George Clooney slams Donald Trump as he shares brutal response to president
clear that he's not bothered by Donald Trump's opinion
of him, and he's standing firm on his contentious political stance against the current president.
While promoting his upcoming Broadway debut, Good Night and Good Luck, on CBS Mornings, the Oscar-winning actor and longtime activist was questioned by host Gayle King about
Trump's previous description of him
as a "fake movie actor" on Truth Social and Clooney retorted with
a frosty statement
.
"I don't care. I've known
Donald Trump
for a long time. My job is not to please the President of the United States. My job is to try and tell the truth when I can and when I have the opportunity. I am well aware of the idea that people will not like that... people will criticise that. Elon Musk has weighed in [about me]. That is their right. It's my right to say the other side," Clooney said.
Read More
Related Articles
Deranged Donald Trump posts mad 184-word Easter message taking aim at all his enemies
Read More
Related Articles
Pete Hegseth sparks 'full-blown meltdown' for Trump admin. as he's accused of sharing Yemen attack details with family
The dispute flared up again last summer after the Oceans 11 actor, 63, wrote a headline-grabbing op-ed in The New York Times urging
Joe Biden
to step aside as the Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election. The Out of Sight star contended that Biden had "saved democracy before" and could do so again - this time by making way for a younger candidate better equipped to defeat Trump.
U.S. President Donald Trump and George Clooney have engaged in a war of words
The former president took to Truth Social to respond to the suggestion. "So now fake movie actor George Clooney, who never came close to making a great movie, is getting into the act. He's turned on Crooked Joe like the rats they both are," Trump wrote.
He continued, "What does Clooney know about anything? He uses the Democrat 'talking point' that Biden, the WORST President in the history of the United States, has 'saved our Democracy. Crooked Joe Biden didn't save our Democracy, he brought our Democracy to its knees. Clooney should get out of politics and go back to television. Movies never really worked for him! ! !"
Clooney addressed the rant during an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where Kimmel read out Trump's quote calling on him to leave politics. "I will if he does. That's a trade-off I'd do," Clooney responded, prompting the studio audience to erupt in applause.
However, the actor didn't stop there. In a recent interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Clooney explained his decision to speak out was simply a matter of responsibility.
"I don't know if it was brave," he said. "It was a civic duty because I found that people on my side of the street - you know, I'm a Democrat in Kentucky so I get it - when I saw people on my side of the street not telling the truth I thought that was time to..."
He went on to say, "The idea of freedom of speech is you can't demand freedom of speech and then say, 'But don't say bad things about me.' That's the deal. You have to take your stand if you believe in it. Take a stand, stand for it and then deal with the consequences. That's the rules."
For the latest local news and features on Irish America, visit our homepage
here
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
EVN Report
2 days ago
- EVN Report
Beyond the Ceremony: The Real Test for Armenia–Azerbaijan Peace
Last Friday night many in Armenia and Azerbaijan stayed up late, drawn to the flicker of a live broadcast from Washington. It was a ritual heavy with hope and hesitation: the signing of agreements meant to turn the page on three decades of conflict. For those in Yerevan or Baku, it was clear enough that these papers, signed in one of the world's most powerful offices, were not an ending. Thirty years of enmity, two wars, tens of thousands dead and entire communities driven from their homes cannot be erased with a flourish of ink. The stains run deeper than parchment. And yet, what unfolded was undeniably a moment, perhaps even a turning point. These two nations, born alongside the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conflict itself, now face a harder task than war: learning to live in peace. Their armies have mastered the arts of fortification and offense. But peace—real, lasting peace—is a discipline that may take as long to learn as this conflict once took to wage. Short-term Calm The signing marks a first step toward stability, however fragile. Along much of the Armenia–Azerbaijan border, the frontlines remain alarmingly close. Near the village of Khnatsakh, above Goris in Syunik region, opposing trenches lie so close to each other that soldiers can hear TikTok videos drifting from the other side. Skirmishes could erupt again. But for now, the aim is containment, keeping sparks from catching. Militarily, Azerbaijan continues to hold the advantage. Its forward positions