If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. With the vote approaching, the European Commission’s plan to scan private digital messages is moving toward final approval. The regulation, called Chat Control 2.0, has gone through a year of resistance, warnings from experts, and objections from technology companies. It is presented as a child safety measure, designed to inspect messages, photos, and videos across the EU before they are sent. The privacy implications are immense. Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s AfD party, described the proposal as “an absolutely totalitarian project” and “a comprehensive general attack on central citizens and freedoms.” She said the measure would install scanning software on personal devices, intercepting content before it reaches its recipient. The system would remove the protection offered by end-to-end encryption and treat every user as a potential suspect. Weidel said the use of child safety language was “a cheap pretext” for real-time surveillance. “Even the Stasi could only dream of such a full force,” she said, comparing the plan to intercepting and photographing every private letter for review by a government authority. She warned that once the system exists, its function can expand to include other categories such as “politically offensive content” and “so-called hate speech.” The structure of the law allows the criteria to be adjusted through political decisions. Technology companies have joined in opposition. Hundreds of privacy-oriented firms, including encrypted messengers, cloud storage services, and VPN providers, signed a joint letter urging EU ministers to reject the regulation. Their message called for the protection of encryption and for an end to mandatory message scanning. Signal has announced that it will leave the EU if forced to comply. The platform has stated that it cannot operate under a framework requiring message inspection. The regulation creates an obligation to weaken the systems that enable private communication and turns encryption into a technical formality rather than a guarantee of privacy. Supporters of the proposal say it will catch child abusers. Critics point out that criminal networks conduct their operations in offline settings or hidden spaces beyond the reach of such scanning. “Criminals are already using offline or so-called dark rooms for their illegal businesses,” Weidel said. The measure would monitor regular users, journalists, and private citizens instead. Automated scanning systems often misidentify legal or harmless material, producing false positives that draw in people with no connection to crime. The October 14 vote will decide whether private communication continues to exist inside the EU. The proposal establishes a framework in which surveillance is routine and encryption is limited by law. Over 500 scientists from more than 30 countries have issued warnings about the plan’s impact. Legal experts and civil society groups have said the regulation would create an environment of constant monitoring, inconsistent with democratic rights. Technology platforms have warned that they may withdraw services from the region if the proposal becomes law. The window for change is closing. If Chat Control 2.0 passes, it will redefine digital communication in Europe and end the assumption that private messages remain private. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Tech Firms Unite in Open Letter Against EU Chat Scanning Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has expressed clear frustration with democratic processes that she believes are obstructing her efforts to introduce a central bank digital currency. Speaking at the Bank of Finland’s 4th International Monetary Policy Conference, Lagarde characterized the digital euro’s delay not as a technical hurdle but as the result of slow-moving democratic systems. Although she acknowledged that democracy is something Europeans “praise ourselves with,” she went on to describe it as “too much of a drag at a time when speed is really of the essence.” She openly admitted that the legislative timeline has prevented her from completing the rollout of the digital euro within her term, stating, “Given the time that it takes… I will be gone.” The digital euro project is still in its preparatory phase, with a decision expected soon on whether to proceed to pilot testing. However, the European Central Bank has repeatedly said that a full launch is not guaranteed. More: EU Parliament Agrees on Digital ID Introduction and Pro-Censorship Chief Suggests CBDC Integration According to the institution, “the decision on whether to issue the digital euro will only be considered at a later stage once the European Union’s legislative process has been completed.” Despite this, Lagarde referred to the launch as a certainty, saying “when the digital euro is eventually launched for good.” Her language suggests the outcome is already decided, regardless of what public institutions or lawmakers may conclude. This approach has only heightened concerns about the underlying purpose and design of central bank digital currencies. Unlike physical cash, which allows for anonymous and untraceable transactions, a digital euro would make financial activity fully visible to authorities. Every payment could be tracked, recorded, and analyzed. Privacy advocates have long warned that CBDCs risk becoming tools for mass financial surveillance and control if strict protections are not in place. Lagarde’s comments have added fuel to those concerns. By describing democratic oversight as a hindrance, she implied that public debate and legislative scrutiny are problems to be managed rather than essential parts of policymaking. Her tone suggested that the biggest challenge is not designing the digital euro in a way that respects civil liberties, but getting around the delays created by representative governance. The more these systems are treated as foregone conclusions, the less space remains for real debate over their risks. For many, her comments serve as confirmation that democratic resistance is not just being ignored but actively resented. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post ECB President Christine Lagarde Calls Democratic Process a “Drag” Slowing Digital Euro CBDC Rollout appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Associated Press in Two Headlines

SCHUMER SHUTDOWN SALE: 74% Off VIP Memberships!

