The report features the story of Beatrice Keul, who initially told reporters in October 2024, as detailed by the Daily Mail, that she had fought off Trump in 1993. However, the testimony collected by the House Judiciary Committee in secret shows that she was later raped by Trump in a hotel room in Atlantic City. Keul claims she was introduced to Epstein by Trump and that the latter referred to him as his ‘closest ally’.
The report also accused the administration of conspiring to hide information illegally. It claims that the Department of Justice has refused to release full files on Epstein that were required to be made public last autumn. Investigators also claim that Attorney General Todd Blanche attempted to obstruct justice by meeting Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in prison.
As expected, the White House have strongly denied these claims. A statement given to media said “This is another desperate attempt by the crazed Democrats. Trump has already disavowed Epstein and remains innocent.”
However from a journalistic perspective, there are some important questions to be considered. The report does draw interesting comparisons to E. Jean Carroll’s 1993 assault claim. A federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023. However, the report currently does not include interviews. It also fails to mention how Keul changed her initial claims.
The Trump Economy is not working for the American Middle Class
by Winston Wendell
October 21, 2026
While the share of labor in national income is a crucial indicator of how well the American worker is doing, it appears that during the Trump administration, the workers’ share of the fruit of their labor fell to historic lows. According to theBureau of Labor Statistics, the labor share of business output, excluding farms, fluctuated between 56 and 58% during the Trump’s presidency years, which is the lowest it has been since records began.
Despite the increase in productivity, an indicator that the Trump administration was boasting of, the stock market as an indicator of how the American worker was doing was criticized by the New York Times . The paper revealed that the stock market was a “plummeting indicator of the worries of the average investor”. The Federal Reserve shows that the top 10% of Americans own about 89% of all the stocks, which means that the “market magic” was really just an indicator of how the wealthy and the super-wealthy were doing.
The main reason for this trend was the tax cuts initiated by the Trump administration in 2017 and 2025. The Washington Post reported that instead of raising wages, as was promised, the corporations used the extra cash to buy back their own shares, which drove up the prices on the stock market.
TheEconomic Policy Institutereports that the Trump administration, wages are growing slower than usual, and the decoupling of wages and productivity has reached a historic high. This has happened despite the fact that wages are supposed to be “the most important source of compensation for American workers”. It appears that the economic indicators are all skewed to favor the owners of capital over the laborers.
Sources:
Bureau of Labor Statistics – Labor Share Trends
The New York Times: The Stock Market is Not the Economy
The Washington Post: Corporate Tax Cuts and Buybacks
Economic Policy Institute – Wage and Productivity Gap
Donald Trump has recently started purchasing diesel from Russia to reduce its soaring prices in the United States. While the idea may look appealing from a political standpoint, it is not prudent from an economic perspective. Furthermore, Trump’s initiative to improve Russia’s image by engaging in a business deal with it may not be appropriate or legal.
Firstly, the Russian diesel would not become any cheaper for American buyers. The main reason is that Russia is currently under sanctions, and it would not be possible to transport sufficient amounts of discounted Russian diesel through the American market. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the deal would change the balance of supply and demand, on which oil prices are based.
If the Americans want to get cheaper diesel, it is better to buy it from Canada, which is a reliable partner. Pipeline connections and freight trains carry Canadian products to the United States. Therefore, the Americans can import more petroleum products from Canada. For the United States, it is safer and more profitable to work with a neighbor like Canada on mutually beneficial terms rather than with unfriendly and unpredictable Russia.
Trump’s initiative to organize a business deal with Russia on diesel fuel will not lead to anything good. From an economic perspective, the deal does not make any sense because of the current sanctions and the principles of supply-demand. From a political perspective, a transaction with Russia will destroy the trust of other partners and will give Russia’s aggressive propaganda inappropriate publicity. It is better for everyone if the Americans pursue a policy of energy independence and purchase Canadian oil.
