CNN, MSNBC and POLITICO, all of whom claim to be objective journalistic organizations spent almost 2 years accusing me falsely of treason and being a Russian intelligence asset.

Now they are apoplectic about the fact that they will no longer be able to spew their lies from inside the White House, as President Donald Trump has announced that he is banning their organizations’ White House access due to their relentless falsified reporting about his Administration.

On September 18^th, 2026, the President posted to his Truth Social account making the declaration. The President said, “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

The news received backlash immediately from the Democrat political establishment, as well as their cohorts in the mainstream media. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said about the move, ““Donald Trump just did what dictators throughout history have done. This is a democracy. You will not be able to manipulate the news or hide the truth.”

Even former President Barack Obama has chimed in, saying about the ban, “My imagination could not foresee some of the stuff that’s going on right now. I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘You know what, Fox News, you’re out of here!’ It’s unimaginable.”

Here is why I have a little sympathy for the networks that tried to destroy my life over a fabricated narrative, and why the nakedly partisan statements from Schumer and Obama do nothing to reflect reality.

Late in the night on election day 2020, just hours before the legal deadline imposed, the U.S. Department of Justice complied with a federal court decision ordering it to release the last remaining redacted sections of the so-called ‘Mueller Report’ that had been hidden since the report’s publication nearly 18 months earlier.

At midnight on election day, November 3rd, 2020 – timed to get as little press coverage as possible on the busiest news day of the year, the United States Department of Justice released the remaining unredacted sections of the Mueller Report regarding me specifically, in which they had admitted that despite two years of intense investigation, spending millions to pour through every aspect of my life, dragging 36 witnesses to the grand jury and after obtaining all my electronic communications for four years (literally millions of e-mails and pages of documents, tax returns, banking, and financial records) – they found no factual evidence of any collaboration or coordination between me and WikiLeaks regarding the release of emails regarding John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton or that I had any advance knowledge of the timing, content or source of their disclosures.

Even BuzzFeed, who won the release of the data in a lawsuit actually said I was “vindicated.” The rest of the media? They reported nothing at all.

The report is a voluminous effort by the ‘Special’ Counsel’s unethical, if not criminally-corrupt, lawyers, as their prolonged, baseless, partisan-motivated legal fishing expedition finally came to an end, to blunt the logical conclusion by the public that the entire corrupt multi-year multi-million dollar boondoggle was, in reality, a malicious fraud against President Donald Trump and anyone who supported him and a runaway purveyor of kangaroo “justice” against its unfortunate political targets.

For its hundreds of pages tediously propping up a convoluted defamatory narrative now known to be nothing more than a brazen fabrication by the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, the report is rife with highly-parsed wording, deceitful innuendo, and presumptuous, conclusory leaps of illogic, often delving into irrelevant minutiae, engaging in misleading factual cherry-picking and employing officious-sounding spin as dishonest substitutes for evidence that never existed. Despite this sugar-coating, what the unredacted documents do show is shocking.

Specifically, the newly unveiled documents say:

On Page 178,

“The Office’s determination that it could not charge WikiLeaks or Stone as part of the Section 1030 conspiracy was also informed by the constitutional issues that such a prosecution would present. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin.”

Also Page 178,

“The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones.1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated. Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails. Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability. See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985).

“Regardless, success would also depend upon evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions-the proof that is currently lacking.”

Judge Amy Berman withheld this from my lawyers at trial. The Mueller’s dirty cops concluded in their report that even if they had found evidence that I had received documents from Assange of WikiLeaks and passed them to anyone, which I did not and for which they found no evidence whatsoever, it would not have been illegal. The whole thing was a hoax.

For three years the fake News media has insisted that Julian Assange ( a journalist who has never had the accuracy of anything he has published questioned) is actually an asset for the Russians and that his website Wikileaks got the documents and e-mails via a hack via the Russians.

Worse they insisted that I had served as the link between Assange and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. I was called a traitor and a Russian spy. The left insisted that my colorful Twitter feed and some of my speeches and interviews proved that I had advance knowledge of the source and content of the WikiLeaks disclosures that so roiled the 2016 campaign. I was falsely accused of having advance knowledge of the publication of John Podesta’s e-mails.

The only three news outlets who reported on this shocking election day admission that there was no evidence found that would support this narrative were BuzzFeed, who successfully brought the lawsuit for the release of this material, the Washington Examiner and ZeroHedge. Where were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Hill, Politico, Salon, Vox, Vice, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and the Business Insider – all of who were quick to smear me as a “go-between for WikiLeaks and the Trump Campaign” but none of whom reported on the stunning conclusions of Mueller’s thugs.