Jersey Mikie Goes From Disgraceful to Unforgiveable - NOBODY Disses Taylor Pork Roll in NJ

HBO’s John Oliver had two distinctly outrageous hot takes on Sunday’s Last Week Tonight. First, Oliver called ICE operations that seek to enforce immigration laws “state-sanctioned kidnapping,” and later, during his deep dive into presidential libraries, claimed that former President Ronald Reagan is in hell. During the immigration portion of the show, Oliver praised people who are protesting ICE, “Perfect! Well done to everybody involved. And I absolutely love that that woman said, 'I came to bother ICE,' because that seems reasonable to me. If ICE can show up and bother some guys at their roofing job, then bystanders should be able to bother ICE at their state-sanctioned kidnapping job. It is only fair. And look, this administration is clearly still hell-bent on trying to intimidate communities with shows of force, which is why it's so important for them to be met with strong pushback each and every time because this administration is obsessed with appearances.”     Later, Oliver began his discussion on presidential libraries by playing a clip of a video that is shown at the Reagan Library that highlights Reagan’s love of horses. Oliver reacted by taking a Reagan quote and trying to make it weird, “And, look, my position on horses is clear, I think, but Reagan's quote, 'There's nothing as good as the inside of a man is the outside of a horse,' might be the dirtiest thing I've ever heard. He should've been put on a watch list. He should've been banned from petting zoos and merry-go-rounds.” He then added, “I sincerely hope they don't have horses in hell, because they are not safe.”  Oliver’s animosity towards Reagan is nothing new. Back in March, Oliver claimed the best thing about Reagan was that “he’s dead” and that “if you brought Reagan back from the dead and told him all the racist shit Trump's managed to do in less than two months, he'd cum so hard he'd die again.” Also, back in June, Oliver tried blaming Reagan for the woeful state of air traffic control. Finally, Oliver isn’t the only liberal comedian to declare Reagan is in hell: outgoing CBS host of The Late Show, Stephen Colbert, is also fond of such “jokes.” Here is a transcript for the October 5 show: HBO Last Week Tonight 10/5/2025 11:18 PM ET JOHN OLIVER: Perfect! Well done to everybody involved. And I absolutely love that that woman said, "I came to bother ICE," because that seems reasonable to me. If ICE can show up and bother some guys at their roofing job, then bystanders should be able to bother ICE at their state-sanctioned kidnapping job. It is only fair. And look, this administration is clearly still hell-bent on trying to intimidate communities with shows of force, which is why it's so important for them to be met with strong pushback each and every time because this administration is obsessed with appearances. … And, look, my position on horses is clear, I think, but Reagan's quote, "There's nothing as good as the inside of a man is the outside of a horse," might be the dirtiest thing I've ever heard. He should've been put on a watch list. He should've been banned from petting zoos and merry-go-rounds. I sincerely hope they don't have horses in hell, because they are not safe. 

