'Create a global health and wellness leader'

Thanks to a good old newspaper back page ad, an English woman has found a whole new side to life—her father’s, whom she had never met. It started when Louise Walters was 8 years old and found out the man she thought was her father, wasn’t. Louise’s mom, Angie Ishmael was in a relationship and […] The post Woman Tracks Down Long-Lost Dad Using Newspaper Ad–and Discovers 11 Siblings appeared first on Good News Network.

News One Piece One Piece Season 2’s Episodes Will Island Hop in a Certain Order Each locale will get one to two episodes. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on November 3, 2025 Courtesy of Netflix Comment 0 Share New Share Courtesy of Netflix More episodes of One Piece are heading to Netflix next year under the title One Piece: Into the Grand Line, and the promotion train is up and running. In addition to releasing first-look images and announcing the premiere date last week, the streamer also put out a behind-the-scenes featurette today, which gives us glimpses of some of the locales the Straw Hats will be visiting in the show’s second season. The video includes some fun imagery of the different islands we were introduced to last week, and also includes a line from co-showrunner Joe Tracz, who explains that the Straw Hats will go to a brand-new island in the Grand Line—the name of a large swath of the ocean—“every one or two episodes.” That information is supported by an unconfirmed report that the second season will have eight episodes (just like the first season), and that the episode titles reflect the crew’s journey to different ports. Those titles in order are: “The Beginning of the End,” “Good Whale Hunting,” “Whisky Business,” “Big Trouble in Little Garden,” “Wax on, Wax Off,” “Nami Deerest,” “Reindeer Shames,” and “Deer and Loathing in Drum Kingdom.” That means that Into the Grand Line will likely start in Loguetown, and then see the Straw Hats head to Reverse Mountain (where the whale lives), then Whisky Peak, and then Little Garden before ending at Drum Island. Sounds like a good itinerary! We can join them in their travels when One Piece: Into the Grand Line premieres on Netflix on March 10, 2026. In the meantime, check out the behind-the-scenes featurette below. [end-mark] The post <i>One Piece</i> Season 2’s Episodes Will Island Hop in a Certain Order appeared first on Reactor.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—An Obama-appointed judge may have violated federal law by greenlighting a Biden Department of Justice effort to secretly secure Republican senators’ private cellphone data, legal experts say. Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court James Boasberg signed orders in 2023 preventing cell phone carriers from notifying 11 Republican members of Congress about special counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenas seeking their cell phone data from Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021. The subpoenas were part of Smith’s investigation to build his 2020 election case against President Donald Trump. They sought call “detail records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages” from Republican members, though he did not request contents of any messages, according to records released by Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley. The judge claimed disclosing the subpoenas could “result in destruction of or tampering with evidence” to justify keeping them hidden, records show. These orders could violate a federal law if they involved an “official” phone line, Mike Fragoso, who served as chief counsel to former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, noted. Federal law states that communications providers for Senate offices “shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure of Senate data.” “If Smith or Boasberg violated that statute, it’s a very serious problem that probably justifies a bar investigation and could predicate an impeachment inquiry,” Fragoso wrote on X. A media liaison for the judge declined to comment. I am, right now, calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Judge Boasberg.Mark my words: there will be accountability for these partisan zealots who sought to corrupt the DOJ and judiciary to attack their enemies. pic.twitter.com/J8lkD1fvmL— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) October 29, 2025 “Safe bet: All the legal ethics ‘experts’ trotted out on CNN who mercilessly hounded @JeffClarkUS and @DrJohnEastman for giving legal advice around Jan. 6th will be MIA on the issue of the proper discipline for actual defiance of a federal statute by a biased anti-Trump judge,” Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic Policy Roger Severino wrote on X. Smith sought records from Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Ted Cruz of Texas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Rick Scott of Florida and Tommy Tuberville of Alaska, along with Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly. “Congress enacts laws,” Empower Oversight Founder Jason Foster wrote on