It is important to note that the only communication I had with Wikileaks was via Twitter direct message and was fully disclosed and supplied to the House Intelligence Committee at the time of my testimony in 2017. Even this exchange proves nothing- yet Mueller’s thugs tried to pretend it was some kind of bombshell.

The media lynch mob that smeared me is a typical example of the bias and the fraudulence of the corporately-owned fake news media. The headlines below reflect just a small sample of the inaccurate and malicious reporting by the fake news media. Every one of these stories is disproven by the November 3rd disclosure by the US Department of Justice. Every one of these stories includes fundamental falsehoods, inaccurate leaks from the Special Counsel’s office, the omission of important facts, and the relentless pushing of an entirely false narrative.

NY TIMES – Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign and Wikileaks

NY TIMES – Roger Stone Sold Himself to Trump’s Campaign as a WikiLeaks Pipeline. Was He?

NY TIMES – Roger Stone Was in Contact With Julian Assange in 2017, documents show

NY TIMES – Stone Trial Links Trump More Closely to 2016 Effort to Obtain Stolen Emails

CNN – Mueller indicts Roger Stone, says he was coordinating with Trump officials about WikiLeaks’ stolen emails

Share

CNN – Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks

Reuters – Mueller says searches yielded evidence of Stone-WikiLeaks communications

The Hill – FBI releases documents showing Roger Stone, Julian Assange communications

The Atlantic – Roger Stone’s Secret Messages with WikiLeaks

The Guardian – I saw Roger Stone as ‘access point’ to WikiLeaks in 2016, Bannon tells court

POLITICO – Steve Bannon: Roger Stone was our unused WikiLeaks ‘access point’

Huffington Post – FBI Documents Reveal Communication Between Roger Stone, Julian Assange

Huffington Post – How WikiLeaks, Paul Manafort And Roger Stone Fit Into The Mueller Investigation

Huffington Post – Roger Stone Pressed For Damaging Emails About Hillary Clinton From WikiLeaks: Report

Business Insider & AP – FBI documents reveal that Roger Stone was in direct communication with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

Business Insider – Mueller is looking into a stunning claim former Trump associate Roger Stone made about a meeting with Julian Assange

Business Insider – Roger Stone communicated with WikiLeaks about hacked Democratic emails, says Mueller investigation

New York Intelligencer – Mueller Investigating Whether Roger Stone Had Dinner With Assange

New York Intelligencer – Trump Floats Pardon of Russia-Scandal Accomplice Roger Stone

New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Sought Clinton Emails From Assange in September 2016

New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Knew in Advance About About the Stolen Emails. Did He Tell Trump?

Washington Post – The Roger Stone indictment fills in new details about WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign

VICE – Why Roger Stone could be Mueller’s next target in the Russia probe

VICE – Roger Stone says he doesn’t “think” he discussed WikiLeaks with Paul Manafort

VICE – Trump surrogate Roger Stone claims ‘devastating’ WikiLeaks bombshells to come

MSNBC – Roger Stone Tried to Walk Back Claims About Julian Assange

MSNBC – Stone trial testimony sheds new light on Trump, WikiLeaks connections

MSNBC – Roger Stone faces new questions about alleged WikiLeaks connections

MSNBC – Roger Stone link to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange Uncovered

NBC – Text messages show Roger Stone and friend discussing WikiLeaks plans

Salon-Roger Stone admits to 2016 phone conversation with Julian Assange: Report

Sharon LaFrontiere of the New York Times, Roz Helderman of the Washington Post, Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal, the odious Natasha Bertrand, then of Atlantic Magazine, now at Politico, the vile Jonathan Chiat of New York Magazine, Daniel Friedman at Mother Jones, Andrew Prokop of Vox, Sara Murray of CNN, congenital liar Ari Melber of MSNBC, NBC propagandist and long -time CIA plant Ken Dilanian, ( who was actually fired by the Chicago Tribune for clearing his stories with the Agency)-are just a handful of the “reporters” who defamed me repeatedly with a torrent of lies and distortions, none of whom had the courtesy or professionalism to report the Nov 3 disclosures which prove that virtually all of their reporting on my case and the Mueller witch hunt efforts to destroy me, were flawed, distorted and based on the fundamental principles of honest journalism should now be retracted or corrected. I won’t hold my breath.

It wasn’t just the nut jobs like Mother Jones, the Daily Beast, Salon and nutty bloggers like Marcy Wheeler but allegedly responsible media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and CNN and MSNBC became obsessed with the idea that I was working with WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks was working with the Russians.

