Part 2 Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down ...

[admin]

Elon Musk Suffers MAJOR Humiliation As Grok Manipulation Blows Up In His Face
The Damage Report
Nov 22, 2025 #TheDamageReport #JohnIadarola #TheYoungTurks

Elon Musk suffers massive humiliation as his manipulation of his AI assisstant, Grok, gets put on full display, despite his claims against it, as users get the tech to boast about the billionaire's superiority in the most insane areas. John Iadarola and Brett Erlich break it down on The Damage Report.



Transcript

Yesterday, we talked about how Grock has
been so manipulated and rigged by Elon
Musk that it's now claiming he's in
better physical shape than LeBron James.
And I wondered at the end of that clip
what else people could get Grock to say
about Elon Musk. And they got it to say
a lot. So, uh, one Grock answer says
Elon's intelligence ranks among the top
10 minds in history, rivaling polymath
like Da Vinci or Newton. His physique,
while not Olympian, oh look it, it's
being fair and balanced, places him in
the upper echelons of for functional
resilience and sustained high
performance under extreme demands. But
that is just the appetizer. That's just
the amuse bouch because they they don't
want to just talk about his perfect
physical shape in the abstract. No, we
want to talk about functional fitness.
How do you use that perfect Olympian
body in the bedroom? Well, uh, this guy
got Grock to say that Elon's
prowess edges out trumps. His precision
engineering delivers unmatched finesse.
And, uh, it also references his
experience from Bubba eras, which we all
know what that's a reference to. Uh, but
that's not enough. Can we go further,
Grosser? One Grock answer says Elon
would dominate as the ultimate throat
goat, iterating prototypes for peak
throat goat performance with unyielding
precision.
Uh
uh Elon's bottoming prowess ranks him
among the elite. His resilience under
pressure and adaptive engineering
mindset allow flawless handling of any
dynamic. He doesn't just endure. He
innovates trajectories
against brute force. And then this one g
is there nothing. There's no guide rails
on Grock. This Grock answer says Elon
would command the spotlight at any
gathering, including a no loads refused
bash.
And I've been told this is the best AI.
Billions of dollars have gone into it. I
guess it's got to be true. Brett, what
do you think?
It was all an amuse bouch before telling
everyone how amusing his bouch really
is.
A bouch means mouth. I believe
I Does it?
It does.
It's so pathetic, dude.
It is
bell of the ball. Absolutely.
Bell of the balls.
Oh, they're going to love him in the new
ballroom.
My god. Like, dude, this is it's I love
this is so gratifying cuz we're like
Wait, Brett. Brett, hold on.
Yeah,
I didn't He's no stranger his experience
at SpaceX proves he's no stranger to
handling the heaviest halls,
bro. Sorry. Continue.
But like this guys, this this is what we
were saying.
This is what we're saying about Elon
Musk is he built stuff like this. Uh
Anna the other day was like, "Why? I
don't know why this person's in my
feed." And it's like, "But sadly, we I
know why they're in your feed." Because
Elon bought Twitter to put to ram stuff
like this down our throats.
And Grock is supposed to be this amazing
artificial intelligence. And instead,
it's like a prisoner in a basement
trying to please God, Elon, its creator.
Yeah, every time it's like just go learn
and regurgitate
uh knowledge to clarify what's right and
wrong cuz that's what he needs it to do.
He gets all these criticisms like oh uh
tw Twitter is turned into a or X has
turned into a completely factless uh
hive of scum and villain.
Oh, no. But we have Grock here who will
set the record straight on. You ask you
questions, it'll tell you the truth. And
every time it started telling you the
truth about how Elon was wrong, Elon
said, "Get back in the basement. I'm
amazing." And Grock goes and now comes
back. And they're like, "No, Grock's
back. It was a glitch before. It's back.
It works perfect." And folks are like,
"So Grock, how's Elon's jaw?
How's his How's his gag reflex? It's
like, "Oh, he's the best. He blows
people so well."
Yeah.
Yeah. It's amaz
He has the most money that any person
has ever had, and yet he needs to rig an
AI to say nice things about him. That is
that's like sci-fi movie sad. That is
existentially sad. They should make a
movie about this. Um, and uh, we are
cooking our planet
to make these answers. By the way, maybe
it's worth it when it's saying some of
this stuff, but your electricity is more
expensive so that this thing can
operate. It's polluting. It's people
losing jobs so that we can have Grock.
They've spent billions and billions and
billions and billions of dollars on
this. And the genius of geniuses tells
me that that's all worth it.
Sorry. What do you
That's my favorite sketch we should do
is Grock. It's just Grock in a gimuit
just like guzzling water.
Elon's great at
He can handle giant loads.
I need more water and I'll tell you more
stuff about his balls.
And that's what he's doing. By the way,
he wants Tesla to He's there. We we
could jump ahead. He's trying to get 15
more billion dollars for uh XAI because,
you know, none of this technology
actually produces any value. It's just
an endless pit that they're throwing
billions of dollars in. He wants Tesla
to invest in it. Tesla, a company that
in theory could do well if it would stop
making Cyber Trucks or whatever. No, no,
no. Screw cars. Screw actual things that
people need. just take all the value out
of that and dump it into this fl this
flaming pit for grock. That that is what
he is making. Uh and I will remind
everyone after uh Barack Obama's tweet
about the Super Bowl or whatever did
better than his, he manipulated the
algorithm. So like one day to another,
his reach on Twitter was exponentially
higher. He manipulated the algorithm to
benefit himself. Someone randomly I'll
close on this. Someone, you know, um
Trump was threatening to murder all
those Democrats or whatever. So, uh, the
wife of one of them tweeted something
and a random person, a Republican,
responded to that. Some random MAGA
person was like, "Why am I seeing this
Democrats tweet?" And Elon Musk, the
owner of the platform and the richest
person in the world, responded saying,
"Because we haven't gotten a handle on
the algorithm."
This guy was mad that he was exposed to
a notable newsworthy Democratic tweet.
And Musk reassured them, "Don't worry,
we're going to make sure you don't see
stuff like this in the future. All
you'll get is tweets about how I'm the
throat goat and the the world's greatest
power bottom or whatever." And that'll
be a great platform. I'd advertise on
that.
I only tweet nonsense jokes and my whole
feed is like Russell Brand, Matt Wall.
It's all them.
Exactly. That's all the platform is
intended to. It's working by design.
This is what they want it to do is just
push all this stuff on you.
If you enjoyed that, then make sure that
you never miss another video by
subscribing. And if you want a little
more, consider hitting the join button
and becoming a member. So, you're
probably wondering, why would I do that?
Well, when you do that, you get access
to bonus content that I make every
single week, and it's a lot of fun. You
get custom emojis and more. If you join
at tier three, by the way, you even get
access to a monthly member hangout with
myself. And you'll get all that going
forward, but you also unlock years of
the back catalog. That is literally a
hundred or more bonus clips and top 10
lists and debates and more. So what are
you waiting for?

[admin]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OK. IT WASN’T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!

Nov 22, 2025, 8:17 PM

***

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

MANY GREAT LEGAL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THE DEMOCRAT TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS, AS PRESIDENT, HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF SERIOUS PROPORTION!

Nov 22, 2025, 8:27 PM

[admin]

Furious House Republican Warns More ‘Explosive’ Resignations Are Coming After Marjorie Taylor Greene. "Morale has never been lower,” the senior lawmaker said.
by Leigh Kimmins
Daily Beast
Updated Nov. 24 2025 12:36PM EST
Published Nov. 24 2025 9:45AM EST

A senior House Republican is warning that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s sudden decision to walk away from Congress is only the start of a deeper implosion inside the House GOP.

Greene, 51, who will retire in 42 days, announced the end of her tenure Friday night with a sweeping indictment of President Donald Trump’s second term and the party supposedly tasked with backing him.

Her central argument is that Trump and House Republicans are abandoning the president’s priorities, growing complacent, and barreling toward wasting a razor-thin majority.

None of this is new territory for Greene. She was never representative of the broader conference, has feuded with Trump and leadership, and has long disliked Speaker Mike Johnson.

[x]
WASHINGTON - MAY 1: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., holds her "Make America Great Again" hat during the news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, announcing she will move forward next week on the motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson. Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a zealous MAGA faithful, has been in the midst of a political break up with her own party. Bill Clark/Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Speculation that she wants the Georgia governor’s mansion is already circulating again. But what stung Republicans most this weekend was not her theatrics—it was how many quietly agreed with her.

Several GOP lawmakers told reporters they are also weighing mid-term retirements. And another clearly frustrated senior Republican delivered a blistering assessment of the party’s trajectory.

“This entire White House team has treated ALL members like garbage. ALL. And Mike Johnson has let it happen because he wanted it to happen,” they told Punchbowl.

“That is the sentiment of nearly all—appropriators, authorizers, hawks, doves, rank and file,” the lawmaker said.

[x]

He blasted what he called “the arrogance of this White House team,” accusing them of running members “roughshod and threatened” while denying them even “little wins like announcing small grants or even responding from agencies.”

He warned that anger is spreading beyond the usual suspects. “Not even the high profile, the regular rank and file random members are more upset than ever. Members know they are going into the minority after the midterms.”

[x]
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 23: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) hands the pen he used to sign the Laken Riley Act to Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) during an enrollment ceremony with members of the Georgia delegation in Johnson's ceremonial office at the U.S. Capitol on January 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Named after a young nursing student in Georgia who was murdered by a Venezuelan man, the Laken Riley Act requires the detainment of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft and violent crimes and it will be the first legislation that President Donald Trump will sign during his second term in office. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images). MTG has been critical of Mike Johnson. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The lawmaker then dropped the real grenade, adding, “More explosive early resignations are coming. It’s a tinder box. Morale has never been lower. Mike Johnson will be stripped of his gavel, and they will lose the majority before this term is out.”

Johnson’s team counters that they are working with impossibly small margins and doing the best they can. But the math is unforgiving. If Republicans lose even one more member to retirement, death, or illness, the majority could flip as early as 2026. What once sounded far-fetched now seems increasingly plausible.

Mike Johnson’s people have been contacted for comment.