Monday marked a major point in MSNBC’s split from parent company Comcast as NBC correspondents not based in Washington D.C. would no longer appear on MSNBC with D.C.-based reporters severing ties on October 20. But the funniest aspect of Monday’s split was the release of a new code of conduct — dubbed “10 core principles” by an executive with MSNBC’s new parent company, Versant — that include things like “accuracy,” “fairness,” and “integrity.” Shared with Poynter, the first one listed was integrity with this definition: “We uphold the highest ethical standards. We respect the law when reporting the news. We advocate for journalists’ rights. We protect and defend press freedom and the First Amendment. We respect our colleagues, our sources and the communities we cover.” Cue The Price Is Right sad trombone. If the network soon to be known as MSNOW was concerned about integrity, why then did they have to settle a defamation suit in February for false stories about a Georgia doctor shows had dubbed “the uterus collector?” Or anything that came out of the mouth of Joy Reid during either of her stops at the network? Play the womp, womp sound again after hearing point two about “accuracy”: “We aim to be accurate in our reporting 100 percent of the time. If we establish that our reporting is flawed, we take prompt action to correct or clarify the mistake.” Point four was supposed to go hand-in-hand: “Opinion: The views expressed by our opinion journalists and contributors are based on accurate, reported facts.” In between the two was one about “fairness,” which they said MSNBC would “report the news with an open mind[.]” Back in August, our Bill D’Agostino found MSNBC teamed up with CNN to recite debunked D.C. crime stats 73 times in a 24-hour period. Another example occurred on Monday itself with Deadline: White House host Nicolle Wallace and legal analyst Mary McCord falsely claiming the fire at a South Carolina judge’s home was tied to the Trump administration. Investigators had said, in fact, there’s no evidence it was an act of political violence. And back during the election season, MSNBC falsely claimed then-Senator JD Vance (R-OH) was lying about Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) embellishing his military record. We could go on, but needless to say, accuracy and integrity are things no one should associate with such a partisan network. Points seven through nine — perspectives, transparency, and independence — were also laughably false when it comes to both the network’s past and where’s headed: Perspectives: We believe our audience is best served when our journalism reflects a variety of perspectives on the world we cover. Transparency: We disclose to our audience any commercial initiatives that may intersect with our editorial content. Independence: We avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest. We do not accept gifts or favors that could appear to influence news judgment. On the “perspectives” plank, at least CNN has four actual conservatives — Scott Jennings, Shermichael Singleton, Brad Todd, and David Urban — on their payroll. Who does MSNBC have? John Kasich and Carlos Curbelo don’t count. Versant senior vice president of standards and editorial partnerships for news Brain Carovillano emailed staff and spoke to Poytner’s Tom Jones, arguing “core journalism values like fairness, transparency and accuracy are all critical to maintaining trust between news organizations and their audiences,” which in MSNBC’s case is “incredibly loyal and dedicated.” “Today, we’re stating our commitment to these core values as we step into a new era for our organization, but in many ways it’s a restatement of the principles we’ve always followed,” he added.

ABC News program The View knew that heated political rhetoric could incite someone to political violence, that’s why they joined in calls to bring down the temperature following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Thus, when they engaged in incendiary rhetoric during Tuesday’s episode – when they insisted that the National Guard was going to steal the upcoming midterm elections – it meant they didn’t care if someone tried to kill National Guard troops to stop them. The View was irked that President Trump was sending National Guard troops to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from the liberal extremists that have been trying to kill them (which they claimed wasn’t actually happening, but more on that later). “This is a pretext to stop the next election! That's what I think it is,” shouted co-host Joy Behar.     A short time later, Behar doubled down on her inciting rhetoric that the National Guard was a threat to the country and that they were going to do away with the right to vote: GOLDBERG: That's what the feeling is. BEHAR: And if they stop us from voting, that's the one thing people have. GOLDBERG: I mean, it's the one thing that makes us very different from lots of other countries. Our votes, they do count. I do know that they count. BEHAR: If we are allowed to vote.     