Donald Trump is set to meet with top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders at the White House on Monday to find a way to keep the government funded and running. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., are set to attend.
"President Trump has once again agreed to a meeting in the Oval Office," Jeffries and Schumer said in a joint statement issued on Saturday. "As we have repeatedly said, Democrats will meet anywhere, at any time and with anyone to negotiate a bipartisan spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people. We are resolute in our determination to avoid a government shutdown and address the Republican health care crisis. Time is running out."
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 28, 2025
Yesterday, President Trump announced that he was directing Hegseth to deploy the National Guard:
"At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, @Sec_Noem, I am directing @SecWar, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, & any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, & other domestic terrorists…" – President Trump pic.twitter.com/UEyeCWoqHY
"At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, @Sec_Noem, I am directing @SecWar, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, & any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, & other domestic terrorists..." - President Trump pic.twitter.com/UEyeCWoqHY
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 27, 2025
BREAKING: President Trump has directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to deploy U.S. military troops to protect ICE facilities under nightly siege by Antifa in Portland, Oregon.
Trump wrote on Truth Social: “At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am… pic.twitter.com/KjCyOvKXbx
BREAKING: President Trump has directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to deploy U.S. military troops to protect ICE facilities under nightly siege by Antifa in Portland, Oregon.
Trump wrote on Truth Social: “At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am… pic.twitter.com/KjCyOvKXbx
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) September 27, 2025
The troops are authorized to use “full-force,” if necessary.
However, as expected, Oregon is already pushing back with a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
Reuters has more:
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday ordered 200 Oregon National Guard troops to be deployed under federal authority while the state filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump‘s move to send military forces into the Democratic-run city of Portland.
The Republican president on Saturday announced plans to send troops into Portland, saying they would be used to protect federal immigration facilities against “domestic terrorists” and that he was authorizing them to use “full force, if necessary.”
Trump’s deployments of military forces into other municipalities led by Democrats, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have spurred legal challenges and protests.
Oregon’s suit was filed against Trump, Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in federal court in Portland on Sunday by Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit accused Trump of exceeding his powers.
“Citing nothing more than baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext – the President says Portland is a ‘War ravaged’ city ‘under siege’ from ‘domestic terrorists.’ Defendants have thus infringed on Oregon’s sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement activity and National Guard resource,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit stated that protests against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in Portland have been small and relatively contained since June.
Trump’s planned deployment caught many at the Pentagon by surprise, six U.S. officials told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. On Sunday, Hegseth signed a memo ordering 200 Oregon National Guard troops deployed under federal authority. The memo was made public as an attachment to Oregon’s lawsuit.
The White House is responding to Oregon’s lawsuit, defending Hegseth’s action as both fully legal and long overdue.
Per CBS News:
In response to the lawsuit, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told CBS News Mr. Trump “is using his lawful authority” to send troops to Portland, saying that troops are being sent to protect federal assets and personnel “following months of violent riots where officers have been assaulted and doxxed by left-wing rioters.”
Local officials, including Gov. Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, have pushed back on Mr. Trump’s comments and plans to send troops to the city.
“When the president and I spoke yesterday, I told him in very plain language that there is no insurrection or a threat to public safety that necessitates military intervention in Portland or any other city in our state, despite this, and with all evidence to the contrary, he has chosen to disregard Oregonian safety and ability to govern themselves,” Kotek said at a virtual news conference on Sunday.
She said that there have been some demonstrations near a federal facility, but Portland police and federal officials there are capable of handling the situation.
“And when people cross the line … there’s unlawful activity, people are being held accountable,” Kotek said.
The governor called the deployment of troops unlawful and said that it will make residents less safe.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has had one refrain in recent days when asked about the looming government shutdown.
By SEUNG MIN KIM
Will there be a shutdown? Yes, Trump says, “because the Democrats are crazed.” Why is the White House pursuing mass firings, not just furloughs, of federal workers? Trump responds, “Well, this is all caused by the Democrats.”
Is he concerned about the impact of a shutdown? “The radical left Democrats want to shut it down,” he retorts.