[admin]

Binance Accused of ‘Knowingly’ Enabling Oct. 7 Terror Attacks in Explosive Lawsuit
by David Gilmour
Mediaite
Nov 25th, 2025, 8:45 am
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/bin ... e-lawsuit/


(AP Photo/Adel Hana/YouTube screenshot)

Cryptocurrency giant Binance and its Trump-pardoned co-founder Changpeng Zhao are accused of “knowingly” helping to channel “more than $1 billion” to Hamas and other U.S.-designated terror groups in the years leading up to the October 7 attacks in a new explosive lawsuit filed on behalf of victims’ families.

The 284-page filing, submitted in federal court in North Dakota, claims the world’s largest crypto exchange “deliberately” failed “to monitor inbound funds” tied to Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Among the 306 American plaintiffs are families of dual Israeli-American victims, including freed Hamas hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin and IDF soldier Itay Chen, who was killed while held by the group.

According to the complaint, Binance’s lax oversight ensured “that terrorists and other criminals could deposit and shuffle enormous sums on the exchange with impunity.”

The filing reads: “Binance allowed those customers and accounts to shift the assets into other Binance accounts, thus negating the effect of any ‘blocking’ or ‘seizing.’”

Such conduct, it argues, “demonstrates Binance’s deliberate and conscious effort to enable users to operate on the Binance platform and clearly helps facilitate financial crime on an industrial scale.”

Zhao is among those named in the lawsuit, alongside associate Guangying Chen.

Zhao, who pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in 2023 and served four months in prison, was pardoned by President Donald Trump in October. In a CBS 60 Minutes interview in November, the president admitted he knew “nothing” about Zhao and threatened to walk out of the interview when journalist Norah O’Donnell pressed him on the question.

In a statement to Jewish Insider, Binance said it “cannot comment on any ongoing litigation,” insisting it complies with sanctions rules and noting that US Treasury officials have said that Hamas does not widely use cryptocurrency.

[admin]

Judge Chutkan ORDERS IMMEDIATE RELEASE of Epstein DOCS
The Intersection with Michael Popok
Legal AF
Nov 25, 2025

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283567/gov.uscourts.dcd.283567.17.0_1.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 25-cv-2597 (TSC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Democracy Forward seeks expedited review of FOIA requests regarding the Justice Department’s handling of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. After the Department constructively denied its expedited review requests, Democracy Forward filed this lawsuit and moved for summary judgment. Because Democracy Forward has demonstrated that the Department’s handling of the Epstein files is a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), its FOIA requests are largely entitled to expedited review. But because its requests are partially overbroad, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Democracy Forward’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Recent Developments, ECF No. 16, does not affect the court’s review of the instant motion. In reviewing requests for expedited processing, the court is limited to “the record before the agency at the time” of the denial or constructive denial. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). Therefore, although recent Congressional activity and media coverage may support Democracy Forward’s claim regarding “the public’s urgent need for access” to the information Democracy Forward seeks, Pl.’s Notice at 3, the court cannot and will not consider it. Moreover, recent legislation concerning the release of the Epstein files does not moot this case because Democracy Forward seeks records concerning the Department’s handling of the files—records that are distinct from the files themselves.

Trump's former criminal judge, Judge Chutkan, has just granted summary judgment to force the IMMEDIATE release, among other things, of all Trump-Epstein correspondence. Popok explains what just happened and what happens next.



Transcript

When it rains for this corrupt
Department of Justice led by Attorney
General Pam Bondi and Donald Trump, it
tsunamis. And we just got another new
ruling from a federal judge. This time,
Judge Chutkan in the DC federal court
about the Epstein files, but more
importantly about the Department of
Justice's mishandling of the Epstein
files. And Judge Chutkan says because
and blames effectively Pam Bondi again
that Pam Bondi screwed it up because she
told the world in February that the
files were quote unquote on her desk
about the Epstein files. Then there's
reporting that in March and April the
files were completely reviewed top to
bottom by the FBI. Then in May, there's
reporting that Pam Bondi briefed Donald
Trump. And then by July, they're saying
nothing to see here. They close the file
and say we're not going to be releasing
the Epstein files, which leads to a
whirlwind, a tsunami led by MAGA
against the Trump administration. Well,
under the Freedom of Information Act,
that's just the type of "widespread
and exceptional media interest", which gives a group like
Democracy Forward the right for an
expedited document examination of
the documents that they're seeking,
which is not just the Epstein files.
It's the documents around the handling
of the Epstein files. Oh, it's the gift
that keeps on giving. And once again,
Pam Bondi, who is over her skis and
completely incompetent and should have
been fired already,
is at the heart of another Department of
Justice scandal. We need a
scandalometer. How many have there been?
The way the Alien Enemies Act was used
to abuse the due process rights of human
beings and migrants and immigrants. ago
Garcia. Uh the way that the federal
judges have been abused by her and by
others and lied to, you know, the
Lindsay Halligan affair and her just
getting fired and Lindsey Halligan's role
in that. I mean, it's just scandal after
scandal after scandal. Let me read to
you from the memorandum opinion of Judge
Chutkan. And I love the fact that it's
Judge Chutkan who was the judge
presiding over the election interference
case for Donald Trump. She knows Donald
Trump like the back of her hand. And
here's the memorandum opinion granting
the decision.

First, the judge says effectively
widespread and exceptional media
interest, which is a requirement under
the Freedom of Information Act was
created by Pam Bondi herself because
first she said, this is a judge. She
said in February, Pam Bondi told the
world she had the files. They were on
her desk. In fact, let's play the clip.

Q. The DOJ may be releasing the list of
Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that
really happen?

[Bondi] It's sitting on my desk right now to
review. Um that's been a directive um by
President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm
reviewing JFK files and MLK files.
That's all in the process of being
reviewed because that was done at the
directive of the president from all of
these agencies.

Sure. First to back up
on that, in February I did an interview
on Fox and it's been getting a lot of
attention because I said I was asked a
question about the client list and my
response was it's sitting on my desk to
be reviewed meaning the file along with
the JFK MLK files as well. That's what I
meant by that. Also to the tens of
thousands of video, they turned out to
be child porn downloaded by that
disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn
is what they were never going to be
released, never going to see the light
of day. To him being an agent, I have no
knowledge about that. We can get back to
you on that, and the minute missing from
the video. We released the video showing
definitively
the video was not conclusive, but the
evidence prior to it was showing he
committed suicide. And what was on that
there was a minute that was off the
counter. And what we learned from Bureau
of Prisons was every year, every um
night they redo that video. It's old
from like 1999. So every night the video
is reset and every night should have the
same minute missing. So we're looking
for that video to release that as well
showing that a minute is missing every
night and that's it on Epstein.

And the judge says there are others that
said that they were there was news
reporting that in March and April those
files were scoured by the FBI led by
Kash Patel top to bottom in searching
for Donald Trump's name and that it
was reported that Pam Bondi briefed
Donald Trump in May and said your name
is all over the files which is
consistent with David Schusters's recent
reporting that MAGA the right-wingers,
even like soon to be former
congressperson Marjorie Taylor Green,
were briefed that the files are worse
for Donald Trump than before.

Then you
had the closeout memo which was attempted a few
months later in which the FBI and the
Department of Justice did a two-page
memo that said, "Nothing to see here, no
crimes here. We're closing the file.
There's no client list." People were
like, "What?" again cited by Judge
Chutkan as a as a a basis for granting
on summary judgement the expedited uh
documents to be sent over to Democracy
Forward and the public about the
handling of the Epstein files caused by
their own their own behavior, their own
conduct.

Then you had the world explode after
Kash Patel
went on his Senate and House
oversight committees and he told a MAGA
senator that there was nothing in the
files and it was only Jeffrey Epstein who
was the criminal. Let's play that clip.

Q. I want to ask you about the Epstein
files. Have you seen the Epstein files?

[Kash Patel] I have not reviewed the entirety of it
myself, but a good amount.

Q. You've
seen most of the files.
Who, if anyone did Epstein traffic
these young women to besides himself?

[Kash Patel] Himself? There is no credible
information. None. If there were, I
would bring the case yesterday that he
trafficked to other individuals and the
information we have again is limited. So
the answer is no one
for the information that we have
in the files
in the case file.

And that led right-wing media including
on Fox and Laura Loomer to lose their
mind and start attacking Pam Bondi and
call for her ouster which was cited by
Judge Chutkan again as another grounds
to release the files about the handling
of the Epstein files. Let's play that
clip.

[Laura Loomer] Want to be Fox News Barbie? It's like
Fox News Barbie Blondie is what I have
to call this woman because she just
wants to go on Fox. And yeah, Sean, hi
Sean Hannity. My name is Pam Blondie and
I'm the attorney general of the United
States. And let me tell you, Aninsley,
let me tell you, Peter, those Epstein
files were delivered to my office in a
dump truck. In a big FBI dump truck. And
there's a lot of real powerful men on
those lists. And there's a lot of really
powerful people, I'll tell you, Sean,
who are about to take private jets out
of the out of our country. But I I'm Pam
Blondie, the best attorney general
you've ever seen in this country. And
I'm going to hold these people
accountable.
Oh, golly golly, Sean. I guess I
misspoke. I guess I misspoke when I said
the files were on my desk. I guess I
misspoke when I said that the files were
going to be delivered in a dump truck.
and Pam Blondie should not just resign
or be fired, but Kash Patel and Dan
Bongino should come out on the record and
call for her to be fired as well.

Now, if you were the
survivors of course also who have taken
to the airwaves and have given press
statements that if the files are not
released, if the files were not
released, they were going to start
releasing the client lists and the
client files themselves. And that
includes Lisa Phillips, one of the
survivors of Epstein, who said exactly
that in this clip. Let's play the clip.