With a tacit acceptance of Behar’s premise, moderator Whoopi Goldberg argued that “people will figure out how to vote” because “They don't want a dictatorship.” Pretend independent co-host Sara Haines had her own conspiracy theory about the deployment of the National Guard, it was all a distraction: HAINES: I would say it also might also be a distraction from the hearing that’s going on right now about the Epstein files. BEHAR: Right! HAINES: Some things have come up and AG Pam Bondi was dodging questions and attacking back. Do you not think maybe the whole civil unrest story line is maybe overblown? Earlier in the show, Haines proclaimed that there was no need for the National Guard because she could not personally find any evidence of a threat to the lives of ICE agents and claimed it was actually law enforcement who were the real threat: I was trying to dig deep because I kept thinking, ‘okay, I'm going to concede is this rising to the occasion where we need the National Guard?’ … I kept looking for a video … The problem is when you go looking for these videos, sometimes the aggressors are the law enforcement and the ICE agents, so that's problematic to their messaging right now.     Haines was either profoundly ignorant, had a massive blind spot in her news consumption, or knew she was lying. ICE agents had literally come under sniper fire at one facility and a gunman ambushed them at another; there was even a ramming attack in Chicago and the liberal leadership told the local police not to aid them. Goldberg had also clownishly claimed she had “never seen” the Insurrection Act invoked “in my lifetime.” Co-hosts Alyssa Farah Griffin and Sunny Hostin had to inform her that it was invoked during the Rodney King Riots in the 90s. Behar had really ramped up the rhetoric that could incite someone to violence in recent days. On September 17, she proclaimed that America was “screwed” with Trump as president and Republicans in power. A few days later, on September 30, she crashed out and insisted that “you're delusional” if you think America would “survive” Trump. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View October 7, 2025 11:05: 36 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I don't know if we've ever been here. I know in my lifetime I've never seen. JOY BEHAR: Well, the Insurrection Act has been ordered by other people. Lincoln and – ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Rodney King in the 90s. SUNNY HOSTIN: 1992, H.W. Bush did. BEHAR: Yeah, they’ve done it HOSTIN: It wasn't done on January 6, though. BEHAR: If anybody knows about an insurrection, it's Donald Trump. But, you know, to me -- HOSTIN: It wasn't invoked then. It wasn't invoked then. BEHAR: The thing about it is that him sending military into Portland. Portland had an ICE facility protest of eight to 15 people. That was it. Then he made -- because he sent them in there, they've – it’s gotten worse. So he creates the problem. HOSTIN: Yeah. SARA HAINES: Well, I couldn't find -- you know you watch the January 6 footage – and I think they were just playing some – we all saw that and no one had to tell you how to feel about it. You looked at it and made your own judgment and it was clear to me. I was trying to dig deep because I kept thinking, ‘okay, I'm going to concede is this rising to the occasion where we need the National Guard?’ This -- The crowds that they are drawing are a fraction of when it's been used in history when they've actually decided to deploy the National Guard into these places. And I would just ask for some consistency then because when I look at the video of January 6, that was very clearly people uprising, vandalizing the Capitol, killing - HOSTIN: An insurrection. HAINES: Yeah, very much an insurrection. But there literally – there was video. I kept looking for a video here to say, when are we seeing things to this level? Because his administration is known for it’s messaging and owning a narrative. If they were seeing that I feel they would have pasted it everywhere. The problem is when you go looking for these videos, sometimes the aggressors are the law enforcement and the ICE agents, so that's problematic to their messaging right now. (…) 11:09:15 a.m. Eastern FARAH GRIFFIN: There is crime in American cities. But the way to deal with it is get the funding that you need for police, get the training that you need, and work with local officials. BEHAR: This is a pretext to stop the next election! That's what I think it is. HAINES: I would say it also might also be a distraction from the hearing that’s going on right now about the Epstein files. BEHAR: Right! HAINES: Some things have come up and AG Pam Bondi was dodging questions and attacking back. Do you not think maybe the whole civil unrest story line is maybe overblown? FARAH GRIFFIN: I think that Donald Trump also sees American troops in U.S. cities as a sign of strength. I think most Americans don't. I think they see it as societal breakdown. (…) 11:10:48 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: This is -- this is in order to make the case because in their minds, in all of their minds, they now believe they have carte blanche to do whatever they want to. BEHAR: That's right. HOSTIN: Yes. GOLDBERG: That's what the feeling is. BEHAR: And if they stop us from voting, that's the one thing people have. GOLDBERG: I mean, it's the one thing that makes us very different from lots of other countries. Our votes, they do count. I do know that they count. BEHAR: If we are allowed to vote. GOLDBERG: I think people will figure out how to vote. Because I don’t – One thing I believe I know about Americans is they don't want to be told what to do. They don't want to be -- they don't want that. You know, they don't want it. You can suggest some stuff, but they don't want you saying, you got to go over here and do this. They don't want that. They don't want a dictatorship. (…)

