There’s something very fishy about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. I’m not talking about just the scandal itself, which, of course, remains incredibly fishy. We don’t know where Jeffrey Epstein got his gigantic oodles of money from in the first place. We don’t know who he was trafficking to, if anyone besides himself. We don’t know a lot of things about Jeffrey Epstein. What I am talking about is the response to Jeffrey Epstein. Many of the figures who have been largely associated with the question-asking about Jeffrey Epstein were, in fact, associates of Jeffrey Epstein. This is where things start to get weird in Conspiracy Land, because Conspiracy Land suggests that there are the people who are in on the conspiracy, and then there are the people who are outside attempting to crack the code on the conspiracy. But when you are talking about a hoax — and I’m not saying that everything associated with Jeffrey Epstein is a hoax — I’m talking about the political optics directed at President Trump, specifically regarding Jeffrey Epstein. One of the ways you can tell when people are in on the hoax is when they themselves were close associates of the person at issue, and now they’ve decided to try and weaponize that same person as a weapon against the people whom they are targeting. Case in point: Steve Bannon. I’ve known Steve for a very, very long time, having first met him in 2012 — Steve Bannon is not the easiest human being, to put it mildly. Steve Bannon has a long history of attempting to associate himself with more powerful people, glomming on to them, and then making his way up the chain. He made a documentary about then-Congresswoman Michele Bachmann; after that documentary was made, he then used that as an entry card to make a documentary about Sarah Palin. After that documentary was made, he then used that as an entry card to make a documentary about Andrew Breitbart. He used that documentary in order to become a prominent person at Breitbart itself. Andrew tragically passed away, and then Bannon used that position in order to leverage a position for himself in the first Trump administration. He ended by being ousted by the first Trump administration; President Trump, rather famously, called him “Sloppy Steve.” Bannon then went through a period in the wilderness where he was associating with some rather shady figures. He ended up doing a very short stint of jail time. And now he has his show, “The War Room,” where the media call him up routinely for quasi-leaks — I’m not sure how really empowered his access is to the administration — but the media is constantly using him as a window into the supposed dark side of the Trump administration, which is something that he really loves. The reason that Steve has become an issue is because Steve — along with many other people who are attempting to wrest control of the MAGA movement away from President Trump — is making the assumption that President Trump is in the waning days of his political power, that President Trump is now close to being, if he is not already, a lame duck. That means that the future of the Republican Party is going to be fought in an internal war, which will involve a war of people who have different perspectives on foreign policy and economics. Steve presumably believes that he is going to have a heavy voice in deciding the future of the MAGA movement without President Trump. Let me be clear: There is no MAGA movement without President Trump. It does not exist. President Trump is MAGA. President Trump, as I have said before, is sui generis. It is the president of the United States who decides the direction of MAGA. Every attempt to intellectualize or philosophize about President Trump, to turn his impulses, his instincts into a coherent political program, has failed. Why? Because the president holds a bunch of different, conflicting thoughts at the same time, and then he tends to come down on the side of pragmatic populism. He will try things. If they don’t work, he will then move away from them. He is not ideological. Thus, any attempt to peg President Trump to a “MAGA ideology” is destined to fail because President Trump could, for example, at one point articulate a version of MAGA in which support for Ukraine is bad, and then, when Russia is intransigent, articulate a version of MAGA in which support for Ukraine is good. President Trump is not just the leader of MAGA. He is the definition of MAGA. There is no MAGA aside from President Trump. He’s very much like Barack Obama in this way. Barack Obama was able to kind of gloss over all of the various divisions inside the Democratic Party without a necessarily cohesive program. All attempts to boil Trump down into a philosophical or ideological package, which can then be transferred over to another candidate, whether that candidate is JD Vance or Ted Cruz or Steve Bannon or anyone else, are bound to fail because President Trump is too big for that.  