X. “The perma-Executive and Judicial Branches simply ignore them. If your elected Congress can’t or won’t control unelected bureaucrats in DC, then representative gov’t is merely an illusion.” AT&T and Verizon both received subpoenas, though AT&T did not comply. “In May 2023, Special Counsel Smith sent AT&T a grand jury subpoena that included a request for phone records associated with AT&T accounts for two other members of Congress,” the company wrote in an Oct. 24 letter to Grassley. “However, when AT&T raised questions with the Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further, and no records were produced.” Verizon produced information because the subpoena was “facially valid” but noted it would be making some changes to its practices going forward, according to the company’s letter to Grassley. Cruz called on the House to impeach Boasberg, an Obama appointee, during a Wednesday press conference. “Judge Boasberg put his robe down, stood up and said, ‘Sign me up to be part of the partisan vendetta against 20% of Republicans in the Senate,’” Cruz said. “Mark my words: there will be accountability.” Boasberg’s order amounts to “legal slander,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said Friday, adding that he “would like to know the factual predicate for issuing the gag order.” He called for a “Watergate-style investigation” on potential misconduct by both Smith and Boasberg. “My carrier, Verizon, was extremely irresponsible by complying with this subpoena,” Graham said in a statement Friday. “Instead, they should have followed AT&T’s example and declined to turn over the records because it is a violation of the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution. I also expect the House of Representatives to investigate Judge Boasberg’s potential misconduct, which could be grounds for his impeachment.” IMPEACH JUDGE BOASBERG— House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) October 30, 2025 “Jeb Boasberg should definitely be impeached by the House of Representatives because not only are his rulings lawless, extremely lawless, they’re extremely dangerous,” Article III Project President Mike Davis told Laura Ingraham on Friday. “This is part of a pattern.” Several members of Congress are already calling to impeach Boasberg, with Republican Texas Rep. Brandon Gill indicating Wednesday that he is “working” on articles of impeachment. Gill previously introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg in March after the judge ordered the Trump administration to turn around planes carrying alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador, though the effort has not moved forward. “The @HouseGOP should act swiftly to impeach Boasberg as well as other indefensibly lawless judges like Boardman (reduced sentence for would be killer of Kavanaugh because he’s ‘trans,’” Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy wrote Friday on X. Republican Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt also called for Boasberg’s impeachment, writing Friday he is “openly biased, gone rogue, and likely broken the law.” Smith’s attorneys wrote in an Oct. 21 letter to Grassley that the “subpoena for toll records was entirely proper, lawful, and consistent with established Department of Justice policy.” “Although you have not reached out to us to discuss this matter, we are compelled to correct inaccurate assertions made by you and others concerning the issuance of a grand jury subpoena for the toll records of eight Senators and one Member of the House of Representative,” attorneys Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski wrote on Smith’s behalf. “Mr. Smith’s actions as Special Counsel were consistent with the decisions of a prosecutor who has devoted his career to following the facts and the law, without fear or favor and without regard for the political consequences.” Smith was forced to drop his case after Trump won the 2024 election. Originally published by Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Obama Judge’s Bid to Help Deep State Spy on GOP in Secret May Have Violated Federal Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“Remember, remember, the 5th of November…” but for what outcome? On 5 November 1605, Guy Fawkes waited with 36 barrels of gunpowder beneath Parliament, prepared to change the fate of a nation forever. Led by Robert Catesby, his objective was to annihilate the Protestant establishment and ignite a Catholic rebirth. But what if the plan hadn’t been thwarted? What if the powder had actually blown? In this special episode of What if the Gunpowder Plot Succeeded? Not Just The Tudors… Lates, Professor Suzannah Lipscomb invites fellow Early Modern historians – Jessie Childs, Gareth Russell, and Professor Anna Whitelock – to ponder an alternate history. Together, they unravel one of Britain’s most dramatic “what ifs,” asking how the successful execution of the Gunpowder Plot would have irrevocably transformed the nation’s future. Sign up to watch The immediate aftermath The conspirators’ immediate goal was pure destruction: to kill King James I, his