It’s not me. It’s you, a phrase rarely uttered in the dating world, and yet something Google seems to often repeat—but only when it has to. Such was the tech giant’s counsel-written statement in response to a subpoena from Chairman Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) House Judiciary Committee regarding censorship. From the letter:  “It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the Company moderates content, and the Company has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds,” [emphasis added]. MRC Vice President Dan Schneider nearly went line for line in an op-ed on the Alphabet counsel letter, ripping it to shreds for being little more than a “sly censorship ‘confession.’” In the New York Post piece, Schneider made sure readers were eyes-wide-open regarding what the letter actually conveyed:  “Google admitted little, promised less — and pledged to change nothing. “It offered not confession but evasion.” Google “revealed nothing new;” it “admitted no wrongdoing;” the platform “volunteered nothing;” it “clarified nothing;” Google “said nothing;” and perhaps worst of all, it “changed nothing.” Indeed, Google’s censorship gig has been ongoing for quite some time now, as has been documented over and over and over and over and over again by MRC Free Speech America across its multiple platforms from Google Search to video (YouTube) to news aggregator (Google News) to artificial intelligence chatbot (Gemini).  But Schneider said enough is enough. “Free speech advocates can no longer take a wait-and-see approach,” he wrote, before offering a clear solution to cure the Big Tech online censorship problem: “Congress should make clear that Big Tech platforms are ‘common carriers,’ prohibited under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from censoring users.” “The Federal Communications Commission can take action through its rule-making processes, and the Federal Trade Commission can penalize Google for deceptive advertising practices.” Then there’s the West’s digital ID creep. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave nearly the same answer as Google’s counsel in response to a question about why England needed digital ID: It’s not me. It’s you In an interview with the BBC, Starmer pointed the finger at U.K. citizens—not the Labour Party’s failed immigration policies—and demanded U.K. citizens obtain digital ID in order to protect them from illegal immigration. “[T]here’s no point, people saying to me, ‘Why do we need it?’ when we all acknowledge there is a problem,” claimed Starmer. “People are working illegally in our economy. It is amongst the reasons that people want to come to the United Kingdom. We have to deal with that. I made a pledge that we would do whatever was necessary, use whatever tools were available to deal with illegal migration, and I intend to do so.” Reform Party Member of Parliament Nigel Farage was having none of it. He rightly condemned it as a “means of controlling the population,” among other things.  “All that digital ID will be is a means of controlling the population, of telling us what we can and can’t do, of fining the innocent,” stated Farage. “And didn’t we see it all when we had the pandemic, when you had to have vaccine ID to travel, to do various things? Did that stop the COVID pandemic’s … spreading? Did it help? All it did was put cost and inconvenience on everybody else. I also worry about massive databanks being held by the government, being hacked by foreign governments, by private companies, by criminals. I do not see a single benefit to the government having digital ID other than them controlling what we do, what we spend, and where we go.” Several GOP politicians took note. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (R) responded in an X post Sept. 26: “The idea is not fully complete. People might lose their ID. If I might suggest, the govt could mandate that the 18-digit number must be tattooed on their right hand & on their forehead. What could possibly go wrong?” So, too, did Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), calling it, “1984-ish.” DeSantis, for his part, has already taken concrete steps to combat the looming threat of digital ID in his state by passing a law forbidding their use. He addressed the issue across the pond, writing in an X post on Oct. 1, “Stopping digital ID in the UK will be a big win for freedom. It’s obvious that they want to use digital ID for access to banking, medical, and even voting. They will try to layer CDBC[sic] on top of it.” But if you think it can’t happen here in America. Think again. As I wrote back in March 2023, the foundation for a U.S. CBDC has already been laid.  First came President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14067 of March 9, 2022, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which outlined the Biden administration’s priorities. “My Administration places the highest urgency on research and development efforts into the potential design and deployment options of a United States CBDC,” read the executive order.  Then, in June 2022, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell noted that CBDCs were already being examined and went on to praise how “a U.S. CBDC could also potentially help maintain the dollar’s international standing.”  