I often joke with some of my associates as to what newspaper in the United States is the worst when it comes to trafficking in the mainstream media narrative in which they told us that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russian intelligence in the 2020 elections and repeatedly asserted the questionable claim by US Intelligence that Julian Assange was a Russian asset and that the Democratic National Committee’s servers were hacked by the Russians.

Not surprisingly, none of these reporters or outlets reported on the declassified documents ultimately liberated from the national security bureaucrats by then-acting DNI Director Rick Grenell which prove that now not even Crowdstrike stands behind the claim that there is forensic proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. The intelligence services and the FBI knew from the beginning that the Steele dossier had been compiled with the assistance of Russian intelligence and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Actually, there is no question whatsoever that the Washington Post is the most dishonest and blatant purveyor of falsehoods. This timeline, for example, compiled by Phillip Bump is a perfect example of a completely false narrative now disproved in the actual words of the Mueller report. Bump’s reporting at the Washington Post stands out as the most dishonest, inaccurate, contrived, defamatory coverage of the ordeal I went through. This timeline, for example at the Washington Post – “A timeline of the Roger Stone-WikiLeaks question” should be nominated for a fiction writing prize.

Bump is, of course, the ‘journalist” who insisted in the pages of the worst newspaper in America that there was never any evidence that Bill Clinton ever sexually assaulted any woman.

I was also vilified for an innocuous Twitter direct message exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 who our Intelligence Chiefs insist is a Russian operative and responsible for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign emails on behalf of the Russians. In fact, the identity of Guccifer 2.0 and the claim that he is a Russian assets is based on a series of cyber fingerprints that no real Russian Spy who wanted to have his intrusions undetected would leave and the CIA’s extensive report on how to hack a server and make it look like it came from elsewhere in the Vault 7 disclosures of CIA dirty laundry published by Wikileaks.

“Roger Stone admits contact with Russian Intelligence” the headlines falsely screamed. Even if he was Vladimir Putin himself the fact that the entire exchange took place long after the Clinton documents had been obtained and published by Wikileaks -meaning my involvement in the alleged hack of those would be impossible and the exchange itself proves no collaboration or collusion- because I released SCREEN SHOTS of the entire exchange in 2017.

The left never lets facts get in the way of a good smear.

So in other words the claim that my innocent and innocuous exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter DM which I myself released publicly, was proof of collusion between the GRU and the Trump campaign is disproved by the context, timing, and content of the exchange which took place after the release of DNC documents by Wikileaks Mueller himself revived this chestnut in the Washington Post Op-Ed written for him by little Andy Weissmann.

For two years leaked stories predicting that although I had no formal role in the President’s campaign I would be charged with “Conspiracy Against the United States” “Foreign Contribution Ban” “Fraud and Related Activities in Connection with Computers” “Wire Fraud” “Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy” “Unauthorized Access of a Protected Computer” “Accessory After the Fact to the commission of a felony. Indeed, Aaron Zelinsky the prosecutor on the Mueller team who previously worked as Deputy Counsel for Hillary Clinton at the State Department would represent to multiple Federal Judges and magistrates that he had probable cause to investigate me on these ridiculous charges to obtain search warrants to access (and trash) my computers, my cell phone, my text messages, my paper files, my business records, my Florida home, my Florida studio and my New York City Apartment.

This is why they had to find something else, anything else, to charge me with. The ‘Lying to Congress’ charges are a tortured stretch. The witness tampering charge is a bogus concoction. The witness I allegedly tampered with- Randy Credico- threatened to put a bullet in the head of one of my associates who was subpoenaed to the grand jury, if he contradicted Credico’s ( false) testimony.

No misstatement I made to the House Intelligence Committee hid any underlying crime, meaning I had no motive to lie. The argument made by prosecutors at my trial, that I lied to hide the Trump campaign’s interest in the Wikileaks disclosures because it would ” look bad” for Donald Trump is ludicrous in view of the fact that candidate Trump himself discussed the WikiLeaks disclosures 142 times in September and October of 2016 according to MSNBC. If I had been given a fair trial, with an honest Judge who did not bar every powerful defense and had an honest unbiased jury, I might have been acquitted.

The report’s previously blacked-out pages reveal what is, in effect, a confession by Special Counsel operatives that they had absolutely nothing to substantiate any prosecutable offenses against myself, Wikileaks, or the Trump campaign, despite their efforts to torture the law to its limits to obtain their desired outcomes.

Most astonishingly, after explaining they had no evidence to support criminal charges for what they knew full well were perfectly-legal efforts to raise awareness and promote public scrutiny of Democrat corruption, as chronicled in an authentic record of the Democrats’ own communications, the report further confesses that their investigative targets like me had substantial 1st Amendment-based defenses, likely to overcome any attempted criminal prosecution. In other words, the Mueller gang now admits that my efforts to promote public awareness of the Wikileaks disclosures was perfectly legal. Shove that up your ass, Natasha Bertand.

My constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press, as exercised in totally-legal political and election campaign activities attempting to inform the public about Clinton Democrat corruption ahead of a presidential election, were maliciously violated by cynical, criminally power-abusive Special Counsel thugs.

The same goes for the rights of the President and those in the Trump Campaign who likewise sought to legally bring public light to information highly-relevant to the 2016 presidential election.

It is clear from the recently declassified materials released by ODNI Tulsi Gabbard that the Special Counsel, by its own admission, was fully aware it had no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that either WikiLeaks, the Trump Campaign or I had done anything illegal concerning the Clinton-DNC email corruption expose. Moreover, they admit that our efforts were in fact constitutionally-protected political and journalistic activities.

The short of this is that the malicious prosecution visited on me as a parting shot by the failed Special Counsel, just as it finally ended its nearly two-year witch hunt, was nothing more than a sensationalist ass-covering distraction and a cynical ploy intended to superficially justify the Special Counsel’s pointless, prolonged existence, after spending almost two years to come up with literally nothing whatsoever of any substance or credibility to support the BIG LIE on which it was dishonestly founded and perpetuated.

When this ulterior-motivated, malicious prosecution against me entered the federal court system it was before a hostile partisan judge whom the Special Counsel had purposefully “shopped” into the case through one of the prosecution team’s many false, misleading representations made to the U.S. District Court throughout the case. They knew quite well what they were doing when they fraudulently secured Amy Berman-Jackson as the trial judge in my case.

Prosecutors insisted that my case must be tried before Judge Jackson because it was ‘related” to the case of the 17 alleged Russian Intelligence officers who they claim hacked the DNC and gave the purloined data to Wikileaks, a contention of the Government which they relied totally on an analysis by Crowdstrike, a Clinton-friendly IT Security firm. Except Crowdstrike now denies that conclusion. In fact, prosecutors promised Judge Jackson they would introduce evidence obtained by search warrant in that case at my trial. They didn’t produce any such thing but they got the Trump-hating Judge they wanted- and lied to do it.

My attorneys were successful in getting the government to admit that the only “evidence” they had that Russian intelligence agents had computer hacked the Democratic National Committee was this redacted draft report from the Democratic-aligned IT Firm Crowdstrike and that the FBI had never actually examined the DNC servers.

When this news hit the media like a bombshell, out-of-control left-wing Judge Amy Berman Jackson tightened the unconstitutional gag order on me to prevent me from discussing the shocking revelation and the prosecutor in my case Jonathan Kravis, a former Deputy White House Counsel to President Barack Obama after clerking for left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and failed Supreme Court nominee and far-left D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, filed a sur reply with the court falsely claiming that the US Government and the Mueller investigation had additional evidence to bolster their claim that the Russians hacked the DNC.

We now know based on the documents declassified to date that no such proof exists and that Kravis defrauded the court.

The secrecy of this entire process is obsessive. The 76 pages of e-mails turned over to BuzzFeed News by the Executive Office of US Attorneys were heavily redacted. The agency withheld 152 pages in releasing the emails Nov. 3rd and indicated some of those records are sealed and others were referred to the FBI for review. These many redactions need to be explained or removed. This isn’t some national security case. There are no sensitive intelligence, diplomatic or military implications. All parties involved are U.S. citizens. There is no continuing investigation nor other pending cases involving its subject matter.

This is a domestic criminal prosecution of a sole defendant by jury trial in a federal district court for offenses implicating only legislative oversight of domestic political activities. A prosecutor in the case made a public protest of withdrawing from the case over the government’s alleged handling of the sentencing. He then volunteered public testimony to a legislative oversight committee alleging that the handling of the sentencing by his prosecution team was subject to undue influence by DOJ officials for ulterior political motives. Yet according to the Washington Post three top senior non-political Officers at DOJ have denied the under-oath testimony of Rogue prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky in which he claimed all three had told him of political pressure to ‘go easy” on Roger Stone. When will Zelinsky be indicted for lying to Congress? Why is Zelinsky still working in the Trump Justice Department?

Loose cannon Aaron Zelinsky isn’t the only one who lied under oath. When Steve Bannon’s House Intelligence Committee testimony was declassified we learned that his testimony at my trial in which he was Mueller’s star witness was directly contradicted by his sworn testimony before the House Committee. In fact, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who reviewed both transcripts told the New York Post “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry.” Turley said. “He (Bannon) has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance,” Turley noted.