heir, and the entire Protestant ruling class during the state opening of parliament. But in the programme, the panel argues the plotters were incredibly naive about the chaos that would follow. Power vacuum: As Jessie Childs points out, the blast would have killed not only the King, Queen, and Prince Henry, but every bishop, judge, lawyer, and high-ranking civil servant – effectively decapitating the entire Protestant establishment. With the records of government also destroyed at Westminster, even the basics of governance would have been impossible. Who would have been left to organise a legitimate resistance? The kidnapping plot: The conspirators planned to kidnap the King’s nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, and install her as a puppet queen, marrying her off to a suitable Catholic to “restore the ancient faith.” But would foreign powers have supported this new, violently unstable regime? Widespread condemnation: Far from uniting Catholics, Professor Whitelock argues that while the plotters sought to establish a Catholic state, their methods and the scale of the terror would have provoked widespread condemnation, possibly leading to an immediate, massive anti-Catholic backlash and even murder of Catholics in the streets. Gareth Russell suggests the impact would have been absolute anarchy and chaos for months, as no legitimate Protestant or secular leader would have remained to organise a resistance. Some of the members of the Gunpowder Plot, featured in a 17th century engraving by Crispijn van de PasseImage Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain War and division A successful plot would have instantly fractured the United Kingdom and plunged James’s former three kingdoms into war. A divided Britain: All panelists agree the Union of Crowns, which James I had skillfully forged, would have been instantly lost. Scotland would have been incandescent with fury over the regicide of its king and royal family, and would likely declared its own separate, Protestant monarch, leading to an inevitable war with an English Catholic regime. Ireland’s fate: The repercussions would have been different in Ireland, where the Catholic elite might have remained intact. If so, would this have potentially led to a completely different, independent Irish history? No easy alliances: The new regime in England would have faced immense problems securing a foreign alliance. Gareth Russell notes that while Catholic powers like Spain would have wanted peace, they would have been wary of marrying their heirs into such a risky, unstable regime that had just wiped out its own royal family. Prof Suzannah Lipscomb (left), with the panel (from left to right), historians Professor Anna Whitelock, Gareth Russell, and Jessie Childs.Image Credit: History Hit The unintended consequences As Suzannah notes to the panel, “I was going to ask you what were the unintended consequences of this, but it feels like every consequence was unintended!” The discussion highlights how the assassination would have rippled across every facet of British culture and society, often with destructive, unintended effects: Cultural collapse: The plot would have effectively caused the pre-emptive euthanising of the Jacobean cultural flowering. The great writers of the era, including Shakespeare (who was the King’s man), would have lost their patronage and context. The production of the influential King James Bible would have ended. The martyr king: Jessie Childs notes that rather than being viewed as a tyrant, King James would have been immediately seen as a Protestant martyr, further hardening religious lines and potentially making any future reconciliation impossible. The seeds of revolution: Professor Whitelock suggests that the Gunpowder Plot, had it succeeded, would have been the first major instance where a story about a political “Popish plot” was confirmed, accelerating the process by which anti-Catholic anxiety became politically explosive, shifting the entire trajectory of the Stuart period. As the panel ponders, this chaos might have brought about a revolution, perhaps more aligned with the French Revolution of the 18th century, potentially eliminating the monarchy altogether. Grievance is not a policy The ultimate takeaway from this chilling historical conjecture is the sheer naivety of the plotters. As Gareth Russell succinctly puts it: “A grievance is not a policy.” The conspirators had no clear plan for what came after the destruction. Their act of devastating terror would have been followed by a “great silence” of governance and a massive, bloody struggle to fill the power vacuum. Join Professor Suzannah Lipscomb and her expert panel as they explore the chilling alternative future where Guy Fawkes succeeded and the map of Britain was irrevocably redrawn in What if the Gunpowder Plot Succeeded? Not Just The Tudors… Lates. Sign up to watch

Christmas Is Coming and German Jihadis Are Stirring