Next, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen piled on, providing a report on “The Future of Money and Payments,” which included the following recommendations: (1) “Advance work on a possible U.S. CBDC, in case one is determined to be in the national interest;” (2) “Encourage use of instant payment systems to support a more competitive, efficient, and inclusive U.S. payment landscape;” (3) “Establish a federal framework for payments regulation to protect users and the financial system, while supporting responsible innovations in payments” and (4) “Prioritize efforts to improve cross-border payments, both to enhance payment system efficiency and protect national security.” The minority leader on the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has also gone so far as to endorse the creation of an American CBDC. She even held a Senate hearing titled “Building a Stronger Financial System: Opportunities of a Central Bank Digital Currency.” Her counterpart in the House, House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA), reportedly spearheaded the inclusion of pro-CBDC provisions in the massive stimulus bill requested by then-President Joe Biden (though the final statute did not contain her language). Rallying support in the House to block a proposed social credit system ban, Waters even called CBDC development “the next space race.”  And so, for all the reasons that Cruz, DeSantis and Farage have said, digital ID and its partner CBDCs are horrible—not to mention how they can and would be used to chill and suppress free speech. Free speech is the backbone of democratic societies, and we all saw how government colluded with the private sector to target and silence dissent during the pandemic. It looks like digital tyranny is rearing its head again in the U.K., and it could happen here in America, too, if we’re not careful. Freedom-loving Americans must stand up and say, “No,” now ... before it’s too late.

MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace and “Prosecuting Donald Trump” podcast Co-Host Mary McCord tried to blame President Donald Trump Monday for a fire at the house of a South Carolina judge who once ruled against the president – but, authorities say there’s no reason to suspect arson. Discussing a fire that burned down the home of South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein on Saturday, MSNBC Host Wallace and MSNBC Legal Analyst McCord, co-host of the “Prosecuting Donald Trump” podcast, accused Trump of instigating arson against the judge. Wallace framed the tragedy as “the fire that destroyed the home of a South Carolina circuit court judge who faced criticism from Trump officials after a ruling she made against the Trump administration”: “It comes amid a surge in hostility and threats against judges, as well as criticism directly from the Trump administration, including for Judge Goodstein after she temporarily blocked the Justice Department from accessing the files of millions of registered voters in South Carolina.” Judge Goodstein’s ruling against the Trump administration was  overturned by the South Carolina State Supreme Court. “When you’re starting to attack judges because of their rulings, we’re in a very, very dangerous position in this country – and it makes judges fearful,” McCord said presumptuously, going on to blame President Trump’s criticism of Goodstein for inspiring an attack on the judge: “He needs to know the power of his voice and how people respond to that.” “[T]here is no evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally,” according to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel. “SLED agents have preliminarily found there is no evidence to support a pre-fire explosion,” Chief Keel added in a statement. MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace and Mary McCord tried to blame Trump for the fire at the house of the South Carolina judge. In a proper society these people would be taken off the air. pic.twitter.com/yK8X6vSttX — MAZE (@mazemoore) October 7, 2025 Wallace and McCord appear to have taken their cue from Democrat Rep. Daniel Goldman’s (D-NY) social media post Sunday blaming Trump for inciting “the extreme right” to commit arson: "Trump, @StephenM and MAGA-world have been doxxing and threatening judges who rule against Trump, including Judge Goodstein. Today, someone committed arson on the Judge’s home, severely injuring her husband and son. Will Trump speak out against the extreme right that did this??" "You are vile. Deeply warped and vile,” Stephen Miller, Trump’s Homeland Security advisor, shot back, responding to the post: “While the Trump Administration has launched the first-ever government-wide effort to combat and prosecute illegal doxing, sinister threats and political violence you continue to push despicable lies, demented smears, malicious defamation and foment unrest. Despicable." Despite the findings reported by South Carolina Law Enforcement, MSNBC continues to express hope that it will be able to blame the fire on Trump – even in its online “update”: “UPDATE (Oct. 6, 2025, 6:18 p.m. ET): The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division said enforcement officials said Monday afternoon that there is no initial evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally set. The investigation remains ongoing.” …. “Saturday’s fire comes one month after Judge Goodstein temporarily blocked the state from handing the Justice Department the personal data of millions of voters.”