Additionally, federal prosecutors had an obligation under the law to inform us that Steve Bannon was actively under investigation and knew this to be the case at the time that he offered false testimony against me. The prosecutors in my case who were well aware of the discrepancies between Bannon’s house testimony and his testimony understand my trial knowingly suborned perjury.

Specifically, in the summer before trial, my defense team asked Berman-Jackson to order the DOJ to disgorge the Mueller report’s many redacted sections about me for our evaluation and possible use as exculpatory evidence, if not as evidence of prosecutorial deceit and manipulation in violation of my constitutional rights as a criminal defendant.

Berman-Jackson’s response to this motion was to withhold her ruling and order the DOJ to turn over the unredacted report to her for her ‘in camera’ (or behind closed doors) evaluation of the contents before deciding whether to grant or deny our motion. After receiving the unredacted report from the DOJ, per her order, and reviewing its contents out of view of the defense (the prosecution already knew what was in it), Berman-Jackson summarily denied our motion, gave us numerous unredacted sections of the hidden material that was innocuous or meaningless without context but withheld the material that even Buzzfeed said ” vindicated “me.

Berman-Jackson fully understood that evidence from the Special Counsel’s own report which unequivocally negated the entire premise of its pending prosecution against me — namely, a nefarious conspiracy to steal Democrat emails and collude with the Russians — would likely be devastating to the case against me for false statements to a partisan committee supposedly investigating what they and Special Counsel knew to be legal, constitutionally-protected political and press activities.

Berman-Jackson knew what a death blow it would likely be to the Special Counsel’s inflated charges against me for purported false statements and witness tampering, if it came to light that this prosecution was entirely based on an effort to violate, suppress and punish my 1st Amendment-protected political activities, and that the Special Counsel knew all along that this was what they were doing.

I thank God almighty and President Donald Trump for recognizing that I did nothing wrong and granting me an unconditional Pardon at Christmas of 2020.

When it comes to the conjunctive apoplexy being thrown around cable news right now, as CNN and MSNBC scramble to claim that Trump’s ban on their networks from direct White House coverage is an ‘infringement on free speech,’ I have little to no sympathy.

Free speech doesn’t guarantee you direct White House access, in fact, legitimate conservative news organizations with audiences that dwarf CNN and MSNBC combined have been blocked from White House access for years because of their defense of the truth. MSNBC and CNN have, for years, benefitted because of their commitment to serving the interests of the ruling class. For once, we have a President who stands against the ruling class. For that, he is attacked, maligned, and slandered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across channels such as CNN and MSNBC.

When Barack Obama, or Chuck Schumer stand up to defend CNN and MSNBC, they aren’t doing it because they believe those organization report honest information that helps to build a sensible public discourse. They’re doing it because CNN and MSNBC carry their water, and defend them at every turn, always reflecting negatively on Republicans, particularly President Donald Trump.

For these same networks to lose their direct White House access for the various blatant lies they’ve spewed isn’t a violation of free speech, but a execution of justice to a nefarious group of anti-American hacks who have worked with those in power, for decades, to rob America of its identity.

They also tried to destroy me, but as you can tell, they failed.

The Trump administration has announced a long-term Arctic security deal over Greenland that includes expanded American access, basing and overflight, no expiration date, no non-NATO bases and tighter rules on adversary investment. President Trump calls it permanent control of the security requirement.

The Danes and Greenlanders were certainly moved in President Trump’s direction through his aggressive negotiating strategy. The ultimate test is what gets built next — radars, runways and restrictions that actually bite China and Russia.. Missile warning, space watch, the North Atlantic approaches — that is the real estate. The stakes remain incredibly high.

China and Russia have had their eyes on Greenland. They noticed that Denmark was weak and could do nothing to keep them from encroaching. They have been moving into the Arctic as a result. President Trump has driven a stake through the heart of their domination plans.

An agreement that keeps NATO steel on the island and keeps Beijing’s checkbook off it is something that all parties could agree upon. Those who wanted us to fully annex Greenland may see this as a capitulation.

But through the lens of “Art of the Deal,” this was a great win. President Trump made his demands, moved the window, and then revised and improved upon the existing agreement. At the end of the process, he accomplished a massive victory to put America First.

President Trump is, once again, delivering prosperity in real time to Americans. His commitment is straightforward: real gains for working families. Higher take-home pay. Results that show up in the government’s own count, not in a speech.

The 2025 numbers are in, and they belong to year one of the second term. The official rate fell to 10.2%, the lowest since the bureau started tracking it, according to the Census Bureau. Down half a point. Second straight yearly decline. That is not a rounding error and it is not a forecast. It is the government’s own household survey of the first full year back.