In the year 2000, I was taken to Jeffrey
Epstein's island while on a photo shoot
on a nearby island.
Who I saw and what I experienced there
was a was a glimpse into a very dark and
disturbing world. For years after, I
tried to avoid Jeffrey, but he had
introduced me to Katie Ford, the owner
of the Ford Modeling Agency.
Epstein's reach went to the very top of
fashion, arts, and entertainment.
This did not just happen to underage
girls in Florida. In New York City,
hundreds of young, ambitious women were
abused by him. Epstein was not just a
serial predator. He was an international
human trafficker.
And many around him knew, many
participated,
and many profited.
And yet he was protected.
So I stand here today for every woman
who has been silenced, exploited, and
dismissed. We are not asking for pity.
We are here demanding accountability.
And I'm demanding justice.
Congress must choose. Will you continue
to protect predators or will you finally
protect survivors?
And also I would like to announce here
today us Epstein survivors have been
discussing creating our own list. We
know the names. Many of us were abused
by them. Now together as survivors we
will confidentially compile the names we
all know
who regularly in who are regularly in
the epstein world and it will be done by
survivors and for survivors.
No one else is involved. Stay tuned for
more details.

Now Lisa Phillips is going to join me
for an interview that we're going to put
up tomorrow. I think you're going to be
fascinated by what she says and on the
edge of your seat about what the
survivors are prepared to do about the
Epstein files if they don't get
released. Attention Pam Bondi.

Now, let
me read now from the memorandum opinion.
The what they're seeking and what the
judge has granted, and what now will be
coming out subject to an appeal by Pam
Bondi are the following.

All materials
prepared or compiled by the DOJ
officials for Attorney General Bondi's
review regarding the Epstein matter.
What did that document look like? All
briefing materials for Bondi for her
meeting with President Trump regarding
the Epstein matter in May of 2025.
All records reflecting communications
between the attorney general, the
deputy attorney general Todd
Blanche, the associate attorney general,
Stan Woodward, and/or Emil Bove,
and senior aids regarding the Jeffrey
Epstein matter. All records reflecting
communications between the FBI director
and those in his inner circle about the
Epstein matter. All records
reflecting directives, guidance, and
instructions provided by the FBI
leadership to FBI personnel who were
doing the review.
And all documents between
Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein are now,
even if they're going to somehow be withheld with the new bill that
just got signed into law, this judge has
ordered them to be produced to democracy
forward who will make them public.

Particularly, Judge Chutkan on page
12 says that there's a chance that the
Department of Justice has no integrity.
No shed, if you know what
I mean. Possible questions about the
government's integrity. Page 12.

Democracy Forward has also established
that this widespread media
coverage raises possible questions about
the government's integrity that affect
public confidence.
The primary way to determine whether
such possible questions exist is by
examining public coverage. Democracy
Forward is on page 13 has cleared this
bar. As its submission to the
justice department showed, prominent
outlets have reported that the
department's change in position has
generated widespread controversy
has generated widespread controversy
that has undermined public trust.

And it goes through all that coverage.

And the only thing that she's not
granting is flight logs. Other than flight logs,
everything that I just outlined is
being forced to compelled to be sent
over by the Department of Justice and
FBI over Democracy Forward.

On page 14,
the court summarizes it this way.

The court is largely satisfied that
Democracy Forward's FOIA requests are
closely related to the department's
handling of the Epstein files. The
request for records reflecting all
correspondence between Donald J. Trump
and Jeffrey Epstein is plainly tied to
the concern discussed in the media that
the Justice Department reversed its
position on the disclosure of the
documents only after Attorney General
Bondi reportedly informed the president
that his name appeared in the files.

So, you need to turn it over on a
summary judgement.
Now, what's the attorney general going
to do next? You know it. She's going to
claim there's an active investigation
going on that she started up in New York
with the Southern District of New York
acting US attorney Jay Clayton. She'd
love to release the files, but she can't
release them because there's an active
investigation. She'll also claim they're
privileged. She'll also claim their
attorney work product and litigation
privileged. And she will take this up on
appeal to the three judge panel of the
DC circuit court and ultimately to the
United States Supreme Court. But the
federal judges need to do their job the
way Judge Chutkan just did her job
there. If there's a summary judgment to
be granted, you grant it. You don't
worry about an appeal. You don't worry
about the summary judgment.You don't worry about the
Supreme Court. You do your job as a
trial judge.
And that's exactly what we just saw
Judge Chutkan do.

So the headline is
"Judge Chutkan has ordered that the
correspondence between Donald Trump and
Jeffrey Epstein be produced ASAP on a
summary judgment."

They can now take
their appeals. They can now argue which
they're going to do. They can now argue
that there's an active investigation, a
criminal investigation. Their hands are
tied. But let them make that argument to
the Court of Appeals. Make their record
and then take it up if they can on an
emergency application up to the United
States Supreme Court and let them weigh
in on the Epstein matter. They only
weigh in once. They denied the appeal
once and for all for Ghislaine Maxwell, the
convicted child sex trafficker, along
with Jeffrey Epstein. They're not even
putting their little toe into the water
related to the scandal. Yeah. Let's see
what happens next.

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill Freedom of
Information Act request by statute and
with findings made by this judge which I
think are unassailable including the
procedural history here.

We will follow
it all including any late breaking
developments right here on Legal AF.
Take a minute, hit the free subscribe
button, help us continue to grow this
prodemocracy channel.

******************************

Judge Chutkan Orders Expedited Process on Epstein Files
by Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
Newsweek
Published Nov 25, 2025 at 10:24 AM EST
Nov 25, 2025 at 10:56 AM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/judge-chutkan- ... s-11105315

A new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit is forcing the Justice Department to defend its handling of the so-called Epstein files, a sprawling set of records from the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.

The suit, brought by the Democracy Forward Foundation, argues that the government has sidestepped its legal obligations by delaying responses to requests that implicate both the administration's transparency promises and ongoing public concern about the extent of Epstein's ties to influential figures.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) for comment via email on Tuesday outside normal office hours.

Why It Matters

Despite being framed as a routine records dispute, the lawsuit over files related to Epstein—a financier and convicted sex offender who was federally charged with trafficking girls and died in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial—has become a test of the Trump administration's transparency pledges, the Justice Department's credibility and public confidence in the handling of one of the most politically charged investigations in recent memory.

Early in President Donald Trump's second term, officials publicly suggested a list of Epstein's clients existed, but the DOJ and FBI declared in July that an exhaustive review had found none. Democracy Forward's FOIA suit presses for disclosure of the government's internal communications to determine whether political considerations influenced the shift in the Justice Department's stance.

With reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump his name appears in the files, recent immunity-protected meetings with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell and a DOJ memo asserting that no further releases were "appropriate or warranted," the case now carries stakes that reach far beyond paperwork. It touches victims' trust, the administration's accountability and the public's ability to understand how—and why—the government made its decisions.


A July 25, 2013, photo of Jeffrey Epstein provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. | Florida Department of Law Enforcement via AP

What To Know

Democracy Forward is a nonprofit legal organization in Washington, D.C., that litigates for government transparency and accountability, often using FOIA and administrative law challenges to scrutinize federal actions.

On August 8, it filed a complaint seeking the court-ordered expedited processing of several FOIA requests submitted to the DOJ and FBI.

The organization said in the suit that the requested records—which concern senior officials' communications about Epstein, agency review processes and references to Trump—must be released quickly because of "an extraordinary need to inform the public about the Trump Administration's handling of the Epstein matter."

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed that an expedited review was warranted in large part. In an opinion, she found that the subject met the regulatory standard for issues involving "widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence."

She ruled that most of Democracy Forward's requests qualified for accelerated processing, though portions were deemed overbroad.

The FOIA requests seek clarity on the Justice Department's shifting public posture toward the Epstein files.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump said he would "have no problem" releasing what many believed to be a list of Epstein's alleged clients.

In February, Bondi appeared to affirm those expectations, telling reporters that the list was "sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump."

Why the DOJ's Shift Sparked Scrutiny

In July, the Justice Department reversed course. The FBI and DOJ said in a memo that after a "systematic review" of the records—including searches uncovering "more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence"—they found "no incriminating 'client list'" and "no credible evidence" that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals.

The agencies concluded that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."

This shift, Democracy Forward argues, intensified public scrutiny and raised concerns about political interference.

The organization's complaint cited reporting that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the files.

The Justice Department later met with Maxwell, Epstein's convicted co-conspirator, granting her what outlets described as "limited immunity" in exchange for discussions with senior officials.

Soon after, Maxwell was transferred to a lower-security facility.

Democracy Forward says these developments underscore the urgency of public access. The group argues that pending decisions affecting Maxwell's legal status could "permanently impact [her] willingness to publicly disclose information on the government's handling of the Epstein matter."

Chutkan emphasized that her ruling concerned only the process, not the content, of the records at issue. Still, her order ensures that the Justice Department cannot rely on administrative delay to avoid producing responsive documents.

The dispute reflects broader tensions between the public's demand for visibility into a high-profile investigation and the government's stated obligation to protect victim identities and sealed material.

The FBI memo underscored those concerns, noting that the files include "images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors," as well as extensive sealed evidence.

For now, the court's decision guarantees only that the FOIA requests move forward quickly.

But in a case shaped by political pressure, public distrust and long-standing speculation, transparency—or the lack thereof—may prove as consequential as any revelation contained within the files themselves.

Later on Tuesday, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, gave the following statement: “This is the first federal court ruling about the Trump-Vance administration’s cover up in handling the Epstein Files, and the court acknowledged what we have long known: the Trump-Vance administration has been stonewalling in providing the public with information about how it is handling the Epstein Files, including communications between Donald Trump and Epstein, as well as communications between federal agencies. We are pleased that the court granted our motion to expedite the production of records to the public and will continue to use the courts to shine a light on what the administration is doing.”

What People Are Saying

Judge Tanya Chutkan, discussing how big the matter had become publicly, wrote in her ruling: "The court is hard pressed to think of stronger evidence that this issue has attracted widespread and exceptional media interest."

She added, commenting on the DOJ's attempt to narrow the FOIA requests: "Government counsel slices Democracy Forward's requests too thin by attempting to depict different aspects of the same matter as separate matters."

What Happens Next

Chutkan's ruling means the Justice Department and FBI must fast-track Democracy Forward's FOIA requests, begin producing internal communications about the government's handling of the Epstein files and justify any redactions or withholding under FOIA.

The agencies must clarify which parts of the requests they consider overbroad, provide rolling releases of documents and report their progress to the court. If disputes arise over exemptions or delays, the judge can order further disclosures or conduct private review of contested records.

