B-Man

Democrats Were Given a Chance to Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is on Epstein Files – Guess What Happened by Rusty Weiss Republican Rep. Tim Burchett (TN-18) offered up a softball pitch to Democrats suddenly clamoring for public transparency regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files. They whiffed worse than the Mighty Casey. Why? Because it's all a political ploy meant to take down their nemesis, President Donald Trump. As reported Wednesday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee genuinely thought they finally had Trump cornered when it came to the Epstein files. They released a trove of 20,000 documents from the late sex-trafficker's estate, then honed in on three particular out-of-context emails which, in their minds, showed something nefarious. Instead, it blew up spectacularly when it was discovered that the emails had redacted any mention of the "victim" in the case, who happened to be Virginia Giuffre. That move was intentional. Giuffre had stated under oath that Trump never acted inappropriately with her and that she never saw him with Epstein. "Democrats and their lackeys in the media are painting these emails as 'bombshell' revelations," Van Laar writes, "but all they reveal is how desperate the Democrats are and again demonstrate how low they'll go." It took less than a 24-hour news cycle for the Democrats' big bombshell to fall through. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so sad. That said, Burchett, emboldened by his colleagues across the aisle's newfound interest in the Epstein files, decided to allow them the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. He went to the House floor and requested unanimous consent (UC) — a procedural move that would have fast-tracked the release of all remaining Jeffrey Epstein files. Democrats, instead, shriveled up faster than George Costanza after a swim in the pool. .

More on the above, FBI Arrests Newsom's Ex-Chief of Staff on 23-Count Indictment - Bank and Wire Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud the US, Obstruction of Justice, and More Western Journal, by Bryan Chai A woman who was once one of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s most trusted lieutenants has found herself in the crosshairs of the FBI. And it’s not looking great for her. On Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of California dropped a bombshell news release stating that Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff from 2022 to 2024, had been indicted on a litany of charges. The 53-year-old Williamson has been charged by a federal grand jury with “conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, subscribing to false tax returns, and making false statements,” https://www.westernjournal.com/breaking-fbi-arrests-newsoms-ex-chief-staff-23-count-indictment-bank-wire-fraud-conspiracy-defraud-us-obstruction-justice/

Democrats Released Three Cherrypicked Epstein Emails, so the GOP Released 20,000 Matt Margolis Democrats thought they had a winning hand when they released three carefully selected Jeffrey Epstein emails on Wednesday morning. The timing was no accident. With their caucus still reeling from their base turning on them for caving on the government shutdown, they needed a distraction, and they believed these emails would deliver one. They were wrong. The so-called bombshell consisted of three email exchanges. The crown jewel of their selective leak was a 2011 email between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in which Epstein described Trump as "the dog that hasn't barked." He noted that a victim had spent hours with Trump at Epstein’s house. Democrats redacted the victim's name in their release, but we know exactly who they were talking about: Virginia Giuffre. The reason for the redaction becomes clear when you learn what Giuffre has actually said under oath. She has testified that she never witnessed Trump engage in any wrongdoing. She stated that Trump never acted inappropriately with her, that she never saw Trump and Epstein together, and that she never saw Trump at any of Epstein's homes. Her memoir reinforces this point, making abundantly clear that Trump had zero involvement in Epstein's illegal activities. The emails were quickly revealed to be exactly what they appeared to be: a nothingburger. Even the media couldn't deny it. But here's where it gets interesting. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee decided to respond by releasing the entire trove of 20,000 documents they obtained from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. All of them. Every single page. And according to the New York Times, Democrats were livid: https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/11/12/democrats-released-three-cherrypicked-epstein-emails-so-the-gop-released-20000-n4945930 https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-releases-additional-epstein-estate-documents/ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/11/12/us/epstein-files-trump#heres-the-latest

.

Logic 101 .

You didn't think that that was your business did you ?