inside Armenian territory could inflict serious damage if fighting resumed. In this light, Washington's agreements serve a practical function: removing a ready-made pretext for renewed escalation, at least for the moment. This conditional calm matters in Armenia, where parliamentary elections loom in less than a year. If tensions ease, the country can finally turn inward, focusing on political debate without the constant threat of a new war. That space could nurture the trust needed for long-term domestic stability. The U.S. Factor Recent media polls with people in Yerevan and Meghri speaking in support of the announced deals suggest cautious optimism. But hope will not sustain itself. Implementation requires action, starting with selecting an international company to facilitate transit between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan through Armenian territory. During the ceremony, President Trump declared that his personal involvement and the White House venue were guarantees the agreements would hold. This should certainly be the case at least until his anticipated Nobel Peace Prize nomination later this year. Political self-interest might help in the short term. What's less certain is whether Washington will fully and properly commit to managing even this single transit arrangement. One concern is the uncertainty over who will now drive the Armenian-Azerbaijani file forward within the Trump team. While special envoy Stephen Witkoff was instrumental in bringing Azerbaijan to Washington, much of Armenia's position was safeguarded by the leadership of the State Department, which pushed for measures like initiating the peace treaty—lifting a political 'sword of Damocles' that had hung over Yerevan in talks on transportation routes. Who takes over the portfolio now will help determine whether the effort advances or stalls. Even so, Washington's involvement does not signal a return to long-term 'curation' of the South Caucasus. U.S. interest in the region peaked during George W. Bush's presidency, symbolized by his 2005 visit to Tbilisi, and has since waned. Since then, reluctance to take on new commitments or openly confront Russia has shaped policy for years. This same caution has driven U.S. mediation since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, when Moscow's distraction from the South Caucasus, the collapse of its already fragile peacekeeping role , and the halt of weapon supplies to Armenia undermined the diplomatic efforts it had once maintained, raising fears of a full-scale Azerbaijani advance into Armenia. Trump may alter the tone, but without significant investment the fundamentals will remain unchanged. Turkey's Next Move Perhaps the most significant follow-on could come from Turkey. Its normalization process with Armenia, restarted three years ago, produced agreements to open the border and begin direct trade. Until now these steps were held hostage to the Armenian-Azerbaijani track, which has just taken a fresh turn in Washington. At present all Armenia-Turkey trade travels through third countries. This summer in my native Javakheti region of Georgia, bordering both nations, the constant rumble of trucks moving goods between them was impossible to miss—day and night, seven days a week. Direct routes could shift that flow onto Armenian-Turkish roads. Technically everything is almost ready. In the past, Turkish diplomats admitted that the missing element was Azerbaijan's assent. Initiation of the peace agreement has already triggered it. Several phone calls between Ankara, Baku and Yerevan have followed the Washington event. For Armenia, opening the border would mean access to Turkish ports, expanded trade and reintegration into the region's transit transport network after more than three decades of isolation. For Turkey, the benefits are tangible: reopening its only closed border, extending influence across the South Caucasus and injecting resources into its underdeveloped eastern provinces. In the past officials in Ankara, in their attempts to make Baku move, also noted that an open border would give Turkey more leverage over Armenia, which would be keenly aware that closure could be reinstated. Europe's Role The European Union should not stand aside. Though sidelined when Armenia and Azerbaijan turned to direct talks after the 2023 collapse of Nagorno-Karabakh, Brussels remains the only Western actor with a multi-sector, structural presence in the region. EU enlargement may be stalled, but investment in infrastructure and stability continues. In the near term, European funding could prove decisive in closing the forty-kilometer gap in southern Armenia's railway—a stretch that may require tunneling and complex engineering. Such a project would give Brussels a seat at the table in implementing the agreements while anchoring stability for years to come. The EU should make a move, even if the main event took place not in Brussels but in Washington DC, which does not seem to favor relations with Europe very much nowadays.