In a candid moment that resurfaced this week via a clip flagged by The Bulwark and later echoed by Mediaite, New York Republican hopeful Anthony Constantino made it unmistakably clear that he sees President Donald Trump as the only person who can truly “control” him. Not his voters!
During a January 2025 appearance on comedian‑turned‑podcaster Chrissie Mayr’s show, Constantino quipped, “Nobody’s going to control me… well, the president can control me.” He then added a nod to longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, whom he described as someone he “really respects.” By the end of the segment, he summed it up: “Aside from my fiancée, the president and Roger Stone, I don’t think anyone can control me.”
Constantino, the chief executive of the Sticker Mule printing firm, is campaigning to succeed Rep. Elise Stefanik (R‑N.Y.). His campaign has been anything but subtle in showcasing his devotion to Trump. Last year, he commissioned a life‑size statue of the former president and placed it at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf resort. He also dropped a rap record titled “Thank You President Trump,” which he labels a “multi‑genre” project packed with skits and interludes that essentially serve as a nonstop tribute to the ex‑president.
Trump returned the favor. Earlier this year, he gave the sticker‑magnate a public endorsement and even retweeted a series of AI‑generated visuals promoting Constantino’s “TRUMP” track.
The sticker mogul first captured the MAGA crowd’s imagination in 2024 when he erected a towering “VOTE FOR TRUMP” sign on the roof of Sticker Mule’s headquarters in Amsterdam, New York. A more ambitious plan—to install an “America Loves Trump” billboard and a corresponding park in the same town—never materialized by the following year.
In the tight race for the 21st Congressional District, Constantino now faces dairy farmer Blake Gendebien (D). A recent Times Union/Siena College poll shows Gendebien with a modest edge, 46 % to Constantino’s 42 %.
Despite a federal court’s intervention last night, Trump officials continued to air taxpayer-funded promotional videos this morning, according to Monday morning data from AdImpact.
The latest round of advertisements came despite a court order after advocates sued the administration, arguing that the videos were inherently “propaganda.” The Department of Homeland Security guaranteed the court Saturday that the campaign-style videos would not continue past Sunday, while President Trump claimed the ads that aired after the election were paid for with campaign funds.
Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon ordered Trump officials Sunday to “cancel or cause to be cancelled” all of the spots beginning Sunday evening. She also forbade the government from “using, disbursing, or transferring” Defense Department funds “for the purpose of producing or distributing” the videos.
Nevertheless, ad industry analytics show that this morning two different taxpayer-paid advertisements aired extensively, including during ABC’s “World News Tonight” and “60 Minutes” on CBS.
One of the clips is nearly identical to a 2024 campaign ad for President Trump. The other prominently features the president with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, promoting war against Iran.
Trump officials not only defied Judge Rochon’s order, but they continue to face another court battle after a separate lawsuit was filed last week by Democratic officials, asking the court to stop the president from using taxpayer funds for the ads.
BLAKEMAN’S 2026 PLAYBOOK: MYTHS, MATH GAPS, AND A DESPERATE BID FOR ALBANY
New York’s political candidates enter the finial weeks for New York State Governor’s election, the state’s voters have much to consider. The current Nassau County executive, Bruce Blakeman, has a lot to say about Governor Hochul, attacking her relentlessly in the media. However, the closer inspection of Blakeman’s campaign reveals several conveniently ignored truths and an unrealistic tax plan.
Attack Ads: Taxes and Bills
Blakeman’s ads focus on allegations of Governor Hochul increasing taxes and utility bills for New Yorkers by billions of dollars and leaving the state with a bloated budget.
Governor Hochul has not increased personal income tax rates or corporate income tax rates for New Yorkers. In fact, her administration actually accelerated a planned middle-class income tax cut, bringing rates down to their lowest levels in decades.
As for the utility bills, the New York Times reports that the energy rates are indeed raised for the residents purchasing energy from the grid. While utility rate hikes for electricity and natural gas have been approved during Hochul’s tenure, utility rates are regulated by independent utility commissions—not the Governor’s office. Furthermore, campaign ads omit a crucial countermeasure: Governor Hochul personally directed the implementation of targeted energy rebate programs designed to directly offset rising utility costs for low- and middle-income New York families.