You can’t just take what Trump is, shrink-wrap it, put it in an ideological box, and then hand it over to the next guy. One of the things that Steve Bannon has been trying to do for years is claim that he’s the intellectual mover and shaker behind MAGA, which is silly. There is no shadow president to President Trump. There is no one who is defining Trump’s program except for President Trump.  The reason I bring this up is because Steve Bannon is one of many other people opposed to some elements of Trump’s agenda and trying to run a bizarre operation inside the Republican Party to remove support from Trump and move it over to his version of MAGA. He, among other people, has been quite vocal about the so-called Epstein scandal. He’s been very vocal about this. He’s talked about it a lot. But it turns out, again, that so much of what is happening right now is just fibbery. February. According to The Guardian: Hundreds of texts over almost a year show Maga influencer Steve Bannon and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein workshopping legal and media strategies to protect Epstein from the legal and publicity quagmire that enveloped him in the last year of his life. The texts, released by the House oversight committee on Wednesday, show that as early as June 2018, the pair were devising responses to the gathering storm of public outrage about Epstein’s criminal history, his favorable treatment by the justice system, and his friendships with powerful figures in business, politics and academia. Remember, that’s 2018, ten years after Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction, after the controversial plea deal that he cut with Alex Acosta.  We’re not talking about Donald Trump hobnobbing with Jeffrey Epstein in the late 90s. We’re not talking about going to parties with Jeffrey Epstein in Mar-A-Lago in 2004. We are talking about the fact that ten years after it was obvious to everyone that Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile, Bannon was acting not just as a friend, but as a confidante and PR advisor. Which says something about somebody. If you’re acting as a confidante and PR adviser to a convicted sex offender like Jeffrey Epstein, who was well-known to be into underage girls, I don’t know what that says about you or why you should have any level of authority in any future Republican Party. The Guardian continued: The texts, released by the House oversight committee on Wednesday, show that as early as June 2018, the pair were devising responses to the gathering storm of public outrage about Epstein’s criminal history, his favorable treatment by the justice system, and his friendships with powerful figures in business, politics and academia. Bannon conspiratorially described the renewed scrutiny of Epstein as a “sophisticated op”, and over time he counseled Epstein in his adversarial responses to media outlets, the justice system and his victims. All the while, both men were also strategizing how best to promote Bannon’s rightwing populist agenda, and the political fortunes of its standard bearer, Donald Trump. In all of Epstein’s messages, the identity of his correspondent is redacted. But Bannon’s identity in the threads cited in this reporting is clear from contextual clues including his documented activities at the time, details of his business and media pursuits, and other disclosures. In one document, the sender’s phone number is not redacted – and it is the same number linked to Bannon in a legal case against Trump adviser Roger Stone. … The men were discussing Epstein’s problems even before he came to broader public awareness as a notorious sex criminal with odd connections to the Trump administration. Bannon left the Trump White House in late summer 2017, but enjoyed a vibrant career as a Maga influencer. On 22 June 2018, days after Epstein had been the focus of an anti-Trump protest at a Trump speech, the men began discussing the scandal that was beginning to loom over Epstein.  At first they treated it as a publicity problem, with Bannon seeing it as an orchestrated campaign. … Bannon asked Epstein: “Who is running this op on u something serious going on.” Epstein replied: “First a protest at Clinton and then at trump. Lots of people very angry at our friendship.” Bannon responded: “It’s an op dude – I do this for a living – the pieces that are dropping are deeply researched,” adding: “This is sophisticated op.” They were having these back-and-forths in which Bannon was attempting to guide Epstein. We know for a fact that there are hours and hours of tape between Epstein and Bannon that have not yet been released, which is strange. What does this mean? It means that certain people are less trustworthy than others in political media. And the fact that Steve Bannon has spent his entire career trying to find more powerful people to advise and glom onto in order to advance his own agenda says something about him and about his attempts to hijack the MAGA movement beyond President Trump.