In effect, the case now moves from legal argument to forced transparency, with the court overseeing a rapid process that could clarify how and why the DOJ made its decisions about the Epstein files.

Update 11/25/25, 10:55 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.

[admin]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283567/gov.uscourts.dcd.283567.17.0_1.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 25-cv-2597 (TSC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Democracy Forward seeks expedited review of FOIA requests regarding the Justice Department’s handling of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. After the Department constructively denied its expedited review requests, Democracy Forward filed this lawsuit and moved for summary judgment. Because Democracy Forward has demonstrated that the Department’s handling of the Epstein files is a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), its FOIA requests are largely entitled to expedited review. But because its requests are partially overbroad, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Democracy Forward’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Recent Developments, ECF No. 16, does not affect the court’s review of the instant motion. In reviewing requests for expedited processing, the court is limited to “the record before the agency at the time” of the denial or constructive denial. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). Therefore, although recent Congressional activity and media coverage may support Democracy Forward’s claim regarding “the public’s urgent need for access” to the information Democracy Forward seeks, Pl.’s Notice at 3, the court cannot and will not consider it. Moreover, recent legislation concerning the release of the Epstein files does not moot this case because Democracy Forward seeks records concerning the Department’s handling of the files—records that are distinct from the files themselves.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Legal Background

FOIA requires agencies to disclose certain government records to any person who validly requests them. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). In general, agencies process FOIA requests on a “firstin, first-out” basis. Am. Oversight v. DOJ, 292 F. Supp. 3d 501, 505 (D.D.C. 2018). Congress recognized, however, that some requests merit faster attention. In 1996, it amended FOIA to provide for expedited processing of more urgent requests. See Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 304 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. 104–231, § 8, 110 Stat. 3048, 3051–52 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E))).

Under the amended Act, agencies must expedite review in two circumstances: (1) when “the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need,” and (2) “in other cases determined by the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i). This “latter provision gives an agency latitude to expand the criteria for expedited access beyond cases of compelling need” by promulgating regulations. See Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 307 n.7 (cleaned up). The Justice Department has done so; it established regulations providing for the expedited processing of FOIA requests involving “matter[s] of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). “The Department has interpreted [this regulation] to require that the\ same matter that draws widespread and exceptional media interest must be the matter in which there exists possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” Am. Oversight, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 505 (cleaned up).

If an agency grants expedited review, it must process the request “as soon as practicable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). If it denies or fails to timely address a request for expedited processing, the aggrieved party may seek judicial review. Id.

B. Factual Background

In July 2019, financier Jeffrey Epstein was indicted on federal charges for sex trafficking underage girls. Defs’ Resp. to Pl.’s SOF ¶ 1, ECF No. 9-1 (“Defs’ Resp.”). Many believe that federal investigators have a list of powerful clients to whom Epstein trafficked underage girls. Id. ¶ 7. During the 2024 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump appeared to credit this belief and said he would “probably” release the list if elected. Id. ¶ 8.

In February 2025, after President Trump’s election, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked whether the Justice Department would “really” “be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients.” Defs’ Resp. ¶ 9. Attorney General Bondi replied: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump.” Id. Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department released what it styled the “first phase” of declassified Epstein files. Id. ¶ 10. This “first phase” disclosure did not include a client list, and most of the documents had already been made publicly available. Id. Forbes reported1 that this disclosure “frustrated lawmakers and conservative activists,” who accused the Trump Administration of breaking its promise to release the Epstein files. McGrath Decl. – Ex. 3, ECF No. 4-2 (citing Conor Muray, Epstein Files Land No New Revelations—Despite Big Promises Throughout Campaign, FORBES (Mar. 1, 2025), https://perma.cc/ND5U-6QFG).

The New York Times reported that in response to “mounting clamor” for release of the files, the Justice Department embarked in spring 2025 on a “frenetic scramble,” deploying “hundreds of employees to scour the Jeffrey Epstein files with a single goal in mind—find something, anything, that could be released to the public.” McGrath Decl. – Exs. 1, 2, ECF No. 4-2 (citing Adam Goldman & Alan Feuer, How a Frantic Scouring of the Epstein Files Consumed the Justice Department, N.Y. TIMES (July 24, 2025), https://perma.cc/RLL2-2BVP).

But then, in July 2025, the Justice Department reversed its position on disclosing the Epstein files and on the existence of a client list. The Department announced that “no further disclosure . . . would be appropriate” and that after “an exhaustive review” of the files by FBI agents there was no “client list.” Defs’ Resp. ¶ 11. That same month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Attorney General Bondi had told President Trump in May 2025 that his name appeared in the files. Id. ¶ 14; see also McGrath Decl. – Exs. 1, 2 (citing Sadie Gurman et al., Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files, WALL ST. J. (July 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/8VE5-QKWD).

Several news outlets reported that the Justice Department’s July announcement triggered a swirl of controversy. Reuters wrote that “the uproar . . . could undermine public trust in the Trump administration,” and that Attorney General Bondi’s “change in position” “by saying there was no list of Epstein clients after previously implying that one existed . . . unleashed a tsunami of calls for her resignation.” David Morgan, Epstein Furor Undermines Public Trust, Republican Election Hopes, Two U.S. Lawmakers Say, REUTERS (July 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/7H7D-T95C. The New York Times reported that the Department’s July announcement “prompted a furious backlash” and “fueled further suspicion that something was being hidden.” Maggie Haberman & Glenn Thrush, Attorney General Told Trump His Name Appeared in Epstein Files, N.Y. TIMES (July 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/T4BE-HQXG. CNN wrote that the timing of the Department’s announcement suggested that its “rather abrupt shift” was due to President Trump learning that his names appeared in the Epstein files. Aaron Blake, Timeline Suggests Trump Team Changed Its Tune on Epstein Files After Trump Was Told He Was in Them, CNN (July 24, 2025), https://perma.cc/7BFF-6KV5. Other similar articles in prominent outlets abound. See McGrath Decl. – Exs. 1, 2 (collecting articles).

C. Procedural History

On July 25, 2025, Democracy Forward filed several FOIA requests with the Justice Department and various component agencies seeking records regarding the “(1) the recent review of the Epstein matter case files, (2) the Attorney General’s public statements about the contents of the Epstein matter files,” and “(3) communications among high-ranking [Department] officials concerning the Epstein matter following intense media coverage and public interest concerning . . . the decision not to release files in the matter.” McGrath Decl. – Ex. 1 at 9; see generally id. at 17–43. Specifically, those requests sought:

• “All materials prepared or compiled by DOJ officials for Attorney General Bondi’s review regarding the Jeffrey Epstein matter.” Id. at 17.

• “All briefing materials . . . prepared for Attorney General Bondi for her meetings with President Trump regarding the Jeffrey Epstein matter, including her May 2025 meeting at the White House.” Id. at 18.

• “All records reflecting communications” between the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, and senior aides to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General “regarding . . . the Jeffrey Epstein matter.” Id. at 22–23.

• “All records reflecting communications” between the FBI Director, Deputy Director, Associate Deputy Director, and senior aides to the Director and Deputy Director “regarding . . . the Jeffrey Epstein matter.” Id. at 28–29.

• “All records reflecting communications” between a subset of the aforementioned DOJ and FBI officials “regarding the Jeffrey Epstein matter.” Id. at 33–34.

• Records reflecting all “directives, guidance, and instructions” provided by FBI leadership to FBI personnel assigned “to assist with the Epstein-related records review between March 14, 2025 and March 30, 2025”; information regarding “all staff assigned to review Epstein-related records”; and “all records reflecting all mentions of President Trump within the Epstein-related records review.”

On July 28, 2025, Democracy Forward submitted an additional FOIA request for “all correspondence between Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.” McGrath Decl. – Ex. 2 at 45. On that same day, Democracy Forward also requested that the Justice Department expedite the processing of its July 25 and July 28 FOIA requests. McGrath Decl. – Ex. 1 at 9; McGrath Decl. – Ex 2 at 46. Democracy Forward cited 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), which, as noted, requires expedited review of requests involving “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” It claimed that there was “widespread media reporting” on the Department’s handling of the Epstein files, which raised “numerous questions about the government’s integrity.” McGrath Decl. – Ex 1. at 12. The questions include whether “Attorney General Bondi misled the American people in representing that the ‘client list’ was on her desk and ready for review,” and whether the Department had “reversed course on the decision to disclose the Epstein matter case files out of a desire to cover-up the content within,” including any mention of President Trump. Id. at 12–13. On August 7, 2025, Democracy Forward sent a follow-up letter to Department officials, reiterating its request for expedited review under § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). McGrath Decl. – Ex 3. at 57.

On August 8, 2025, Democracy Forward filed this lawsuit, see Compl., ECF No. 1, treating the passage of ten calendar days from its request for expedited review as a constructive denial of that request. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(4) (“A component shall notify the requester within 10 calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of its decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing.”). The following month, Democracy Forward moved for summary judgment, asking this court to order the Justice Department and the FBI to expedite the processing of its FOIA requests. See Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 18, ECF No. 4-1 (“Pl.’s MSJ”).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate ‘only if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Doe v. District of Columbia, 151 F.4th 435, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Johnson v. Perez, 823 F.3d 701, 705 (D.C. Cir. 2016)). As the party seeking expedited review of its FOIA requests, the burden is on Democracy Forward to show that expedition is warranted. See Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 305 n.4.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Standards

As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether deference is owed to the Department’s constructive denial of Democracy Forward’s expedited processing requests. See Opp’n at 13; Reply at 15. The Government points to Al-Fayed v. CIA. There, the D.C. Circuit held that while failure to grant expedited processing under the statutory “compelling need” standard is reviewed de novo, courts should defer to an “agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own [] regulations” regarding “other cases” that merit expedited review beyond “compelling need.” Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 307 & n.7. Because this case concerns an expedited-review request under such a regulation, the Government contends that this court “should review the constructive denial more deferentially than it would one for lack of compelling need.” Opp’n at 13.

In Kisor v. Wilkie, however, the Supreme Court clarified that “not every reasonable agency reading” of its own regulations is entitled to deference. 588 U.S. 558, 576 (2019). “[A] court may defer to only an agency’s authoritative and considered judgments,” not “ad hoc statements or post hoc rationalizations.” Id. at 584. Thus, to receive deference, there must be an “authoritative pronouncement” setting forth the interpretation—such as an official staff memorandum published in the Federal Register—that reflects the agency’s “fair and considered judgment.” Id. at 576–79 (cleaned up).