The Democrats’ Latest Trump-Epstein 'Bombshell' Actually Vindicates Trump Matt Margolis Democrats are scrambling to change the subject after caving on the government shutdown, and their latest stunt is hilariously transparent. On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Democrats released emails from Jeffrey Epstein's estate that they claimed raised "serious questions about Donald Trump and his knowledge of Epstein's horrific crimes." The problem? The emails prove nothing of the sort. ABC News even admitted "The full context of these email exchanges is not clear from the portions released by the committee Democrats." That's putting it mildly. The supposed bombshell consists of three exchanges from 2011, 2015, and 2019. In a 2011 email between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein referred to Trump as "the dog that hasn't barked," noting that an alleged victim had spent hours at Trump's house but Trump's name had "never once been mentioned." Maxwell responded, "I have been thinking about that." That's it. No accusation. No evidence. No incriminating information whatsoever. The victim referenced in those emails is Virginia Giuffre, whose name was redacted in the Democrat release. And there is probably a good reason they did. Giuffre, who previously worked at Mar-a-Lago, has consistently stated under oath that she never witnessed Trump engage in any wrongdoing. She testified that Trump never acted inappropriately with her, that she never saw Trump and Epstein together, and that she never saw Trump at any of Epstein's homes. Her memoir makes abundantly clear that Trump had zero involvement in Epstein's illegal activities. The 2015 emails show Epstein corresponding with anti-Trump author Michael Wolff, who was fishing for gossip during Trump's first presidential campaign back in 2016. Wolff, not Epstein, suggested ways to "hang" Trump politically depending on how he answered media questions about Epstein. Wolff is literally trying to urge Epstein to blackmail Trump in the email over the issue of whether Trump flew on Epstein's plane or had been to his home. "If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency," Wolff wrote. "You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt." Then there's a January 2019 email between the two in which they discussed whether Trump had banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago years earlier. More at the link: https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/11/12/the-democrats-latest-trump-epstein-smear-actually-vindicates-trump-n4945915

The next BIG Hoax And it's not like Giuffre was afraid of naming names when she was alive. Total nothing burger of a story. .

For those who 'missed' it. And it's not like Giuffre was afraid of naming names when she was alive. Total nothing burger of a story.

OMG. That's the guy KJP and others in the administration "couldn't keep up with" behind closed doors? Wow! https://x.com/birdcheat/status/1988442410280509648 Yeah, Joe totally could have served through 2029 Sharp as a tack

Conspiracy theory. (The only one wrong is Harris had 75)

Look ! The Left is out of ideas. "Let's regurgitate some old disproved Epstein file and pretend it's something new !" Some kneepads for Tibs and Billstime.

A perfect reply to show why I stopped our conversation. In my post I explained that there was no reason for me, or anyone to reply to your insistent "why were they there ?" You come back with a childish "you can't even answer the question" Of course I could. You then refer to me as a 'coward' because I won't play patty-cakes with you. Lets just go back to where we were. I will post articles and opinion pieces filled with facts and links. and you will bury your head in the sand and regurgitate the same posts over and over. Added: Learn how to use capital letters, you are an adult. .

Nope. I'm sorry. If you aren't honestly going to engage, I'm done. Asking questions that are known to all is not helpful, no matter what your point is here. Have a good day.

Multiple reasons. The majority to protest a few with more nefarious reasons. But you knew that Teef.

The meaning of “shutdown” By Bill Glahn In the end (if this is the end) what was it all about? The record-long federal government shutdown (43 days, over six weeks) could end as early as tonight, if the House of Representatives goes along with the deal passed by the Senate on Monday. My theory is it all had to do with the odd-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia. A week later, everyone now believes that last Tuesday’s results were always inevitable: Democrat wins in two blue states Trump lost in every election. If you look at the Real Clear Politics (RCP) poll of polls for these races, a different story emerges. In New Jersey, the Republican candidate had dramatically cut the lead in the last seven days of September from a net -9 to a net -4.7 on September 30. A poll released by The Hill on September 25 had the race in a dead heat. The poll had the race at 43-43 with 11 percent undecided. Something dramatic had to happen to change the trajectory. The shutdown began on October 1. In early October, a texting scandal broke in Virginia involving the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Jay Jones. Having had a large lead in the race to unseat the incumbent Republican, Jones immediately fell behind in the polls and remained behind for the entire month of October. Had the election been held a week earlier, Jones would have lost. But the shutdown dragged on, and the large federal workforce in Virginia eventually missed a paycheck. Add in the final weekend artificially-created SNAP “crisis” for good measure. In the event, Democrats won with big margins in both states, supported by suspiciously large odd-year election turnout. Afterward, Senate Democrats quickly moved to end the shutdown, having achieved zero (0) policy gains, but significant electoral ones. It may rank and the most cynical election tactic deployed in my lifetime. The lesson learned (for Democrats) is that shutdowns “work.” Look for a repeat immediately before the 2026 midterms to gin up the base and boost turnout. From Byron York, According to some accounts, the Democratic shutdown was kind of like a really long No Kings rally. You may not recall, but in the early days of October, you could not find two Democrats with a common understanding of what “shutdown” was about. The explanation started out as a broad effort to roll back 2025 Republican policy gains. Then it narrowed to a defense of a small, soon-to-expire, extra Covid-era Obamacare subsidy (on top of the regular massive Obamacare subsidies, which remain in place). https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/the-meaning-of-shutdown.php