The Trump administration is designating Saudi Arabia a major non-NATO ally, strengthening economic and military ties between Washington and Riyadh, the president announced on Tuesday. President Donald Trump announced the designation while Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited the White House this week. Salman’s visit was received with many of the trappings of a state visit, though the event lacked the official status as Salman’s father is the actual head of the Saudi state. “We’re taking our military cooperation to even greater heights by formally designating Saudi Arabia as a major non-NATO ally, which is something that is very important to them,” said Trump, before adding that Washington and Riyadh will enter into “a historic strategic defense agreement, which we just signed a little while ago.” The announcement comes a day after the president said that he intends to allow Saudi Arabia to purchase F-35 stealth fighter planes from the United States. “I am planning on doing that,” the president said. “They want to buy them. They’ve been a great ally.” Salman offered promises to Trump, as well. Earlier on Tuesday, the crown prince said that Saudi Arabia intends to increase its pledge to invest in the United States from $600 billion to “almost $1 trillion.” The investment would be nearly equal to the entirety of Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, according to The New York Times. Trump has moved to strengthen ties between Washington and Riyadh after the Biden administration’s effort to distance itself from the Saudis over the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and other controversies. The Trump administration has prioritized the relationship with Riyadh, seeking its cooperation on issues such as gas production and the Abraham Accords. The Saudis have signaled interest in joining the landmark foreign policy achievement of Trump’s tenure in office, the Abraham Accords, and normalizing relations with Israel. Riyadh has made it firmly understood, though, that it cannot normalize relations with Jerusalem until a pathway to a two-state solution with the Palestinian people is secure. Saudi Arabia was one of a coalition of Arab states that backed the Trump-brokered peace and ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. The ceasefire agreement, if it holds, provides a pathway to end the war in Gaza and sets goals and parameters for a Palestinian state to eventually be built. Some experts have expressed concern over Washington’s growing ties with Riyadh, especially over the Trump administration’s decision to share highly-prized military assets such as the F-35 with the Saudis. Saudi Arabia has a defense agreement with China, and some experts have said that the Saudi government may share the technology with Beijing, according to Politico.

Democrat Virgin Islands Del. Stacey Plaskett claimed on Tuesday that she was texting convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 hearing because he was a “constituent” and not, at the time, under federal investigation. It was recently revealed that Plaskett was texting Epstein in real-time during a congressional hearing with former Trump attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen. Epstein was texting Plaskett information to seemingly go after President Donald Trump.  “I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was my constituent,” Plaskett said, defending herself on Tuesday. “[It] was not public knowledge at that time that he was under federal investigation, and … was sharing information with me.” During the hearing, Epstein told Plaskett to question Cohen about the president’s former executive assistant. Plaskett notably frets over not understanding the person’s name and tells Epstein that she’s “up next.” Minutes after Plaskett brings up the assistant’s name as she was told, Epstein texts Plaskett, “Good work.” “New Epstein files show [Stacey Plaskett] got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney,” journalist Michael Shellenberger captioned video of the newly uncovered incident. The same day as Plaskett’s jarring defense of her actions, the House rejected a Democrat bid to stop a resolution to censure Plaskett. “Delegate Plaskett’s willingness to receive instructions on official congressional proceedings from Epstein, a convicted felony sex offender with deeply concerning international associations, is especially alarming and inappropriate given her own past service in the U.S. Department of Justice and her current role on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,” the resolution, which was introduced by GOP Rep. Ralph Norman (SC), reads. The resolution will likely be considered sometime this week. “Jeffrey Epstein was a predator who exploited minors,” Norman said. “The idea that any Member of Congress would coordinate with him on official proceedings is beyond comprehension.” “This was not casual contact,” he added. “These were deliberate communications that shaped part of a hearing designed to attack President Trump. It raises serious questions about judgment, integrity, and fitness to serve.” Related: Senate Unanimously Votes To Release The Epstein Files, Sending Bill To Trump’s Desk