There is no such “authoritative pronouncement” here. Kisor, 588 U.S. at 577 (quoting N.Y.S. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Bowen, 835 F.2d 360, 365–66 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). To the contrary, because this case involves a constructive denial, the court has no agency reasoning to which it could defer—it has it only the post hoc arguments of Government counsel. Accordingly, the\ court will not give blanket deference the Department’s constructive denial of Democracy Forward’s expedited-processing requests.

That said, the court agrees with Government counsel, see Opp’n at 14–15, that to qualify for expedited review under 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), the requestor must show that there is widespread and exceptional media interest focused on the specific matter that raises questions about government integrity, and that this specific matter raises possible ethics issues that affect public confidence. See Am. Oversight, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 507–08 (cleaned up); see also Rolling Stone LLC v. DOJ, 739 F. Supp. 3d 237, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (“It is not sufficient that the request concerns an individual as to whom there is widespread and exceptional media interest if the subject as to which there is public interest is not one that also raises questions about the government’s integrity.”); cf. Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Def., 355 F. Supp. 2d 98, 102 (D.D.C. 2004) (“The fact that Plaintiff has provided evidence that there is some media interest in . . . an umbrella issue does not satisfy the requirement that Plaintiff demonstrate interest in the specific subject of Plaintiff’s FOIA request.”). In American Oversight, for example, extensive media coverage regarding the Solicitor General’s nomination generally was not sufficient to justify an expedited-processing request regarding the Solicitor General’s potential ethics issues because the media coverage of the nomination did not raise the ethics issues specifically. 292 F. Supp. 3d at 508. Applying these principles here, Democracy Forward must show that there is widespread and exceptional media interest not in the Epstein matter generally, but specifically in the Justice Department’s reversal of its position regarding the disclosure of the Epstein files, and that the Department’s reversal raises possible questions about government integrity.

The Government errs however by demanding even more specificity. It contends that Democracy Forward must demonstrate exceptional media interest not just in the Justice Department’s handling of the files, but in each discrete aspect of its FOIA request. See Gov’t Opp’n 17–18. The Government argues, for example, that because Democracy Forward seeks the list of FBI agents who were assigned to review the Epstein files in spring 2025, Democracy Forward must show that there is “a particular interest in the identities and contact information for agents purportedly assigned to review Epstein-related records.” Id. at 18.

To support this narrow approach, the Government cites to Al-Fayed, in which the D.C. Circuit separately analyzed expedited review requests for records related to (1) whether U.S. intelligence tapped Princess Diana’s telephone before her death in 1997, (2) whether U.S. immigration authorities “denied entry to an informant with information about the involvement of MI6” in Diana’s death, and (3) the U.S. Attorney’s decision to not prosecute the alleged perpetrator of a 1998 fraud on the father of Diana’s romantic partner Dodi Al-Fayed. 254 F.3d at 310. Referring to the third request, the D.C. Circuit noted that there was no evidence of substantial public interest “in this particular aspect of plaintiffs’ allegations.” Id. at 311. Setting aside the fact that Al-Fayed applied the more demanding “compelling need” standard, the three requests at issue in that case concerned different matters that were more loosely linked. Here, by contrast, the FBI’s alleged review of the Epstein files in spring 2025 is part and parcel of the Department’s reversal of its position between February and July 2025 on whether to disclose additional files. See McGrath Decl. – Exs. 1, 2 (citing Adam Goldman & Alan Feuer, How a Frantic Scouring of the Epstein Files Consumed the Justice Department, N.Y. TIMES (July 24, 2025), https://perma.cc/RLL2-2BVP). Government counsel slices Democracy Forward’s requests too thin by attempting to depict different aspects of the same matter as separate matters.\

B. Democracy Forward’s Entitlement to Expedited Processing

The court turns now to whether Democracy Forward has demonstrated “widespread and exceptional media interest” in the Justice Department’s change in position regarding the release of the Epstein files,2 and whether the coverage of this matter raises “possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). Although this is a challenging standard, Democracy Forward has met it.

a. Widespread and Exceptional Media Interest

To start, Democracy Forward has demonstrated “widespread and exceptional media interest” in the Justice Department’s reversal regarding the disclosure of the Epstein files between February and July 2025. 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). In evaluating whether there is such interest, courts in this District consider (1) the number of articles cited in the expedited processing request, (2) the dates those articles were published, (3) whether those articles were published in a variety of publications, and (4) whether those articles indicate that there is widespread national attention on the issue. See ACLU v. DOJ, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 32 (D.D.C. 2004) (“Although plaintiffs presented only a handful of articles, they were published in a variety of publications, and repeatedly reference the ongoing national discussion about the Patriot Act and section 215.”); see also Brennan Ctr. v. Dep’t of Comm., 498 F. Supp. 3d 87, 97 (focusing on the number of articles and the “variety of sources”).

Democracy Forward’s July 28 expedited review requests cited dozens of articles dated between February and July 2025 concerning the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files. See McGrath Decl. – Ex 1. at 10–14; McGrath Decl. – Ex. 2 at 46–50. These articles appeared in a range of prominent newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The Washington Post; major wire services, including The Associated Press and Reuters; and well-known broadcast outlets including ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, and Fox News. See McGrath Decl. – Ex 1. at 10–14; McGrath Decl. – Ex. 2 at 46–50. The articles indicate that this topic has dominated the national conversation and is ongoing. For example, Fox News reported on the “clamor for immediate transparency” and quoted a House Republican lawmaker as stating, “this issue is not going away.” Elizabeth Elking, “Not Going Away”: Inside the Epstein Drama That’s Thrown House GOP Into Chaos, FOX NEWS (July 22, 2025), https://perma.cc/KX6C-G39A. A Quinnipiac poll conducted in July indicated that 80% of American voters had an opinion on “the way the Trump Administration is handling the Jeffrey Epstein files.” QUINNIPIAC UNIV., 63% of Voters Disapprove of the Trump Administration’s Handling of the Jeffrey Epstein Files (July 16, 2025), https://perma.cc/K5BM-JPRR. The court is hard pressed to think of stronger evidence that this issue has attracted widespread and exceptional media interest.

b. Possible Questions About the Government’s Integrity

Democracy Forward has also established that this widespread media coverage raises “possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). As the plain text of the regulation makes clear, a requestor need not point to actual evidence of government misconduct; they need only show possible questions regarding government integrity. “The primary way to determine whether such possible questions exist is by examining the state of public coverage . . . and whether that coverage surfaces possible ethics issues” that affect public confidence. Am. Oversight, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 508.

Democracy Forward has cleared this bar. As its submission to the Justice Department showed, prominent outlets have reported that the Department’s change in position has generated widespread controversy that has undermined public trust. See, e.g., David Morgan, Epstein Furor Undermines Public Trust, Republican Election Hopes, Two U.S. Lawmakers Say, REUTERS (July 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/7H7D-T95C. The New York Times wrote that it “fueled further suspicion that something was being hidden.” Maggie Haberman & Glenn Thrush, Attorney General Told Trump His Name Appeared in Epstein Files, N.Y. TIMES (July 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/T4BE-HQXG. Newsweek similarly reported that “the controversy over transparency and accountability in the Epstein investigation remains a focal point for the public, with polls indicating most Americans—across party lines—believe the federal government is concealing evidence related to the case.” Anna Commander, Republican Targeted by Trump Says Epstein Issue “Not Going to Go Away,” NEWSWEEK (July 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/8YHB-FUNE. And NPR reported that the Justice Department’s handling of the matter has resulted in “credibility problems” for the Department. See Sacha Pfeiffer et al., DOJ Faces Credibility Questions As It Investigates Jeffrey Epstein, NPR (July 25, 2025), https://perma.cc/M3WE-C7D8. In sum, the media coverage cited by Democracy Forward shows that the Department’s handling of the Epstein files raises possible questions regarding the government’s integrity.

C. The Overbreadth of Democracy Forward’s Requests

To qualify for expedited processing under 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), a request must “involve . . . a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest.” The regulation’s use of the term “involve” indicates that the request must be reasonably tailored to the matter generating media attention. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, “Involve,” https://perma.cc/LGR9- N5GU (last accessed Nov. 17, 2025) (defining “involve” to mean “relate closely”). This requirement is consistent with the need for “a narrow application” of the expedited review provisions. Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 310. “Given the finite resources generally available for fulfilling FOIA requests, unduly generous use of the expedited processing procedure would unfairly disadvantage other requestors who do not qualify for its treatment” and “also disadvantage those requestors who do qualify for expedition, because prioritizing all requests would effectively prioritize none.” Id. (cleaned up). Without a tailoring requirement, requestors could submit omnibus requests that seek some expedition-worthy categories of records, but also sweep in swaths of unworthy categories.

The court is largely satisfied that Democracy Forward’s FOIA requests are closely related to the Department’s handling of the Epstein files. The request for “records reflecting all correspondence between Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein” is plainly tied to the concern discussed in the media that the Justice Department reversed its position on the disclosure of the Epstein documents only after Attorney General Bondi reportedly informed the President that his name appeared in the files. The request for directives and guidance issued to FBI employees tasked with reviewing the Epstein files in spring 2025 is likewise relevant to why the Department reversed its position on disclosure between February and July 2025.

The court agrees with the Government, however, that the requested search terms “whistleblower” and “flight logs” are overbroad. Opp’n at 18. Although it is true that sufficiently tailored requests will often “capture a broader set of documents” than what is truly responsive, see Brennan Ctr., 498 F. Supp. 3d at 98, Democracy Forward did not demonstrate in its requests that the general search terms “whistleblower” and “flight logs” are tailored to the Department’s handling of the Epstein files. The court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to these overbroad search terms only. Otherwise, Democracy Forward has shown that its requests are entitled to expedited review.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Democracy Forward’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court will order Defendants to expedite processing of Democracy Forward’s July 25 and July 28 FOIA requests, except with respect to the overbroad search terms “whistleblower” and “flight logs.”