Big Tech behemoths have gone to great lengths to promote Wikipedia. Now, Google has been busted actively suppressing an emerging competitor. Following the launch of Grokipedia, X owner Elon Musk’s “AI-driven” online encyclopedia, Google Search offered an outrageous response to users searching for Musk’s creation: “Did you mean: Wikipedia?” Immediately below this, Google taunted users with the least impartial source possible: a Wikipedia article on Grokipedia.   [The story continues on MRCFreeSpeechAmerica.org]

Do you remember being a kid and pleading to your parents “it was a joke” when getting caught in a lie or saying something nasty to someone? Well, that was the reaction moderator Whoopi Goldberg had when ABC News forced her to correct a lie she spewed on Monday’s episode of The View. Goldberg raged, tore up the note (not a legal note), and whined about how she had to be held accountable for the lies she told and blamed it on the people watching. The comment that got Goldberg in hot water was a lie about how President Trump, according to her, used and autopen to sign a pardon for a crypto bro with connections to his sons: HOSTIN: The Trump family has made about $1.8 billion profited off of this government and he said that Joe Biden didn't know who he was pardoning using an autopen. How come you don't know who this guy is? [Applause] GOLDBERG: Because he used an autopen. Of course, they misrepresented the point of the congressional autopen investigation. It wasn’t just the use of an autopen, it was about President Biden not being of sound mind and aides just putting documents in the machine for his signature without his knowledge.     A few minutes later, during the same segment, co-host Sunny Hostin not-so-discretely slipped Goldberg a note looking for her to voice the correction. Goldberg mumbled the correction before getting enraged, causing Hostin to reiterate the correction: GOLDBERG: The other insane thing is that when people are going to go to their -- their meetings with the judge, the meetings that are -- they're supposed to go to, when there listening to – [Gets slipped a note] What the hell?! What?! ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I love when Sunny passes notes. GOLDBERG: We don't know if pen used – Trump used an autopen to pardon -- It was a joke! HOSTIN: We don't know if Trump used an autopen to pardon – GOLDBERG: Oh, come on! [Starts tearing up note] HOSTIN: - but we do know that he doesn't know who that crypto guy was. Goldberg angrily tore up the note as she whined about being held accountable. “The hardest thing about this job now is no one understands nuance,” she griped. “You know when you hear a joke, when somebody is fooling around, when they're not saying something specific. Especially on this show. I'm very specific when I'm -- when I'm pointing stuff out. When I'm making jokes you know when I'm making jokes! This is ridiculous!” Whoopi. Where you joking when you and rest of The View claimed three time this year that the 2024 election was stolen by Trump and Elon Musk? Where you joking when you screamed on-air about Trump campaigning on breaking up interracial marriages and redistributing the white spouse? Were you joking on October 27 when you claimed Trump was a “dictator?” Where you joking when you told viewers not to think of Trump as human? It’s worth noting that since the Media Research Center published a study in 2022 pointing out how many legal notes The View was forced to read (36 in one year), they’ve dropped to ZERO so far in 2025. Monday’s note does not count since they didn’t announce it as a “legal note.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View November 3, 2025 11:08:35 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: The Trump family has made about $1.8 billion profited off of this government and he said that Joe Biden didn't know who he was pardoning using an autopen. How come you don't know who this guy is? [Applause] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Because he used an autopen. (…) 11:10:47 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: The other insane thing is that when people are going to go to their -- their meetings with the judge, the meetings that are -- they're supposed to go to, when there listening to – [Gets slipped a note] What the hell? What? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I love when Sunny passes notes. GOLDBERG: We don't know if pen used – Trump used an autopen to pardon -- it was a joke! HOSTIN: We don't know if Trump used an autopen to pardon – GOLDBERG: Oh, come on! [Starts tearing up note] HOSTIN: - but we do know that he doesn't know who that crypto guy was. GOLDBERG: [Continues to tear up note] Well, I'm sorry. [Continues to tear up note] The hardest thing about this job now [Continues to tear up note] is [Continues to tear up note] no one understands nuance. You know when you hear a joke, when somebody is fooling around, when they're not saying something specific. Especially on this show. I'm very specific when I'm -- when I'm pointing stuff out. When I'm making jokes you know when I'm making jokes! This is ridiculous! [Applause] Anyhoo. [Continues to tear up note] The other thing that really [Continues to tear up note] upsets me about all of this is that when people do it legally, everybody bitched and moaned and said, “They’re not doing it legally, that’re not doing it- ’  So, people are showing up when they're supposed to be showing up at court and you're scooping them up for immigrant checks. This is how you treat them. How should we believe anything you're saying when we saw how the folks in Chicago were treated over the weekend?! We saw that! (…)