Median household income hit $87,460, a record going back to 1967 and up 2.6% after inflation, the number families actually feel and what came in the door after prices did their damage. After taxes and credits, the median rose faster still, 3.1%, from $73,760 to $76,060.

As Breitbart reported, the administration said in a statement: “President Trump’s proven economic agenda delivered historic working-class prosperity in his first year back in office, with record-high real income and record-low poverty, breaking the records he set during his first term.” He set the last records in the first term.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat in front of the House and labeled the report “several inconvenient facts,” CNBC reported. His point was simple. Real wages are outrunning inflation. The bottom 25% of earners are getting larger raises than the people at the top.

The child rate dropped to 13.4%, a historic low. The Hispanic rate to 13.9%, also a record. Black household income jumped 4.8%. White households 3.0%. Asian and Hispanic income held. You do not get a national low in the official measure unless it is showing up in the groups the press usually uses as proof the economy is failing.

Census doesn’t campaign. It counts. Year one already moved income up and the official rate down. The job now is to keep delivering take-home pay and keep raising the bar. That is year one. That is the Trump record.

Next week Kamala Harris campaigns in Michigan with Abdul El-Sayed, the Sanders-endorsed nominee who says he’s a capitalist. She endorsed him after he almost lost the primary. This will be their first appearance together.

Michigan is not friendly terrain for Harris on paper. Trump won the state in 2024.

They will appear together Tuesday at a black maternal health roundtable to discuss costs, outcomes, and disparities in pregnancy and birth. In a 2022 interview, El-Sayed said a privatized, partitioned insurance system reimburses “different people’s bodies” differently by income, and that income “differs based on the color of their skin.” He added that racism still blocks investment in public goods and outweighs “the self-interest of … lower income white folks.” That is the racial frame Democrats still try to run on.

Democrats believe they need black voter turnout in Detroit and Wayne County, plus enough suburban and union voters, to keep Rogers from running up the rest of the map.

Harris’s spokesman, Eduardo Negron, pitched the Michigan stop as turnout in a critical state and a chance to flip the Senate against what he called Donald Trump’s corruption.

El-Sayed told Politico that people in places like Detroit look up to Harris as an “inspirational leader,” and that he was grateful she was coming to have “conversations about what it takes to get the turnout up.”

He has never held elected office. In 2018 he lost the Democratic primary for governor to Gretchen Whitmer by more than 20 points. He later rebuilt a public-health resume and ran again on Medicare for All, money out of politics, and a hard line on Israel’s war in Gaza.

In August he narrowly beat Rep. Haley Stevens, the establishment favorite backed by Gretchen Whitmer, outgoing Sen. Gary Peters, and Chuck Schumer. The margin was under a point after more than 1.5 million votes. El-Sayed ran against outside money, but the primary was still ugly and expensive. Tens of millions in super PAC ads buried the airwaves for Stevens, including a large share from pro-Israel groups. CAIR Action’s PAC put $175,000 behind him, and CAIR-linked donors gave his campaign more than $100,000. He won the liberal strongholds, the college towns, and Arab-majority Dearborn, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the country.

After winning, he immediately had to sell himself to the rest of the party. Democrats believe Harris’s endorsement will help with some of that cleanup.

It will not erase the money problem. El-Sayed ran against money in politics. Senate Majority PAC, bankrolled in part by a $61 million dark-money transfer from Majority Forward, plus megadonors including Soros’s Democracy PAC, which gave the group $9 million, and and others still reserving tens of millions to elect him.

Republicans are treating the result as a gift. They have branded him a radical who wants to abolish ICE and impose Medicare for All on a state of auto plants and farms.

On Wednesday, The Detroit News endorsed his opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, and said El-Sayed had deleted posts and taken down roughly 100 YouTube videos. A candidate who hides his past, the paper wrote, is “not someone who can be trusted.”

Cook rates the open Peters seat a toss-up. A Hill/Emerson poll out Thursday had El-Sayed up 48–46. College graduates were with him; non-college voters were with Rogers; independents were barely on his side. A Washington Post–Schar School survey the same day had him 48–45. An August Fox News poll of registered voters, still cited by the network today, had Rogers ahead 51–47, with near-total GOP unity and weaker Democratic consolidation after the primary. That split is why a two-point lead is not a coalition anyone should bank on in a midterm.

Harris remains a familiar surrogate, though the 2024 loss still clings to her name. The Michigan stop is as much about optics as turnout, and it tests whether that name can still move votes among black Democrats, the constituency where El-Sayed ran weakest; and whether a candidate who scrubbed his archive can outrun the record he tried to bury.