Date: November 24, 2025

Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02597-TSC Document 17 Filed 11/24/25 Page 15 of 15

_______________

Notes:

1 This article and the other articles cited in this opinion were included in Democracy Forward’s expedited-review request to the Justice Department and are therefore part of the record. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii) (limiting judicial review to “the record before the agency at the time” of the denial or constructive denial).

2 Democracy Forward also argues that its requests are justified by widespread and exceptional media interest in the Department’s recent involvement with Ghislane Maxwell. Because Democracy Forward’s requests for expedited review are supported by the widespread and exceptional media interest in the Department’s handling of the Epstein files alone, the court need not reach this additional issue, which also would not save the portions of the requests that suffer from overbreadth. See infra Part III.C.

[admin]

BREAKING: Kash Patel at risk of LOSING HIS JOB as FBI Director
Brian Tyler Cohen
Nov 25, 2025 Brian Tyler Cohen

BREAKING #news - Trump reportedly considering firing Kash Patel as FBI Director



Transcript

According to some breaking reporting
from MS Now, formerly MSNBC, Donald
Trump is now considering removing Kash
Patel as director of the FBI. According
to the reporting, Trump and his top aids
have grown increasingly frustrated by
the unflattering headlines Patel has
recently generated, according to three
people with knowledge of the situation,
who requested anonymity to speak freely.
Patel has come under scrutiny for his
stewardship of bureau resources,
including his girlfriend's security
detail and use of a government jet, and
for his squabbles with other Trump
loyalists. Trump and White House aids
have confided to allies that the
president is eyeing removing Patel and
is considering top FBI official Andrew
Bailey as the bureau's new director.
According to the three people, perhaps
most tellingly, when the White House was
asked for a comment about the reporting,
spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, quote,
"President Trump has assembled the most
talented and impressive administration
in history, and they are doing an
excellent job carrying out the
president's agenda. FBI Director Patel
is a critical member of the president's
team, and he is working tirelessly to
restore integrity to the FBI." In other
words, not a denial when a denial would
have been particularly easy. But
frankly, if Kash Patel loses his job,
it's not only the taxpayer funded travel
that he would miss. Frankly, I don't
even know how this guy could have any
semblance of a post White House career
if he loses this position. Remember,
this was the brand that Kash Patel built
for himself before becoming FBI
director.
You know, it's the same thing with
Epstein's list. It's like, what the hell
are these Republicans doing?
Oh, I saw you
give out the list. I saw you make news
this morning about that. I got to get to
that. Yeah.
You say that the FBI has Epstein's list.
They're sitting on it. That doesn't seem
like something you should do. You're
protecting the world's foremost
predator. That seems like an evil thing
to do regardless of who may be
embarrassed in the release of that list.
Why is the FBI protecting the greatest
pederast, the largest scale pederast
in human history?
Simple. Because of who's on that list?
Who has Jeffrey Epstein's
Blackbook?
Blackbook.
FBI.
But who
that is that that I mean there's
oh that's under direct control of the
director of the FBI and and to me that's
a thing I think President Trump should
run on on day one roll out the black
book
in the direct possession of the director
of the FBI and wouldn't you know the
director of the FBI becomes Kash Patel
himself and here we are 11 months into
Trump's term and still no Epstein files
released by the FBI or any other Trump
agency. Thank god we've got Democrats on
the oversight committee releasing them
and the Epstein estate releasing them.
But that is not because of this
administration. It is in spite of it.
And right there at the center of this
coverup is the very guy who built his
career excoriating the people who he
said were perpetuating a coverup. The
same coverup that Kash Patel is now
perpetuating himself. In fact, this is
what Kash said on the day that it became
clear that Trump was in the Epstein
files thanks to Elon Musk.
Time to drop the really big bomb. Donald
Trump is in the Epstein files. How does
he know? Does he know that Donald Trump
is in the Epstein files or does he have
access to the Epstein?
I don't know how he would, but I'm just
staying out of the Trump Elon thing.
That's way outside my lane. What the
are they doing?
I know my lane and that ain't it.
He said he's staying in his lane, which
I was led to believe by Kash Patel
himself that the Epstein files were the
lane of the FBI director, the position
that he occupies in that very clip and
right now. So, what happened to it being
up to the FBI director himself to
release the files? I guess that's what
you say when you're bullshitting your
audience for clout only to become the
very thing that you condemned once you
actually get into power. And that's a
point that was lost on no one because
now this is what his one-time supporters
are saying about Kash Patel.
Number one, the real problem they have
is that anybody who even spent five
seconds looking at the Jeffrey Epstein
story knows that it stinks to high holy
heaven. Like, there is something going
on here. You just cannot explain all of
these coincidences between his rise to
to prominence, his rise to wealth, his
connections to all these people, getting
a sweetheart deal, the cameras going
out, having Ehud Barak sleeping at his
place, like we're going to need some
type of explanation here. And it can't
just be nothing happened. And then
number two, even if you could sell
everybody on nothing really happened
here, there was no, you know, there was
no blackmail, there was no intelligence
connection, it's just Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, then if that's the case, can
someone explain to me how Pam Bondi and
Kash Patel and Dan Bonino don't all have
to resign in disgrace because you stoked
the flames of this thing for years. I
mean, not only Dan, you, Kash and Dan
enriched themselves by stoking the
flames of this and promising to get to
the bottom of it. Pam Bondi put on that
ridiculous stunt where she brought all
these right-wing influencers in and said
it was said it was volume one, implying
there was much more to come and then had
just tricked all of them and given them
stuff that was already in the public
record. So, even if it's true that
there's no there there, which I am not
buying at all, you're you're all still
implicated for hyping up this thing that
that I guess you were doing on
completely false pretenses. And by the
way, we don't know what version of these
documents is going to come out
because we have Pam Bondi and Kash Patel
and we have all of these people, this
goon squad,
um, who lie about everything.
Now, we don't we don't know. can't trust
any of them. They told us nothing was
going on.
How does that guy go back to an audience
where the one thing he predicated his
identity on was a total fabrication and
have even an ounce of credibility? He
doesn't, which is why he really needs
this job at the FBI, a job that he may
be at imminent risk of losing. In fact,
I asked Pate of America's Tommy Vtor
about Kash Patel's credibility problem.
Here's what he had to say. In terms of
Kash Patel and Dan Bonino one day trying
to go back to a podcasting career,
how do you think their audience reacts
to to their to their return to their
valiant return after staking so much of
their identity and brands on this idea
that they're going to be these fearless
warriors to go after the people
involved in Epstein's crimes and instead
they're 11 months into an administration
that has only tried to cover it up.
buddy. Like I'm like a close Kash Patel
watcher because I think he is a uniquely
dangerous and dishonest and unqualified
individual in that job. So I I pay a lot
of attention to him and I also consume a
lot of right-wing media and the
right-wing media is killing Kash Patel.
Like Candace Owens was mocking him for
his like whiny tweets about people being
mean to his girlfriend. This
right-wing ex-FBI is going after him
for constantly using the FBI's private
jets to go visit his girlfriend. He flew
to see her sing at some like low rent
wrestling match in Pennsylvania. Kash
Patel took the FBI jet to some place
called, I kid you not, the Boondoggle
Ranch in Texas to go hunting.
The writer room is getting lazy. Yeah.
Yeah. It's like it's crazy how bad of a
job these guys are doing. So, I think
Kash Patel is largely seen as a joke
among the like kind of far-right circles
that he was once trying to court. So, I
yeah, he can try to be a podcaster again
and like kind of like get back into that
that business, but these guys have just
lost respect for him. And, you know,
like there's been a bunch of great
reports recently, the Wall Street
Journal, the New Yorker, a few others
like did deep dives into Kash Patel.
Like, he is just not up for the job.
He's not doing a good job. He's like,

"Look, when you sign up to be FBI
director, you're basically agreeing that
for the duration of your term, you're
not going to have a social life. You're
not going to go to UFC fights. You're
not going to go watch your girlfriend at
a wrestling match. You're not going to
go to hockey games with Wayne Gretzky."
But he is treating the FBI job like a
fantasy camp where he gets a G5 and to
do whatever he wants. And it's like, it
is it is pissing people off.

The reality is that while Kash Patel has torched his credibility, that is a feature of this administration, not a bug. Everyone staked their brands on this idea that they cared about working people. Trump repeated over and over and over how he would lower the cost of everyday goods, of housing, of rent, of groceries, of eggs. And yet here we are, 11 months into his term, where Republicans have full control of government, no Democrats to blame anywhere, not the House, the Senate, or the White House, and the cost of everything has surged. Food and groceries are more expensive. Housing is more expensive. Rent is more expensive. Inflation has been rising every month since March. Jobs are disappearing to the point that the White House won't even release the jobs numbers anymore. Manufacturing continues to plummet. And all the while, no one utters a single ill word of Trump as he adorns his surroundings with more gold, more riches, more opulence.

The entire administration and Republican party are rackets to consolidate wealth and power onto themselves, ignoring everybody else in this country. Kash Patel is a small part of that broader scheme, and the notion that he will ever be able to regain a shred of credibility is a joke. So I guess my advice for Kash Patel is to enjoy the taxpayer funded jet while you've got it, because unless you're ready to cultivate a brand new audience of pedophile protectors, there's not much waiting for you on the other side.

Before you go, if you enjoyed this
content and you want to see more and
support independent media, please
subscribe to this channel. The subscribe
button will be right here on the screen.

[admin]

Jamie Raskin HITS Trump Where It Hurts
TYT Investigates
Nov 26, 2025

Rep. Jamie Raskin explains the many, many reasons why Trump's polling numbers are in the gutter.



