President Donald Trump on Friday accused China of blatantly violating a temporary agreement with the U.S. to reduce tariffs during ongoing trade negotiations.

In their wisdom, the Democratic Party choice to bring in young frat boys to the Democrat Party by enlisting 22-year-old activist Olivia Julianna Herrera to court young male voters. I wholeheartedly agree with their choice. The choice represents the party very well. Young men have floated over toward the right, and Democrats want them back. […] The post Democrats Recruit Olivia Herrera to Attract Young Men to the Party! Cool! appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Sir Ian McKellen, perhaps best known for portraying Gandalf in the “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy, will stage a reading to introduce a new Shakespeare production in London that’s being touted for its all transgender and “non-binary” cast. The 86-year-old actor is slated to appear in support of a new adaptation of “Twelfth Night” being staged by the Trans What You Will theater group in London in July.  “Twelfth Night is perhaps the funniest and most moving of Shakespeare’s plays. This is achieved through the complexity of gender and sexuality from first to last. I’m really looking forward to the impact of this latest version of the play at The Space. I hope to see you there!” a quote attributed to McKellen that was posted to the theater group’s Instagram page said. Those involved with the production gushed about the upcoming stage play.  Director Phoebe Kemp told Attitude Magazine, “Twelfth Night already toys with gender and performance — it feels like Shakespeare wrote it for us. This reading is about joy, solidarity and showing what’s possible when trans and nonbinary artists are at the center of the story.”  Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships “With mistaken identities, cross-dressing, and declarations of love across shifting gender roles, Twelfth Night has long explored the complexity of identity. This production makes that queerness explicit, reclaiming the story through the lived experiences of trans and nonbinary artists,” a rep for Trans What You Will added. Twelfth Night is a comedy centered on mistaken identity involving the main character, Viola, who disguises herself as a man after being shipwrecked. Viola becomes stuck in a love triangle, and the play ends in multiple marriages and the revelation of true identities.  McKellen, who is gay, said in 2017 that his political activism was ultimately “more important” and “longer-lasting than any acting” he’s done. In the 1980s, he helped fight a law in England that prohibited authorities from “promoting homosexuality” and co-founded a U.K.-based gay rights organization. “I’m very proud of my small contributions to changing the law in this country and changing attitudes, all for the better,” he told The Hollywood Reporter at the time.

The Durham Report rightly concluded that the Russia Hoax should never have made it out of the corrupt incubator. It highlighted a number of irregularities, some would even say illegalities committed by the FBI along the way — contending that the FBI “failed to uphold its mission of strict fidelity to the law.” It was similar to National Intelligence Director Clapper saying he gave the “least untruthful” answer possible. One of the most audacious and consequential political scandals in our nation’s history, the Russia Hoax, was both simple and fantastical and had what most outside observers would have considered long odds for success. The plan looked something like this: Conceive of a traitorous crime supposedly committed by President Trump. Fabricate damning evidence of that crime.  Engage key politicians, governmental agencies, and media confederates to validate and publicize that false evidence. Use the fabricated evidence to impeach the president. Remove the president from office in a wake of shame. Draw out all of the steps above in a protracted manner to both cripple his credibility and consume as much of the president’s term in office as possible. Particularly given the preposterous premise upon which it was built, the scheme was hugely successful, no doubt wildly exceeding the expectations of its creators. They were, in fact, able to achieve all but step five above. In retrospect, given the serious nature of the accusations — arguably rising to the level of treason — it raises an important question: Why weren’t the founding perpetrators more concerned with the hoax and themselves being exposed, and the repercussions that should have followed? It is likely because they were supremely confident that regardless of whether exposure materialized, no such repercussions were likely or even possible. Especially since Democrats possessed solid control of so many other political power bases — chiefly, The House of Representatives, the mainstream, social, and search media channels, and many top agents across a wide variety of governmental agencies, including the courts. While that control would be more pervasively and evidently wielded in the run up to the 2020 election, it was still a huge factor in 2016. Insurance Policy #1 A small example of that control was hinted at in the texts exchanged by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in August of 2016 in which he assured her of an “insurance policy” in the unlikely event of a Trump victory. Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request for the additional texts exchanged by the two lovers that year. The request was initially denied by the FBI and appealed by Judicial Watch. Eventually, the FBI released a few pages of texts, but they were almost completely redacted — in some cases with, not merely names or titles, but entire conversations blacked out. FBI agent Peter P. Strzok. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images. Any further review may not even be possible at this point. Recall that more than two dozen cell phones of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team were wiped clean before the Justice Department’s inspector general could examine them. Deputy Andrew Weisman’s phone actually had the extraordinary experience of being “accidentally wiped” twice. Insurance Policy #2 Fast forward a few years to Insurance Policy #2 as Donald Trump’s nomination for the Republican presidential candidate in the 2024 election became increasingly likely. This strategy employed a familiar playbook with a few twists and looked something like this: Conceive of crimes (criminal and/or civil) supposedly committed by candidate and former President Trump. Pretend that damning evidence of those crimes exists. Engage key politicians, governmental agencies, and media confederates to validate and publicize that false evidence. Use the fabricated evidence to file suits/charges with carefully shopped courts/judges to successfully prosecute, smear, and hopefully imprison candidate Trump. Destroy Trump’s candidacy through physical imprisonment and/or a wake of shame. Draw out all of the steps above in a protracted manner to both cripple his credibility and consume as much of the candidate’s time and financial resources as possible. Once again, the perpetrators experienced a fair degree of success with their plan — accomplishing nearly all but step five above. In violation of countless legal and departmental precedents, and logic, candidate Trump was charged in various venues with attempting to overthrow the 2020 election, improper handling of classified documents, defrauding a lender in a commercial real estate loan, sexual abuse and defaming Jean Carroll decades prior, falsifying hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, election interference, and much more. In all, candidate Trump faced more than 90 different charges — with potential consequences of significant prison time and financial penalty (the latter of which he certainly experienced). Unfortunately for Democrats most Americans saw the over-the-top lawfare for what it was — politically motivated and corrupt persecution. And they voted accordingly. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Insurance Policy #3 Now, here we are in 2025 with President Trump in office and hoping to execute the agenda on which he was soundly elected. We are now seeing Insurance Policy #3 unfolding. Not surprisingly, it has similarities to the first two, and looks like this: Conceive of constitutional violations supposedly committed by President Trump and/or his administration. Pretend that damning evidence of those violations exists.  Engage key politicians, governmental agencies, and media confederates to validate and publicize these violations. Use carefully shopped courts/judges to successfully sue for Temporary Restraining Orders/National Injunctions of President Trump’s executive orders and policies.  Draw out all of the steps above in a protracted manner to neutralize the Trump agenda, damage President Trump and his Administration’s credibility, and consume as much of his time in office as possible. Once again, Democrats are experiencing success with most of these. They have managed to block or partially block the following: termination of birthright citizenship; dismantling of the Department of Education; stoppage of federal funding to sanctuary cities; termination of a special counsel; stoppage of foreign aid; firing of “probationary employees” from several federal agencies; expedited removal of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members; and much more. Jim WATSON / AFP And since the Kennedy administration, no president has endured more injunctions than Trump. According to a 2024 article in the Harvard Law Review, “Just over half (64) of the injunctions issued since 1963 were issued against Trump Administration policies.” Now, President Trump has barely been in office for 100 days and judges have already imposed 25 nationwide injunctions against his orders. Compare that to six over the course of George W. Bush’s entire eight-year presidency and 14 during Joe Biden’s single term. At this rate, his administration will have incurred some 360 nationwide injunctions during this term. The Harvard Law Review article also points out that “Structural features of litigation exacerbate the politicization of the injunction.” Indeed, in his first term, more than 