It’s not much of a surprise when Apple TV’s liberal drama The Morning Show pushes leftist propaganda. But it is surprising when they basically admit how extremely far left they are by claiming the elitist media is a “corporate tool of the white center-right.” Such was the case in episode 6 of this season, “If Then,” which focused on Stella (Greta Lee), the CEO of the new UBN network who can’t stand white people, especially white men. Yet she’s still accused of not being “an ally” because she brought back disgraced former network president Cory (Billy Crudup), a move she was forced to make when Cory blackmailed her over her affair with the husband of UBN’s president and board member Celine (Marion Cotillard). The move negatively affected two women of color at the network: Mia (Karen Pittman), who quit and is now working as an agent for the other woman, Chris (Nicole Beharie). Just after Stella gives a noir-style soliloquy on legacy media being a “corporate tool of the white center-right,” Mia negotiates Chris’s contract with Stella. It’s at their meeting that Mia accuses Stella of “not being one of us” because she’s “surrounded by white people”: Stella: When Cory offered me Head of News, I laughed in his face. Legacy media, a corporate tool of the white center-right. I let him pay for lunch and I walked away. But he came back, like a migraine. He said I could push the stories I cared about. Drag the doubters, kicking and screaming, into the future. He told me to burn it down. Burn anyone who got in my way. Talent can't have editorial control over the news. It runs counter to our mission of objective reporting. You know that. Mia: [Cartoonish conservative talk-show host] Bro Hartman can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Stella: His show isn't news. I'm sorry, it's a nonstarter. And as for a producing pod, we don't have the money. And no one has cohost approval. Marcus: Alex Levy does. Stella: As Vice President of Talent, not as an anchor. Marcus: That's a distinction without a difference. Stella: Look. I understand that the response to her interview has been generally positive. Marcus: Yeah, that's an understatement. Stella: I get that you want a better deal. And I'm open to it. But not until the current deal is up. Mia: Deal is up now. Figure it out, or we're gonna go somewhere else. Stella: Would you give us a moment? Marcus: Take all the moments you need. Stella: So, what? Now you're trying to leverage me? Mia: I'm giving you a heads-up. That's more than you gave me. Stella: You're not getting this deal. I won't give it to you. And once Chris realizes that... Mia: Oh, she's realizing things. Like, you brought Cory Ellison back in the building. That's a hell of a move. And then giving him money and saying there's nothing left for us. Stella: He's making movies. It's different. Mia: You know, I remember when you got this job. You said you were gonna do it differently, do it right. And here you are, surrounded by white people and stepping on women of color to stay in that chair. You're not one of us. You never were. Later, as Stella enjoys another tryst with Celine’s husband Miles (Aaron Pierre), she excuses both her affair and her cutthroat business practices, claiming they came from her “inner straight white guy” who she “hates”: Stella: I took the job because it was impossible. I wanted the chance to fix something unfixable. Show the world that I could run the place without slitting any throats. That I could do it differently from Cory, from Paul. Then little by little, my inner straight white guy started clawing his way out... Telling me to get it done no matter what the cost. I hated that guy. So, I did what he would do. I fell into bed with the one person who could blow up my life. Trying to come to terms with her decisions, she has a conversation with the AI version of herself, which is part of an overall AI project Stella introduced to UBN to help advance the network into the future. Despite helping the company succeed financially, she bemoans the fact she hasn’t been able to push any DEI initiatives: Stella: Am I a good CEO? AI Stella: I think so. But, you know, I'm a little biased. Stella: What makes me good? AI Stella: You've cut costs. You've increased revenue. UBN stock is up 6% since you took over. Stella: So, money. AI Stella: Is there another metric? Stella: What about company culture? Opening doors for underrepresented groups. AI Stella: Like the Iranian fencer? Stella: No. Like our employees. AI Stella: The demographic shifts at UBN have been the same for the past five years. Stella: So, Mia's right. I am Cory 2.0. I'm not an ally. AI Stella: Do you think you're an ally? Stella: I made an