The $35 Billion Question: Breaking Down Blakeman’s Tax Proposal
Nassau County Executive Blakeman has proposed what he terms the “largest income tax cut in New York history.” Under his plan, state income taxes would be entirely eliminated for single filers making up to $50,000 per year, and for married couples earning up to $100,000 annually.
At first glance, tax relief is an attractive proposition for working-class New Yorkers feeling the pinch of inflation. However, a deeper dive into the numbers reveals that the proposal is economically unviable. It’s a fairytale!
According to nonpartisan fiscal analyses, eliminating income taxes for these brackets would create a staggering revenue shortfall of upwards of $35 billion. To bridge this multi-billion-dollar gap, Blakeman has vaguely pointed to unspecified spending cuts and the total cancellation of all “migrant-related expenditures.”
The Math Doesn’t Add Up
Fiscal experts and budget watchdogs have pointed out glaring holes in Blakeman’s funding mechanism:
The Scale of the Shortfall: Federal and state allocations for migrant-related services represent a fraction of the overall budget—far too small to plug a $35 billion deficit.
Lack of Transparency: Beyond eliminating migrant services, Blakeman has failed to specify which vital public services—such as education, infrastructure, or healthcare—would face the chopping block to finance the tax cut.
Without a realistic plan to maintain a balanced budget, critics argue that the proposal amounts to little more than fiscal fantasy, risking severe cuts to essential state programs while failing to deliver sustainable economic reform.
A cursory examination of his website does not reveal any specific expenditures that will offset this budget loss. The only apparent solution is to cancel all migrant-related expenses and completely wipe them out of the state’s budget. However, the experts agree that these expenditures are minuscule compared to the 35 billion dollars gap. Secondly, Blakeman does not specify which exact programs and expenditures will be cut: It is entirely possible that the cut will affect general welfare and infrastructure maintenance.
Compounding his economic hypocrisy, Blakeman staunchly supports Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs and a hawkish war with Iran—federal policies that directly drive up inflation, gas prices, and the very cost of living he hypocritically blames on Albany.
The Debate Over Costs and the Moratorium
Hochul backed a one-year moratorium on new large-scale “hyperscale” data centers in the state that require massive amounts of electricity. According to City & State NY, this pause protects residential ratepayers from footing the bill for grid strains and surging utility costs.
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, the Republican nominee for governor, has blasted the moratorium as “crazy.”
Governor Hochul faces strong opposition from the Bruce Blakeman, who has the resources and determination to win the election. We expect strongest arguments from the both sides of the aisle, but not lies and misdirections.
Sources:
New York State Division of the Budget (Baseline personal income and corporate tax rate records; middle-class tax cut acceleration data).
New York State Department of Public Service / Independent Utility Regulators (Utility rate approval histories and administration energy rebate program documentation).
Independent Fiscal Analysts and Non-Partisan Policy Experts (Cost estimates of up to $35 billion for the Blakeman tax-cut proposal and analysis of state migrant spending vs. total state budget deficits).
The Pentagon is in an uproar over the Pentagon-Musk Commission proposal, but not all voices in the corridors of power are jubilant over the impending changes. Pentagon insiders have raised concerns about the idea for a new military-mindset commission, led by Pete Hegseth, which aims to recruit major defense contractors, including Elon Musk, remember DOGE.
The problem is the potential for conflict of interest in the work of defense industry overseers. For decades, the Pentagon has struggled to walk the line between a government agency and the private sector. Now, by inviting defense industry executives, billionaires, to dictate conditions for government spending, the Pentagon may eliminate all restrictions.
A number of Pentagon insiders believe that the practice violates federal policies on conflicts of interest. Thus, a situation may arise in which defense companies will dictate terms to the Pentagon. After all, their accountants’ satisfaction will directly depend on the military’s spending decisions they can direct to themselves.