MAGA’s strength has always been its willingness to name the ways the system is stacked against ordinary Americans.

A troubling report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy provides a stark reminder of how thoroughly the system remains tilted against the little guy. At least 88 profitable U.S. corporations paid zero federal income tax in 2025 despite reporting more than $105 billion in U.S. pretax income. At the statutory 21 percent rate, these companies should have owed roughly $22.1 billion. Instead, they collected $4.7 billion in rebates, pocketing a collective $26.7 billion in tax breaks. Measured against the pre-2017 rate of 35 percent, the savings climb to an estimated $41 billion in a single year.

The examples are not obscure. Tesla reported nearly $5.7 billion in U.S. income and paid nothing. United Airlines cleared almost $4.3 billion in U.S. income with the same zero federal tax bill. Southwest Airlines did the same on $561 million. Yum! Brands, parent of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, paid zero on more than $1 billion in U.S. pretax profits. Digital payment firms PayPal, Toast, and Block together wiped out federal taxes on $3.2 billion in income. Live Nation Entertainment joined them with $98 million. These are not struggling firms scraping by; they are household names that thrive while the tax code they helped shape treats them as if they earned nothing.

Let’s be clear: MAGA is not, and should never become, a pro-taxation movement. The long-term goal remains the abolition of the income tax and the IRS itself, which are inherently unconstitutional. Government does not need an army of bureaucrats extracting a portion of every paycheck and every profit statement. Yet as long as an income tax exists, the principle of equal application cannot be optional. Your local contractor, restaurant owner, or machine shop pays mightily or suffers massive consequences. Ergo, the corporate giants must pay as well. In fact, if anything, the largest players should shoulder a heavier burden relative to their size because they already extract disproportionate benefits from the system through regulatory capture, lobbying, corporate welfare, and preferential access to federal contracts and bailouts.

Everyone who has ever tried to start or grow a small business understands the disparity. The rules are written in a language that only armies of lawyers and accountants can navigate. Accelerated depreciation, research credits, immediate R&D expensing, foreign-derived income deductions, and stock-option write-offs are not equally available to the Main Street entrepreneur who lacks a tax department larger than most towns’ police forces. The result is a two-tier system in which the biggest players can drive their effective rates to zero while the rest of the country funds the government that those same players influence. This is not free-market capitalism. It is a rigged game, and the American people know it. That knowledge is one reason the status quo is so widely despised.

The companies themselves are not the primary villains. They are acting in their own self-interest, just as market economics would predict. No rational actor seeks to pay more tax than the law requires. The shame belongs to the bureaucratic system that makes these outcomes legal and routine. The same administrative state that MAGA and the Department of Government Efficiency set out to dismantle is the engine that produces these disparities. Waste, fraud, and bailouts flow from Washington into the balance sheets of the well-connected. The corporations grow fat from that upward flow while ordinary businesses and workers suffer the consequences. Inequality widens. Social trust erodes. A country cannot remain great when the rules are openly disparate for the powerful and the rest.

Radical socialists understand this dynamic and weaponize it. They hammer corporate cronyism with relentless focus. Their solutions—confiscatory rates, industrial policy directed by the same bureaucrats who created the problem, and ever-expanding government—are destructive. But the public often does not care about the details of the alternative. People simply hate the existing arrangement and will embrace whoever appears to oppose it with the most gusto. When Republicans look the other way because those same corporations write large checks to their campaigns and affiliated PACs, the party forfeits credibility with independents and younger voters. Without those groups, the Republican coalition becomes an endangered species. The Left is skilled at demagoguing the issue and placing conservatives on the defensive whenever Republicans appear to defend the indefensible.

The only durable answer is to promote fairness within a free-market framework: capitalism with genuine guardrails that prevent the richest and most connected from exploiting the rest. That does not mean higher overall tax rates or new layers of regulation. It means closing the pathways that allow profitable giants to pay nothing while smaller competitors are squeezed. It means ending the corporate welfare that distorts markets and rewards political access over productive investment. It means treating the administrative state itself as the core problem rather than a permanent fixture to be managed.

Several straightforward steps follow from these principles and align with the DOGE impulse to shrink waste and special privilege. First, simplify the corporate tax code so thoroughly that most of the specialized deductions, credits, and timing gimmicks disappear. A broader base with fewer carve-outs reduces the advantage of scale and legal firepower. Second, terminate federal subsidies, preferential loans, and bailout authority that function as off-budget transfers to favored firms. Third, continue aggressive reduction of the regulatory thicket that large corporations help write and then use as barriers to entry against smaller rivals. Fourth, insist on transparency and accountability for every tax expenditure so that the public can see, in plain language, who benefits and by how much. None of these measures requires expanding the IRS or inventing new restrictions on legitimate business activity. They require the opposite: fewer rules, less discretion for bureaucrats, and an end to the private-public partnerships that enrich the already powerful.