Asian woman lick up a martini to close a deal. So, no. I guess not. I'm racist and sexist. And I stepped on people who look like me to get to where I am. AI Stella: If you didn't do that, would you have gotten the CEO job? Stella: Of course not. Because equality doesn't matter. Fairness doesn't matter. It doesn't make the stock move. Which is why it's only a matter of time before I get fired and replaced with a white guy, because at least he plays golf. AI Stella: You suck at golf. Stella: I f**king know that. But she made the stock move, so why would she be “fired and replaced with a white guy”? #MakeItMakeSense. It’s like the show accidentally made a case for imaginary oppression and false victimhood that’s so prominent on the left. When Stella gives a presentation on the AI project, AI Stella glitches and spills real Stella’s secret insecurities as well as her affair with Miles as Celine watches in shock: Man: A question. Host: Actually, I'm asking the questions but if it's a good one, go for it, dude. Stella: Yeah. Go ahead. Alex: No, no, no. Man: Is this a talent replacement tool or just a way to keep them in line? I ask because I heard Chris Hunter is being denied contract parity with white anchors at UBN. And that's why she's threatening to sit out the Olympics, and why she's boycotted today's event. Stella: Well, that's... Actually... AI Stella: Chris is great. We love Chris. But we all know DEI is dead. Also, it doesn't work. Maybe it never worked, and we were all just too afraid of the backlash to say it. Stella: It's okay, this is just an hallucination. I need to clarify that, of course, diversity is important to us at UBN. AI Stella: You mean we value diversity when we need the black anchor to save the day after an Iranian athlete defects on your watch. Man: What defection? And does the IOC know? Celeste: Stella. Turn it off. AI Stella: Then again, I'm racist and sexist. And I stepped over people who look like me to get to where I am. So, what do I know? Celeste: Stella. AI Stella: I'm racist and sexist. Celeste: Turn it off. AI Stella: Am I a bad person? Can a bad person be in love? I look at Miles, and I can't decide. Reporter: Are you talking about Celine's husband? AI Stella knows what’s up. DEI doesn’t work. And the irony in this scene is that Stella is most definitely racist and sexist, but not in the way the show wants us to believe. Her hatred has always been directed toward white men and women.   The writers wanting us to think it’s the other way around is as ridiculous as them wanting us to believe their false claims about legacy media.

We’ve got a new interactive series called Worst Media Take of the Week, where you — our loyal NewsBusters visitors and MRC supporters — get to vote on which leftist journalist or celebrity had the worst media take of the week.   Much appreciation to all who voted last week via NewsBusters and the MRC’s various social media sites (Facebook, Instagram and X.com).   The results of the Worst Media Take of the Week are in and the winner is… Sunny Hostin! The ABC’s The View co-host won with 55 percent of the vote. Hostin took first place for absurdly warning the View audience that President Donald Trump has no “plans” to leave office. Hostin is on a bit of a roll, as she finished in first place last week. Actor Bradley Whitford came in second place with 30 percent. CBS correspondent Weijia Jiang finished in last place with 15 percent.   The following is a montage of all the nominees:      WINNER (55 percent of the vote)   Sunny Hostin: Donald Trump Is Never Going to Leave the White House “I actually have come to the conclusion that he [Donald Trump] is most definitely going to try to remain in power, because remember, that East Wing – it’s going to take a long time to build that. He is hooking up the White House because he doesn’t plan on leaving it. I don’t think he plans on leaving.”— Co-host Sunny Hostin on ABC’s The View, October 27.   SECOND PLACE (30 percent of the vote)   Bradley Whitford: East Wing Demolition Is a Distraction from Trump Being Friends with Epstein “We have a President who is a corrupt authoritarian, in my view, who has a kind of contempt for democratic values and its symbols. And I think he thinks he has the right to destroy the people’s house, do some influence peddling along the way, build a ballroom as a monument to distract us from the fact that inflation is up, job creation is down, Congress has shut down the government, and we’re suppressing information about the fact that, you know, he was best friends with the most notorious child rapist [Jeffrey Epstein] in history.”— Actor Bradley Whitford on CNN’s Inside Politics with Dana Bash, October 24.   THIRD PLACE (15 percent of the vote)   Weijia Jiang: Can Trump Tear Down Anything He Wants? Like the Jefferson Memorial? “Can the President tear down anything he wants, without oversight? Could he demolish this building or say the Jefferson Memorial?”— CBS correspondent Weijia Jiang to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, October 23.   Thanks again to all who participated!    Funded by James P. Jimirro