EVN Report
6 days ago
- EVN Report
Pax Americana Comes to the South Caucasus
In early March, U.S. intelligence as well as numerous officials had substantial basis to warn the White House that Azerbaijan was planning on reinitiating hostilities against Armenia, with deep concerns that incursions into Syunik would likely materialize by mid-March. U.S. officials undertook a flurry of activities to curtail Baku's gameplan, and by mid April, a shuttle diplomacy of sorts was initiated by President Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff's team between Yerevan and Baku. In early May, the American team produced a proposal to both sides which would become the foundational basis of normalization between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Washington Summit held on August 8 at the White House between Prime Minister Pashinyan, President Trump, and President Aliyev is the culmination of this normalization proposal and months of negotiations between the three sides. At the heart of the normalization process, from its inception, was the American belief that unless connectivity is established and the transit route issue addressed, Baku will weaponize the so-called 'Zangezur Corridor' precept to relaunch hostilities. Thus, for Washington, normalization began with finding a solution to the transit route conundrum. What followed was a three-month process of complex negotiations on a highly-creative and unique proposal put forth by the United States. For those of us involved in this process, three things were clear: U.S. pressure was fundamental in order to get Aliyev to agree; the secret state of negotiations limited us from sharing details with the public or civil society; and, the complex and innovative nature of the proposal was ripe for pro-Russian proxies, both in Armenia and the Diaspora, to distort and seeks its obstruction through targeted disinformation campaigns. On August 8, three documents were formalized at the Washington Summit. First, a joint declaration by Armenia and Azerbaijan, under the auspices of the United States, seeking full normalization of relations and permanent pathway to peace. Second, the foreign ministers of both countries placed their initials on a document based on the agreed contours of the draft peace agreement, signifying commitment by both sides to the terms of the deal, which, in essence, includes adherence to the 17 articles of the draft agreement. Third, both foreign ministers jointly signed a document formally withdrawing from the OSCE Minsk Group, noting the ineffective and obsolete nature of the format. At the bilateral level, numerous sets of pre-summit meetings were held on August 7, as both sides addressed the growing depth and scope of U.S.-Armenia relations. On August 8, President Trump and Prime Minister Pashinyan signed numerous memorandums of understanding to elevate the U.S.-Armenia partnership, which, in essence, is designed to not only quickly implement the agenda of the U.S.-Armenia Strategic Partnership, but also include initiatives to collaborate on artificial intelligence, energy, mining, semi-conductors, security, and Armenia's Crossroads of Peace initiative. MOUs were also signed between Azerbaijan and the US, though not at the same scope or depth as that between Armenia and US, considering that the latter are formal strategic partners, while formal bilateral relationship does not yet have such an elevated status. Both sides, however, will be given access to America's arms market, and in this context, the Trump Administration is open to offering both parties weapons sales as commensurate with commitment to bilateral agreements. There Will Be No 'Zangezur Corridor,' Only an Armenian-Controlled Transit Route With respect to the very cornerstone of this Summit lies the much-anticipated U.S.-proposed transit route. After months of intense negotiations, all sides have agreed to the Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a joint Armenia-U.S. venture designed as a master development plan to build a commercial route across Syunik. Conceding the fact that the term 'corridor' has been politicized and weaponized by Baku and Russia's proxies in Armenia and the Diaspora, the project will interchangeably use the terms 'road' and 'route,' thus addressing an important Armenian concern. TRIPP is envisioned as a vital and strategic trade artery that will be subjected to and administered by Armenian law, while operated under a joint Armenia-U.S. venture. Thus, TRIPP, as confirmed in discussions with numerous U.S. officials, ensures Armenia's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdictional authority. Contrary to the disinformation spread by the likes of former Kocharyan foreign minister Vartan Oskanian, Armenia's illiberal opposition, and pro-Russia organizations in the Diaspora such as the ANCA, Armenian sovereign territory will not be ceded, given, or delegated to any third party actor that constitutes extraterritoriality. Moreover, contrary to the disinformation proliferated by such circles, foreign troops will not be stationed in Armenia, no neighboring country will have a presence in sovereign Armenian territory, and Armenia's link south to Iran will not be obstructed nor have anything to do with this route. In this context, Armenia and the United States will undertake a joint venture, with both Armenian and American companies being granted contracts to build the infrastructure and undertake the development of the route. Considering the immense role the United States will be playing in securing financing for the project, the U.S., in consultation with its Armenian partners, and commensurate with Armenian law, will have the right to delegate or subcontract different parts of the construction project to pertinent companies as deemed appropriate in completing TRIPP. Thus, the United States will partner up with Armenia, with strict adherence to the principle of the inviolability of Armenia's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdictional authority, to build and operate