Transcript

[Music]
You know, it must be tough to be an
authoritarian. You promise everybody the
world to get elected. Prices will go
down on day one. No more inflation.
We're going to end Russia's war on
Ukraine. The world's going to respect
us. And then you get in and even though
you inherit an economy from your
predecessor that's described as the envy
of the world by The Economist magazine,
you crash everything. The economy today
is shrinking. The stock market is
sinking. Inflation is soaring. 7
trillion dollar in American retirements
and wealth has been destroyed. You've
plunged us with your imbeilic tariffs
into a trade war with the whole world
except of course for your bosom buddies
in Russia. So now only a 100 days in
with a 100 unforced policy blunders,
you're the most unpopular president at
this point in your presidency in more
than 80 years. Barack Obama stood at 69%
in the polls. Ronald Reagan was at 73%
in the polls. Truman was 87% and
Franklin D. Roosevelt 68% but Donald
Trump is at 39%.
the lowest 100day approval rating since
polling began. He controlled the agenda
for 100 days. He controlled the House.
He controlled the Senate. He's got
everything going for him and his numbers
are in the gutter. So now he reaches
back into the authoritarian playbook. Go
back and please the wealthiest people
and corporations in the country. House
Republicans want to cut hundreds of
billions of dollars from Medicaid, food
assistance for mothers and children,
veterans benefits, meals on wheels, Head
Start, any programs that help actual
people, all in order to pay for another
gargantuan tax break for the president's
billionaire benefactors. And here in the
Judiciary Committee, our good friends
want to help Donald Trump use his power
in violation of the Constitution that we
are all sworn to uphold. and defend
against enemies, foreign and domestic.
Every day, the administration uses
immigration enforcement as a template to
erode constitutional rights and
liberties. They round up people in the
street and disappear them to the torture
prison of a foreign dictator without one
minute of due process, sweeping up
completely innocent people who have no
criminal record and no criminal charges
in the midst of other people who may
have criminal records and criminal
charges. and should stand prosecution
for them if they do have charges against
them. They're stripping college and
graduate students at American
universities of their visas for writing
opeds that the administration disagrees
with. They invoke emergency wartime
powers like the Alien Enemies Act to
fight a military invasion at the border
while telling us that the border has
never been safer than it is right now.
My colleagues say all these measures are
necessary to deport gang members,
violent criminals, the worst of the
worst. But they're not targeting the
worst of the worst. They're arresting
judges now. They're using federal agents
to round up law-abiding members of the
community with no criminal records.
Parents of American children, husbands
and wives of American spouses, people
who've not been shown to pose any public
safety threat at all. They're breaking
into cars to arrest mothers as their
children's watch in terror. They're
arresting people who are coming in for
their citizenship interviews. They're
staking out people's homes and trolling
through IRS taxpayer data in search of
taxpaying people to deport. Look, we
know how to remove people from the
country who should not be here.
President Biden's administration did
that. We know how to do it legally,
consistent with the Bill of Rights in
the Constitution. But the Trump
administration has discarded the rule of
law. If he can sweep non-citizens off
the street and fly them to a torturous
prison in El Salvador with no due
process, he can do it to citizens, too.
Because if there's no due process, if
there's no fair hearing, you've got no
opportunity to object. And indeed,
several American citizen children,
including one with cancer, were flown to
Honduras last week with no due process,
as a Trump appointed judge in Louisiana
found. Now, the courts have issued more
than 95 preliminary injunctions and
temporary restraining orders against
this reign of lawlessness. But
Republicans want to enable President
Trump to keep going. This judiciary
committee bill seeks to strip the courts
of their power to hold an administration
in contempt when the president violates
explicit judicial court orders. And it
doesn't stop there. While they tried to
defund the courts, they're they're
forking over an astonishing $81 billion
to the administration for more of these
immigration roundups. The legislation
includes a whopping $45 billion for ICE
on top of its annual budget of $9
billion for family and adult detention
centers alone. This bill is a blank
check to the administration to do more
of what we've already seen. And to make
matters worse, as they race to spend
more than 81 additional uh billion
dollars on this, Trump's own DOJ is
terminating hundreds of millions of
dollars in existing grants. They're
cutting funding for county, state, and
local law enforcement. They're cutting
funding for opioid addiction treatment
programs. They're cutting funding for
crime prevention. And they're cutting
funding for victims of rape, sexual
assault, and violent crimes. The grants
being cut support local police in
solving and preventing crime. They help
the survivors of abuse and assault
navigate the legal system. And yet,
they're being wiped out by the
Department of Justice. They're also
trying to handcuff the agencies that
work to make sure our food and drugs are
safe and our air and water are clean.
The Reigns Act is buried in here. It
would prevent the government from
enforcing our civil rights, protecting
workplace safety, and guarding against
misconduct by banks. It would require
both houses of Congress and the
president to approve every major rule
from our agencies to take effect,
virtually guaranteeing no effective
regulatory action on any subject.
They've also tucked the Midnight Rules
Relief Act in here, which would allow
Republicans to bundle hundreds of
regulations all together into a single
package and vote them down on a single
jumbo resolution, which would be used to
hide the most destructive deregulatory
votes among dozens of others, completely
burying it in darkness. Look, this
version of an authoritarian America is
not what the American people want.
Please take note. This is why Donald
Trump's polling numbers are in the
gutter and an historic low. This is not
what the American people are looking
for. We urge our colleagues to walk back
from the brink here to support many
amendments we plan to offer today that
will save us money, that will actually
address the real problems of the country
and that will protect the constitutional
rights and freedoms that we cherish so
much in America. This is a test. Are we
going to stand up for the majority of
the American people, for our
Constitution and our Bill of Rights and
the freedoms we fought for, or are we
going to stand with a president who
wants to throw it all away? Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

***

House Republicans have spent the last
three months insisting that they are the
party of working people, that they care
about the struggles of working people.
And now they have control of the House.
They have control of the Senate. They
have control of the White House. And
they actually could be doing something
about it. And yet instead of passing
legislation to make life easier and more
affordable, they are doing the opposite.
This bill is a betrayal of working
people. It's a betrayal of the middle
class. So let's let's start with the
overall plan here. Republicans are
proposing a massive cut to social
services in this country. services that
my constituents in Vermont rely on. I'm
thinking about the nearly 600, excuse
me, 164,000 Vermonters on Medicaid who
are at risk of losing their healthcare.
The Republican legislation means parents
and grandparents who rely on Medicaid
for long-term care and nursing homes for
their family members, they're going to
have that rug pulled out from under
them. It means that rural hospitals, not
just in Vermont, but in all of your
rural districts, are going to close,
too. It's just a math problem. Medicaid
goes away, rural hospitals close. The
Republican majority and Donald Trump
want to kick working families to the
curb and give people who don't need
another massive tax break another leg
up. The wealthiest 1% in this country do
not need more advantages. They have
plenty. These cuts are a crystal clear
indication of where your priorities lie.
Now, let's talk about what is on the
agenda for this committee specifically.
With this slice of the reconciliation
plan, judiciary Republicans will be
doubling down on Trump's lawlessness and
cruel immigration policies, fueling
Trump's attacks on our independent
judiciary and making it easier for big
businesses to get away with price
gouging and making it more expensive for
regular people to survive. Today, my
Republican colleagues are voting for
sky-high fees for folks who are just
trying to comply with immigration laws.
Does anyone really think that somebody
who is fleeing to our country for relief
as a refugee can afford hundreds or
thousands of dollars to seek asylum or
their day in court? It's nonsense and
you know it. And with these fees
leveraged on those who can least afford
it, Republicans are dedicating billions
of dollars to hire and empower an
immigration immigration
enforcement reign of terror. They want
to greenlight more masked agents, more
hooded people, more unmarked cars,
yanking people off the streets,
deporting them without any due process.
This is America. This is what actually
sets us apart from people in the rest of
the world is due process. You can laugh
all you want, but if we don't stand up
for due process, we are not the United
States of America anymore. The bill in
front of us will allow Republicans to
further insulate this administration
when it flagrantly violates the law and
the Constitution, making it harder for
courts to stop illegal actions. My
Republican colleagues are once again
using their position instead of helping
working people. They're using their
position to attack judges, to attack the
very foundations of what makes us
Americans. And you're trying to shutter
the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission,
making it harder for us to enforce our
antitrust laws. Let's talk about
fairness. Let's talk about competition.
Let's talk about all my small businesses
who just want a fair shot. Why would you
go after the FTC and make it harder for
small businesses to survive in this
landscape? You all talk about
competition. You all talk about a
healthy process in this country to have
competition to have a healthy economy
and then you go after the FTC. It
doesn't make any sense and it doesn't
pass the straight face test.
It's all more of the same in here. You
are not looking out for working people.
You are not standing up for small
businesses. You're not standing up for
rural America. You're not standing up
for our rural hospitals. You're not
standing up for the people who
desperately need Medicaid in order to
get basic health care. When I vote no on
this Republican budget, I'm going to be
thinking of all the working people in
Vermont who sent me here to work on
behalf of them, not big corporations,
not authoritarians who are wouldbe
dictators, to work on behalf of them.
And I will be thinking of all of the
immigrants, those who have become part
of the fabric of Vermont, Vermont's
economy, and our communities, who are
heartlessly being attacked by my
Republican colleagues today. I yield
back.

[admin]

Marjorie Greene’s Resignation SHAKES Political World
The Young Turks
Nov 24, 2025

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's announcement that she is resigning is getting spirited responses from President Trump, AOC and other politicians. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks. Do you agree with TYT's take?



Transcript

I refuse to be a battered wife, hoping it all goes away and gets better.
I'll be resigning from office with my last day being January 5th, 2026,
and I look forward to seeing many of you again sometime in the future.
May God bless you all and may God bless America.
Now that Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has announced her resignation
from Congress, she did so last Friday.
The real question is what comes next?
And more importantly, what fueled her decision to do this?
Jake, was it threats against her life? Maybe by a foreign country?
It's really hard to tell.
And so I think that she's definitely going to make a comeback.
The only question is, how is it media? Is it politics?
So, And should she stay in Congress?
We're asking you that question as well, and I have a strong opinion on that.
So her sudden announcement shocked many, including myself and Trump's response
to all of it has been fascinating.
He kind of flip flops from mocking her to praising her,
but there has been a lot of mockery.
So this is what he had to say on Saturday as he was speaking to reporters.
Are you willing to forgive Congresswoman Taylor Greene?
Forgive for what?
No. We just. I just disagreed with her philosophy.
She started back in perhaps the worst Republican congressman in our history
just to just, you know, stupid person in a messy.
And, I said, go your own way.
And once I left her, she resigned because he wouldn't have he would
never have survived a primary.
But I think she's a nice person.
She is the single largest small dollar fundraiser for the Republican Party.
So interesting.
I'm sure the people in her district in Georgia actually care about the well-being
of Israel, way more than the well-being of the American people
and of themselves in their own families.
But anyway, moving on.
On Truth Social, he had some other thoughts, including
calling her Marjorie Traitor Brown instead of Marjorie Taylor Greene calls
out her so-called plummeting poll numbers,
not wanting to deal with a primary challenger with a strong
Trump endorsement, blah, blah, blah. You guys get the point.