Proponents of the idea may argue that the innovative approaches of the private sector are needed to increase the efficiency of the bloated military bureaucracy. However, at the cost of what principles and ethics.
If the new Pentagon–Musk commission takes charge of military procurement, it will control a large share of the national budget, which is supposed to be publicly accountable.
Just like the Trump administration to decide to risk public trust and safety in exchange for their billionaire friends.
Donald Trump’s claim that he would invoke the Insurrection Act or declare a national emergency during the mid-terms is problematic for a number of reasons. In particular, the use of the Insurrection Act to establish a state of emergency at polling stations would be illegal for several reasons.
Firstly, the Insurrection Act allows a President to introduce federal troops into a state in the event of such things as insurrection, domestic violence, or unlawful assembly in which the federal government cannot carry out its constitutional duties through ordinary judicial means. None of those factors can be construed as a justification for suspending civilian authority at voting stations.
Secondly, federal law does not allow for the use of military personnel at polling stations. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the army as police. Additionally, according to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 592, it is illegal to bring “any armed military or naval or civil officer or man into any election district for the purpose of guarding or protecting any electioneering individual or the property of such person.” By virtue of the aforementioned legislation, it is illegal to deploy federal soldiers or federal police to a polling station in order to intimidate voters. Such interference would be an abuse of presidential power and an unconstitutional overreach.
The election process in the U.S. is a decentralized one. According to the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States… are reserved to the States respectively, and the people.” The regulation of the time, place, and manner of elections falls to the state and local authorities. A president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose his will on voters who use polling stations run by the states.
On Tuesday at white house lunch, hosted by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, and reported by The Wall Street Journal, executives from the tech industry including Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg roundly criticized Anthropic’s Dario Amodei for speaking truth to power and raising concerns about the existential and socio-cultural risks of artificial intelligence.
Amodei defended his position, taking the side of ethics, and Zuckerberg conveniently presented the public with yet another feel-good tech narrative wrapped up in a “feel safe” package.
This particular Washington, D.C. spectacle is yet another example of how President Trump and his people continue to pursue the wrong course when it comes to AI governance.
By promoting a laissez-faire attitude towards the development of such a powerful technology, not only does the administration ignore Washington Post’s call for “safeguarding against existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence,” but it falls short in its responsibility to protect American citizens.
The most alarming part is that it has been openly stated, that Trump and his team are considering their policies from the perspective of big business and not the average American.
By promoting the trickle-down theory of economics with AI, the administration is once again putting profits before people.
After all, who better to ask about the existential risks of the technology than those who are already at the top of the food chain? And most importantly, what could those who care only about profits possibly have to hide by wanting to stifle the free speech of a concerned executive?
Unethical, Illegal, and Unacceptable Misuse of Public Funds
by Winston Wendell
The Trump administration has crossed another bridge on its way to complete disaster by publicly displaying a campaign ad that utilizes taxpayer funds. The video, taken from Trump’s 2024 campaign, includes his usual insults at “villains” and “institutions.” This is not only shameful but illegal and ethically wrong.
According to the Hatch Act, federal employees cannot engage in any politics while on duty and misusing federal resources. Additionally, the Anti-Lobbying Act and appropriations acts state that it is illegal to use federal funds for “publicity or propaganda” for a candidate. In other words, Trump has officially been purchasing attack ads with taxpayer’s money.
This is an utterly unethical and completely corrupt practice, fueled by Trump’s vindictiveness and thirst for attention. The money paid by citizens for defense, roads, or public healthcare gets wasted on ad campaigns for political purposes. This public relations operation will damage the reputation of the government and the office of the president.
Such an unethical and corrupt action demonstrates Trump’s contempt for the rule of law and democratic norms in general. According to CREW, this latest scandal further illustrates the harm that can be done when the government engages in the kind of behavior. The Government Accountability Office already warned about the illegality of these actions. The President of the United States is not an executive for a private company. They should not turn their apparatus into a propaganda machine for their own electoral gain.