90% of the 64 injunctions issued against his administration were leveled by Democrat-appointed judges. They observe that judges who are “unelected and unaccountable” end up determining policy for the rest of the country concluding:  … for each policy challenged, the asymmetrical effects of preclusion ensure that nationwide injunctions are a powerful tool for political opponents who can challenge the policy in multiple venues. Practically speaking, a successful defense against a nationwide injunction in one court is barely a win for the government at all: because that decision has no preclusive effect on new plaintiffs, other plaintiffs are free to bring the exact same lawsuit elsewhere and “[s]hop ’til the statute drops. The irony of this quagmire is that the messes this administration is now trying to clean up — illegal immigration, violent crime, DEI discrimination, men in women’s sports and transgenderism, out of control federal spending and related issues such as fraud, waste and employee bloat, and much more were nearly all created without any legislation or votes, but by unilateral executive or agency order. Now, when the public and their elected president would like to correct many of those bad decisions, they are being hamstrung at every turn with legal tape and accused of acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally. As Mark Levin observes: These judges are abusing their power. They know they’re abusing their power. They’re issuing these national injunctions to cripple the Executive Branch, to overturn the results of an election. It is an insurrection. That’s exactly what it is. Jonathan Turley calls this “chronic injuntivitis” and points out that Democrats and Republicans alike have long complained about out of control federal judges and their use of the national injunction to freeze an entire executive branch for years on a given policy or policies. He argues that it is time for the Supreme Court to end the ridiculousness. In his well considered piece, “The Best Way to Fix National Injunctions” GianCarlo Canaparo at the Heritage Foundation observes that the power to issue a national injunction makes a single district court judge as powerful or more powerful than a majority of Supreme Court justices:“With that power, a single judge can block the government from enforcing a rule or policy as to anyone, anywhere, at any time.” If this precedent is allowed to stand, it will essentially render elections moot. Any one of some 677 district court judges has the power to thwart and/or overturn the will of a president, of an entire branch of government, of an entire party, and indeed, the entirety of the U.S. voting majority with the stroke of a pen. Absent a solution, Insurance Policy #3 will have accomplished all five steps of its mission. Canaparo says that there are only two fixes: legislation or a decree from the Supreme Court. Let’s begin pressuring our elected representatives to work for both. * * * Greg Salsbury, Ph.D. is former president of Western Colorado University and Board of Advisor member for STARRS.US. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Actor Russell Brand pleaded “not guilty” to charges of rape and sexual assault on Friday. The 49-year-old appeared at Southwark Crown Court in London for a very short pre-trial hearing. Brand pleaded not guilty to the five charges filed against him. As The Daily Wire previously reported, the accusations stem from four alleged incidents; one in 1999 in which a woman said she was raped in the Bournemouth area, one in 2001 in which a woman claimed she was indecently assaulted in the Westminster area of London, one in 2004 when a woman said she was orally raped and sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London, and one between 2004 and 2005, in which a woman claimed she was sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London. Brand will remain on conditional bail until his trial begins in June 2026, per The New York Times. The actor will have to keep the court advised of any address changes going forward until the trial begins. The celebrity is being represented by lawyer Oliver Schneider-Sikorsky, who also defended actor Kevin Spacey against sex assault allegations in 2023. Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships Brand released a lengthy video in response after the charges were made public, admitting he used to be a sex addict but claiming that all sexual behavior in his past was consensual. “I’ve always told you guys that when I was young and single before I had my wife and family… I was a fool,” he said in a video shared on social media on April 4. “Man, I was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord. I was a drug addict, sex addict, and an imbecile. What I never was was a rapist.” My response. pic.twitter.com/wJMGxlwBh0 — Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) April 4, 2025 “I’ve never engaged in non-consensual activity,” Brand stated at the time. “I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes.” He thanked fans again and said he was “grateful” for the opportunity to “defend these charges in court.”

'It comes in much, much smaller'