Will Rogers once said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” That’s even truer today than when the comedian uttered it almost a hundred years ago. While always a much better option than the Republicans, the Democrats are a broken party incapable of offering the type of resistance this era calls for. Even worse, when a candidate like Zohran Mamdani comes along—one with ideas about helping the poor and middle-class—the very people Democrats are supposed to stand for—they mostly refuse to back him and many offer support instead to an independent candidate in Andrew Cuomo with numerous sexual harassment allegations against him and a record that includes likely causing thousands of unnecessary deaths of the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic and then trying to cover it up. Why is Mamdani considered such a threat? Because he wants to experiment with free buses and government-run grocery stores, and because he’s shown signs that he will not kowtow to the interests of the economic elites. Ross Rosenfeld November 10, 2025 This May Be the End of the Democrats | Opinion https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-may-be-the-end-of-the-democrats-opinion/ar-AA1QalJj If he thinks the solution to the problems the Democrats have is more socialism, then he is part of their problem. Assuming he is not actually working for their defeat and pretending to offer them good advice, then he is clueless. Totally clueless. They deserved what is coming to them. The dustbin of history. https://blog.joehuffman.org/2025/11/11/they-deserve-it/

Ted Cruz schedules hearing on impeaching ‘rogue’ federal judges. The hearing comes after Republicans complained that some judges have intervened with President Donald Trump’s executive orders. Several lawmakers have introduced legislation this year that seeks to curb rogue judges, after multiple judges issued nationwide injunctions on some of Trump’s agenda, instead of focusing on the people in the specific case. The Senate subcommittee hearing is scheduled to take place next week, on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. No witnesses have been announced so far, but it will occur in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. It is expected to begin at 2:30 p.m. Eastern. https://justthenews.com/government/congress/ted-cruz-schedules-hearing-impeaching-rogue-federal-judges

The Supposed Great Victory of Zohran Mamdani Stinks to High Heaven Adam Turner I didn’t expect to write this column. Zohran Mamdani is a reprehensible Mayor-elect, an actual communist, a radical Muslim, and nepo baby, but everyone on this site already knows that, so I am essentially flogging a dead horse We are learning new, more shocking information that shows that the central narrative of the supposed great Mamdani mandate victory for leftism is a complete and utter fraud. And that is a crucial point, which needs to be expressed and underlined for the public. Granted, part of Mamdani’s victory is unfortunately all too real, as it comes straight from our deviant educational establishment on U.S. college campuses and K-12 schools. Since the 1970s, the DEI-loving leftist professors and teachers in the United States have produced class after class of miseducated-if-not-moronic “educated graduates” who love communism/socialism/leftism, hate white people, hate men, hate the U.S., believe men can be women, and think the Jews are the central evil throughout the world. Most of these new voters are Democrats, but a sizable number are Republicans as well. This is well well-known fact, and the Trump administration should (and is) trying to do something about it. But despite this real component, the 2025 Mamdani “Great Victory” is looking more and more like a fraudulent victory culminating from a campaign and its associates that, over the years, were conducting multiple (alleged) illegalities and “dirty pool” activities (activities which gamed the system but did not rise to actual illegalities). So, let me count the ways that Mamdani and his allies seem to have gamed or even broken the system: The most explosive and serious charge is still that the Mamdani campaign benefited from tens of millions of dollars in donations – up to $40 million – that were (allegedly) funneled from George Soros-linked charities as part of an elaborate scheme that may have violated federal tax laws. MORE at the link: https://redstate.com/adam-turner/2025/11/12/the-supposed-great-victory-of-zohran-mamdani-stinks-to-high-heaven-n2196073

DECLINE IS A CHOICE: Sometimes, it’s a choice imposed on the people by ideologically driven judges, but still.

In other news, Mitt Romney never paid income taxes and Donald Trump is a Russian spy. .

Not news This is what the lemmings have always believed. But I don't believe it. It may mean something, it may mean nothing. The mass media have no credibility to tell us which is the case. But this will be the top story in the New York Times for the next three years. Odd he would hang himself if he had that information

Ongoing Judicial Coup Proves Alito, Thomas Were Right About Weak SCOTUS Injunction Ruling by Shawn Fleetwood Less than five months ago, Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas warned that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, limiting lower courts’ use of nationwide injunctions, failed to address loopholes open to abuse by left-wing activists and judges. (snip), the two senior justices have been proven right. Yale Law School Professor E. Garrett West praised the Supreme Court’s CASA decision as “a brilliant vindication of the formalist argument that says universal injunctions are totally impermissible” under America’s constitutional framework. However, he noted, “the bad news is that it practically will make almost no difference with respect to the functional problems created by the universal injunction.” https://thefederalist.com/2025/11/11/ongoing-judicial-coup-proves-alito-thomas-were-right-about-weak-scotus-injunction-ruling/