Despite legacy media claims, illegal immigrants do indeed receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, commonly known as food stamps. In fact, it’s estimated that millions of illegal immigrants are collecting food stamps. Though SNAP data is hard to come by, seemingly intentionally so, a 2024 Survey of Income and Program Participation that’s been analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) gives us some insight. CIS estimates that up to 4.5 million illegals are using SNAP, even though SNAP is restricted to applicants who have legal status. Notably, only the applicant, in theory, must have legal status in the U.S. Members of households who indirectly benefit from food stamps do not have to disclose legal status. Moreover, illegal immigrants are already permitted to use WIC, which is another welfare food program, though it’s more restrictive than SNAP. CIS also found that 47% of all noncitizen households — which includes noncitizens with legal status — receive taxpayer-funded food assistance, be it WIC or SNAP, or both. In another eye-popping statistic, 59.4% of illegal immigrant households use at least one major welfare program, CIS estimates. Much attention has been paid to the SNAP program since the recent Democrat-backed government shutdown, which is finally over. The program is massive and apparently had no real oversight before the Trump administration stepped in. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has openly called the program “extremely corrupt” and is undertaking a complete overhaul to root out fraud and abuse. Most notably, she’s having everyone on SNAP reapply for their benefits, which could potentially save taxpayers billions of dollars. Currently, there are about 43 million people in the SNAP program, which is about 12% of the population. It costs taxpayers around $100 billion to fund annually. Rollins said that when she became secretary, she realized SNAP was basically running on autopilot while experiencing this massive growth. She cited 40% growth during the COVID era. After she was sworn in, Rollins asked every state to share their SNAP data to track down the fraud, but only 29 states complied, mostly red states. She said, so far, they’ve identified 186,000 deceased people receiving SNAP checks, 500,000 people getting two times the benefits they are supposed to, and individuals receiving benefits in multiple states. The Trump administration is currently suing the remaining states, including New York and California, for their SNAP data. Rollins has suggested that the fraud and abuse exposed there will be even worse. Rollins and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are also working together to push states to limit food and drink choices available for SNAP. Soda is one of the most commonly purchased items with food stamps, and nearly 25% of SNAP dollars go to soda and candy, and other junk food. So far, 11 states have asked for waivers to exclude soda and candy from SNAP – all red states except for Colorado.

State Attorney General Letitia James (D-NY) called on Monday for the mortgage fraud charges against her to be dropped, arguing in a 22-page filing that President Donald Trump’s administration had engaged in “outrageous government conduct” in bringing the case in the first place. Attorneys representing James argued in the filing that the charges themselves were “patently unconstitutional,” according to a CBS News report. They claimed that several officials within the Trump administration had embarked upon “months of unethical behavior” culminating in the allegation that she’d bought property in the state of Virginia, calling it a “second home” to secure a lower interest rate but instead turning it out as a rental property. “If this brazen, continuous disregard for the law and the Constitution is not outrageous government conduct, nothing is,” the attorneys claimed, naming Fair Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte, top Justice Department official Ed Martin, and interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan in the filing. Pulte was the one who sparked the investigation into the New York Attorney General — who had herself run on a platform of “getting Trump” and then willed a case into reality in her attempt to follow through. Pulte referred James for prosecution, but her attorneys claimed that he had “transformed the little-known agency into a weapon to be brandished against President Trump’s political enemies.” They also attacked the Justice Department’s special attorney for mortgage fraud, Ed Martin – who called for James to resign shortly after the charges were filed — arguing that he “has engaged in a well-documented series of actions that cannot be described as anything but outrageous.” “The letter was not an attempt to investigate the facts, nor did it hide his plain intention to pressure the sitting Attorney General of New York to resign from office or face criminal prosecution,” the lawyers said, also asserting that it represented a violation of “various codes of professional responsibility and ethics,” among other things. They were equally displeased with Halligan, and claimed that the case against James amounted to “vindictive prosecution.” The attorneys concluded by claiming that the Trump administration was out to “punish AG James for daring to take a stand against the President—both in this Court and by making the investigation of her so public and intrusive that the pre-trial process itself serves as punishment.”