“If it has to shut down, it’ll have to shut down,” Trump said Friday. “But they’re the ones that are shutting down government.”
In his public rhetoric, the Republican president has been singularly focused on laying pressure on Democrats in hopes they will yield before Wednesday, when the shutdown could begin, or shoulder the political blame if they don’t. That has aligned Trump with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who have refused to accede to Democrats’ calls to include health care provisions on a bill that will keep the government operating for seven more weeks.
Those dynamics could change Monday, when the president has agreed to host Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Johnson and Thune. Democrats believe the high-stakes meeting means the GOP is feeling pressure to compromise with them.
Still, Republicans say they are confident Democrats would be faulted if the closure comes. For Trump, the impact would go far beyond politics. His administration is sketching plans to implement mass layoffs of federal workers rather than simply furloughing them, furthering their goal of building a far smaller government that lines up with Trump’s vision and policy priorities.
This time, it’s the Democrats making policy demands
The GOP’s stance — a short-term extension of funding, with no strings attached — is unusual for a political party that has often tried to extract policy demands using the threat of a government shutdown as leverage.
In 2013, Republicans refused to keep the government running unless the Affordable Care Act was defunded, a stand that led to a 16-day shutdown for which the GOP was widely blamed. During his first term, Trump insisted on adding funding for a border wall that Congress would not approve, prompting a shutdown that the president, in an extraordinary Oval Office meeting that played out before cameras, said he would “take the mantle” for.
“I will be the one to shut it down,” Trump declared at the time.
This time, it’s the Democrats making the policy demands.
They want an extension of subsidies that help low- and middle-income earners who buy insurance coverage through the Obama-era health care law. They also want to reverse cuts to Medicaid enacted in the GOP’s tax and border spending bill this year. Republican leaders say what Democrats are pushing for is too costly and too complicated to negotiate with the threat of a government shutdown hanging over lawmakers.
Watching all this is Trump. He has not ruled out a potential deal on continuing the expiring subsidies, which some Republicans also want to extend.
“My assumption is, he’s going to be willing to sit down and talk about at least one of these issues that they’re interested in and pursuing a solution for after the government stays open,” Thune said in an Associated Press interview last week. “Frankly, I just don’t know what you negotiate at this point.”
Back and forth on a White House sit-down
At this point, Trump has shown no public indication he plans to compromise with Democrats on a shutdown, even as he acknowledges he needs help from at least a handful of them to keep the government open and is willing to meet with them at the White House.
Last week, Trump appeared to agree to sit down with Schumer and Jeffries and a meeting went on the books for Thursday. Once word got out about that, Johnson and Thune intervened, privately making the case to Trump that it was not the time during the funding fight to negotiate with Democrats over health care, according to a person familiar with the conversation who was not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Not long after hearing from the GOP leaders, Trump took to social media and said he would no longer meet with the two Democrats “after reviewing the details of the unserious and ridiculous demands being made by the Minority Radical Left Democrats.” Republicans privately acknowledge Trump’s decision to agree to a meeting was a misstep because it gave Democrats fodder to paint Trump as the one refusing to negotiate.
“Trump is literally boycotting meeting with Democrats to find a solution,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., wrote on the social media site X before Trump reversed course again and agreed to meet with the leadership. “There is no one to blame but him. He wants a shut down.”
It was not immediately clear what led Trump over the weekend to take a meeting he had once refused. Schumer spoke privately with Thune on Friday, pushing the majority leader to get a meeting with the president scheduled because of the approaching funding deadline, according to a Schumer aide. A Thune spokesman said in response that Schumer was “clearly getting nervous.”
Another reason why Democrats suspect Trump would be fine with a shutdown is how his budget office would approach a closure should one happen.
The administration’s strategy was laid out in an Office of Management and Budget memo last week that said agencies should consider a reduction in force for federal programs whose funding would lapse, are not otherwise funded and are “not consistent” with the president’s priorities. A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but also eliminate their positions, triggering yet another massive upheaval in the federal workforce.
Jeffries argued that Trump and his top aides were using the “smoke screen of a government shutdown caused by them to do more damage.”
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