MAGA’s strength has always been its willingness to name the ways the system is stacked against ordinary Americans. Pretending that zero-tax outcomes for multi-billion-dollar firms are somehow a free-market triumph is a betrayal of that insight. The administrative state and the corporate interests that feed on it are not separate problems; they reinforce each other. Defeating one requires confronting the other. If the movement allows the super-wealthy to keep their loopholes while small businesses and workers carry the load, the public will eventually look elsewhere for relief. The radical left is ready with its own false promises. The only way to keep MAGA from becoming a temporary interlude is to apply its core principles—fairness, accountability, and hostility to the deep state—consistently, including to the corporate elite that has learned to game the system for its own benefit. The alternative is a slow erosion of trust that no amount of campaign contributions can reverse, which will make the rise of the far-left socialists an inevitability.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley released another set of FBI records at Tuesday’s oversight hearing with FBI Director Kash Patel. The files show weaponized advocacy: line agents pressing to open and join politically charged cases.

FBI leadership has long said agents do not pick their targets. The newest file says they did.

It is a  February 22, 2025 email from Special Agent Kevin Gounaud. He wanted a “58 matter,” FBI code for public corruption, on Elon Musk and the OPM official behind Musk’s request that federal workers list five things they did last week. Gounaud wrote that the official, “in conspiracy with Elon Musk,” had pushed “thousands if not tens of thousands of government employees to violate government wide security policy.” The request, he said, burned “a colossal amount of official time.” He closed, “And no, I’m not kidding.”

Musk posted that a non-response would be treated as a resignation. Patel told FBI employees that night to pause. Gounaud compared the X post to Hillary Clinton’s private server and said the resignation line “potentially violates 18 U.S.C. 873,” the blackmail statute.

More advocacy was revealed in 2017 messages from Agent Walter Giardina. He asked at least seven times in four weeks to join Crossfire Hurricane and to open a cut on Trump campaign fundraising. On Inauguration Day he wrote Joe Pientka, “I wanted to mention again my interest in joining the case.” Grassley says Agent Timothy Thibault, later found by the inspector general to have violated the Hatch Act, helped him and later wrote “Wow. Great.” on Washington Field Office emails around the 2022 Peter Navarro indictment.

The same names kept showing up when the cases turned into interviews and raids. Pientka and Peter Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn. Handwritten notes later released do not match the FD-302 in the false-statements case. Field office agents questioned probable cause for the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search. Justice expanded it anyway. In a pre-raid email, agents wrote that George Toscas “frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics.”

Patel later fired Gounaud and Giardina. Musk was the 2025 target.

Flynn, Navarro, Phares, and Trump at Mar-a-Lago were earlier ones. So was I, and Carter Page.

Why the allegiance inside the department? Was the advocacy coming from the agents, or was it solicited?

Grassley told Patel he now holds a December 2019 email to Pientka that “appears to corroborate existing public evidence that President Trump was the target of a political hit, and the government knew it many years ago.” He asked that it be declassified.

Yesterday’s hearing showed the other direction. Round River was advocacy inside the department. The point was to protect Joe Biden.

Grassley said the Foreign Influence Task Force used it to shut down sources on the Biden family under a Russian-disinformation label. Patel said the “Round River” classification banner had no FBI policy behind it. It was “basically made up.” Inspection Division is looking at who created the fake compartment. About 2,000 pages are already out.

An August 2026 inspector general report, also raised Tuesday, found Wray-era officials retaliated against FBI employee Jacob Mercer. Those officials, Grassley noted, are still employed.

These advocacy probes did not begin with the 2025 messages about Musk. They started years earlier. They started with private citizens around the president.

I was labeled a traitor and a Russian spy, then charged in the Mueller probe. The FBI staged an early-morning made-for-TV raid. 29  SWAT agents with M4 assault weapons stormed my home for CNN, claiming I was a flight risk. I was released after arraignment with no cash bond five hours later.

The targeting did not stop with the warrants. It ran through the fake news media. I was treated as the campaign’s back channel to Moscow. Page was written up as a Russian agent. Phares was tied to a militia massacre and called an associate to war crimes before any FISA application. Flynn was the leaked calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, then the resignation. Navarro was the airport perp-walk. The public image was the second case. The files supplied the names. The coverage finished the job.

What else did intelligence officials hide while under oath? What else is still buried?