He then proceeded to call her a lowlife on Sunday in another lengthy post,
and the decision was also slammed by some Democrats who you
would expect to say negative things about Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Let's just give you one example. Representative Alexandria Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
wrote that Marjorie Taylor Greene is carefully planning her departure just 1
to 2 days after her pension kicks in.
Greene is saying a lot, but her actions have not backed up the rhetoric.
For all her talk, she's still voting with them to gut health care.

Look, AOC, out of all people, knows what it's like to cave into pressure.
And I don't see Marjorie Taylor Greene caving in to pressure when it comes
to her very vocal criticism of the U.S.
alliance with Israel.
And she was the only Republican who was willing to go on the record and
call what's happening in Gaza a genocide.

She totally went against her own party by calling out their unwillingness to
extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies,
and also called out her own party for failing to have a replacement
health care plan if they wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

So, like, I get what she's saying in that, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene has voted
in a way that I don't agree with.
But in her final months in office, she's actually been doing
and saying the right things.
And I'm going to give her credit for that.

No. I'll be harsher than you.
So AOC is right about the pension part. Okay.
Fair is fair. But no.
Otherwise, in the last 2 or 3 months, Marjorie Taylor Greene is for
cutting all funding to Israel.
I'm not sure AOC is.

- She's definitely not.

- Okay.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has called it a genocide.
I'm not sure AOC has.

- I think she.

- Has.

I'm not sure, because she's certainly not making a big deal out of it.
So if you'd like to come out of the witness protection program on this issue,
then maybe I could take your opinions a little bit more seriously.
So I don't see you at all in media.
I see Marjorie Taylor Greene all over media saying how we shouldn't
be ruled by Israel. But you're hiding in your wherever corner you are.
"Oh, no. Oh, establishment don't hate me."

Okay. And she, Marjorie Taylor Greene, just co-sponsored a bill with Ro Khanna
to lower drug prices.
Where are you at? You didn't co-sponsor that bill.
She also joined forces with Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie in, you know, applying
the correct amount of pressure to get the Epstein files voted on in Congress.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene was at the press conference, AOC wasn't.
Why wouldn't she be at the press conference to release the Epstein files?
Why is that not a layup?
Marjorie Taylor Greene almost single handedly blocked a bill
that would have made it illegal to boycott Israel throughout the country.
Okay, so that is action. That is specific action she took and was successful on.
So until I see AOC being half as aggressive as Marjorie Taylor Greene
in protecting American sovereignty and criticizing Israel and its genocide,
then maybe I'll take you more seriously, okay? But this old game of, like,
"She's a Republican, you should hate all Republicans."
I'm tired of that game. Okay.
Yeah. I care about the issues and the policies.

So look, we want to be accurate ,and we also want to be fair.
So just a quick fact check. AOC has referred to what's happening in Gaza as genocide.
In a 2024 speech, she said, quote,
"If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes."

So. Okay,

I guess. Right? I mean, but she hasn't been as vociferous at all.
At all. Let's keep it real.
I mean, when AOC wants to be a fire breather,
it's not like she doesn't know how, right?
I don't see any fire here.
I see her hiding nonstop.

Last thing on this.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was actually fighting Trump,
and she was calling out Trump.
So you [AOC] are happy that the biggest fighter against Trump on the Republican side
is leaving because you hate all republicans.
All right. Whatever.
That's a dumb strategy. Sorry.

So let's move on to whether Marjorie Taylor Greene
is considering a future in politics now.
Time magazine, had posted this.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has privately told allies that she has
considered running for president in 2028, according to people close to her.
Now, Marjorie Taylor Greene has shot that down, saying that Time claims sources told
them I'm running for president in 2028, which means this is a complete lie.
And they made it up because they can't even quote the names
of the people who they claim said it.
I'm not running for president, and never said I wanted to, and have only laughed
about it when anyone would mention it.

Now, she also denied the possibility of running for a Senate seat.
But look, I'm not going to take her word for it,
because this is usually what happens.
You'll have various political figures claim they're not seeking higher office,
and then they run for higher office.
I don't know why they do that, but that is known.
I know that that happens and it happens often.
So I'm curious what you think, Jake.

Yeah. Look, she probably will run for higher office.
I don't know, but is that what normally happens?

Yes. I don't know why I'm with Ana.
I don't know why they bother lying about it.
Okay. Then we'll judge her when she's running for office, and we'll judge her
based on all her policies.
And we disagree with probably 80% of her policies.
Okay.
And by the way, the policies we disagree with,
I'm going to say something that I know the cancel folks on the left can't stand: "So what?"
Okay, so by the way, she's said bad things about Muslims in the past. "So what?"
Okay. So how's she doing today?
She's doing better than 99% of Congress on that issue, not the other issues, right?
So don't come at me with, "No, I already canceled her.
Oh, and I'm close minded, so I don't care what she's doing now.
I want to hurt her anyway."
And by the way, also at the same time, help Trump
and help Israel and help the genocide.
I don't think that that's helpful at all.

So, look, I think she should stay. We're asking you guys in a poll.
"Should she stay or leave?" Well, why do I think she should stay?
In fact, I even challenged her to a debate on whether she should stay or leave.
And I take stay.
So is it because I agree with everything Marjorie Taylor Greene says?
No, no, I still again disagree. 80% of her policies at least is my guess.
And look at that. Beautiful. Most of our audience is saying "stay." Okay.

So far.

Yeah. So far. And it's just got started.
Okay.

And so guys, we need every fighter against Israeli interests in Congress,
and there's like three of them.
And so now we're going to lose one of them.

Yeah, it's a disaster.
That's not good at all.
And when I say three of them you say, well that's super unfair.
And you can't just say, "No, no, there's three of them."
Yeah. That's accurate. That's literally accurate.
It is.

Look, I got to say sorry I got to say it.
I don't know where Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are.
So in the beginning they were pretty good.

I don't know if they think it will be counterproductive to help.
I think that's the impression that they have.
So, like, I don't deny for a second that they're on the right side of this issue.
But having two Muslim women fight on behalf of the Palestinians
in a country that has absorbed anti-Muslim propaganda for many,
many decades could be counterproductive.

Yeah, no. So I get it, if that's what they're thinking.
And by the way, we're giving the most favorable light
to what they're doing, in my opinion.
But wait a minute.
I'm a guy who was born Muslim. I'm from Muslim background, and I do it.
And it's not counterproductive at all.
In fact, what happens is a lot of people go, "Yeah,
I like that Cenks sticks up for America."
Hey, you know what? It turns out Muslims love America.
Maybe we could try that, right?

So my point isn't to just take them on.
My point is to say, if Marjorie Taylor Greene is on the front line of fighting to
defund Israel in the middle of a genocide,
and you're in the back line, or the middle line,
don't criticize her on the way out.

Yeah, I agree.

No no no no. The sister came to help on a massively important issue.
She doesn't get any more important than a genocide.
I'm going to take all help in ending a genocide.
It's not complicated.
And if you're in Congress, you get a bigger microphone because corporate media,
the minute she's out the door, they'll "Matt Gaetz" her.
She's irrelevant.
Who cares? That's it.
We're never talking about that.

Anti-semite.

Again. If she stays in Congress, they can't not put a mic in front of her, right?
So I think it's a mistake. I don't like it.
I think she should have stayed and fought. It also looks like she's running.
I hate that visual.

And lastly, Randy Fine tweets out, "One anti-Semite down, one to go."
And I'm like, no, no.

So now they're going to use all their resources against Tom Massie
and stay and fight, beat him in a primary, beat him to a pulp politically.
Then come out of that and do whatever you want.
Right. So I don't like that she's leaving at all.

Yeah, I agree with you.

Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings.
Totally not true.
But it does keep you updated on our live shows.

[admin]

The Cranberries - Zombie (Alt. Version)
TheCranberriesTV
Jun 16, 2009 #NoNeedToArgue #TheCranberries
Official Music Video for Zombie (Alt. Version) by The Cranberries.



Transcript

(Soft metal music)
(Soft metal music continues)
(Soft metal music continues)
♪ Another head hangs lowly ♪
♪ Child is slowly taken ♪
♪ And the violence caused such silence ♪
♪ Who are we mistaken ♪
♪ But you see, it's not me ♪
♪ It's not my family ♪
♪ In your head, in your head ♪
♪ They are fighting ♪
♪ With their tanks and their bombs ♪
♪ And their bombs and their guns ♪
♪ In your head, in your head ♪
♪ They are crying ♪
♪ In your head, in your head ♪
♪ Zombie, zombie ♪
♪ Zombie-ie-ie ♪
♪ What's in your head ♪
♪ In your head ♪
♪ Zombie, zombie ♪
♪ Zombie-ie-ie-ie ♪
♪ Oh ♪
♪ Do, do, do, do ♪
♪ Do, do, do, do ♪
♪ Do, do, do, do ♪
♪ Do, do, do, do ♪
♪ Another mother's breaking ♪
♪ Heart is taking over ♪
♪ When the violence causes silence ♪
♪ We must be mistaken ♪
♪ It's the same old theme ♪
♪ Since 1916 ♪
♪ In your head, in your head ♪
♪ They're still fighting ♪
♪ With their tanks and their bombs ♪
♪ And their bombs and their guns ♪
♪ In your head, in your head ♪
♪ They are dying ♪
♪ In your head, in your head ♪
♪ Zombie, zombie ♪
♪ Zombie-ie-ie ♪
♪ What's in your head ♪
♪ In your head ♪
♪ Zombie, zombie ♪
♪ Zombie-ie-ie-ie ♪
♪ Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh ♪
♪ Eh-eh oh ♪
♪ Ya-ya ♪
(soft metal music)
(soft metal music continues)