a commercial transit route through Southern Armenia, allowing for connectivity between Azerbaijan and Nakhijevan. The route is being qualified as an economic and commercial endeavor, not simply a geopolitical or hard power move, and it is for this reason that there is not and will not be talks of its militarization to address the security of the route. Unlike the stipulations put forth in the 2020, November 9 trilateral statement that had sought, based on Russian and Azerbaijani interpretation, the presence of Russian FSB troops controlling an extraterritorial corridor, TRIPP will not have any military presence from any foreign country. Rather, the United States, in agreement with Armenia, will take on the responsibility of ensuring that the route operates and functions safely through the hiring of highly-experienced and qualified companies whose activities, under Armenian law, will ensure the set objectives. While Aliyev had demanded complete unimpeded access of all cargo and goods passing through Armenia, without any inspection of the content included in the shipments, his maximalist demand was not achieved. Rather, only commercial access will be permitted, and in this context, military equipment or non-commercial products will not be permitted. Further, since the control of the route will be under Armenian law, and thus, under Armenian control, cargo entering and passing through the Republic of Armenia will be subjected to inspection prior to entering Armenian territory. The border inspection mechanism will utilize the front-office/back-office model: a third party operator, hired by the U.S.-Armenia joint venture, will work the front office when physically dealing with incoming Azerbaijani cargo, while Armenian officials and border control personnel will be in the back office overlooking all aspects of the process. Through this model, all cargo entering and passing through Armenian territory will be ensured to be commercial, while Armenian law will dictate front-office/back-office operations. The U.S.-Armenia Paradigm and a Growing Security Architecture The Washington Summit is testimony to the highly constructive and methodical role played by the United States in making this initiative a reality. Two important factors stand out in how this came about. First, against much of his strategic self-interest, which is well-designed to maintain his power asymmetry with Armenia and thus obstruct any third-party initiative that allows Armenia agency and potential for development, Aliyev finally agreed to the U.S. proposal, after having sought every diplomatic mechanism of obstructing or prolonging the process. In my extensive engagements with the State Department, National Security Council, and the White House, it was evident that there was a clear understanding in Washington that bringing Aliyev to the table was incumbent upon the United States if Washington had any hopes of its proposed initiative having life. In essence, the Trump Administration's model of working through deadlines, and making certain that involved parties will face punitive action for failing to meet the set deadlines, produced the outcome that many of us, even having access to the process, were skeptical of: that Aliyev will agree to terms that are not commensurate to his maximalist posturing. Second, the U.S. normalization proposal, while having had several iterations since its first draft, is primarily hinged on the following logic: the United States will step in as a constructive economic and geopolitical actor to support the establishment of a transit route through Syunik, giving Azerbaijan commercial connectivity to its exclave of Nakhichevan, with the route being subjected to Armenia's laws and in full compliance with Armenia's sovereignty. In conversations with the leadership in both the State Department and the NSC during the last three months, it was directly shared with me that America's thinking was predicated on three underlying postulates. One, the Washington Summit is not a one-off engagement, but rather a foundational framework for what the United States views as a three year process, from this normalization initiative to signing a final peace treaty. Two, the White House proceeded with a 'peace first' approach, where the conflict is removed from the battlefield space and the use of force is precluded, after which the normalization process proceeds. And three, the U.S. envisions a new South Caucasus, one defined by trade, stability and interconnectivity, which also includes the opening of borders with Turkey in the very near future. In this context, the background leading up to the Summit has been defined by categorically denying Baku the option of using force, offering creative (economic, energy, infrastructure, etc.) incentives to both sides to make certain they adhere to the U.S. plan, and using these developments to formalize a normalization framework that, by 2028, will lead to the signing of a final peace agreement. For Armenia, the U.S. proposal was not only a highly-preferable outcome of its Western pivot and policy of diversification, but more specifically, it has fundamentally altered its security architecture. The joint U.S.-Armenia venture in building TRIPP, for official Yerevan, is not, in and of itself, only an economic or commercial endeavor, but just as, if not more importantly, an important layer of robust deterrence against any future acts of Azerbaijani aggression. Within the domain of security, TRIPP offers Armenia an expansive and multilayered framework of soft deterrence, which exponentially diminishes the threat propensity within its security environment. In essence, whereas the threat of Azerbaijani incursions were a continuous and high-probability threat since 2020, that threat has been exceedingly marginalized by virtue of the U.S.-led normalization initiative and the development of the TRIPP project. Furthermore, the outcome of the Washington Summit, and America's vision of undertaking a multi-year process of finalizing a peace treaty, extensively handicaps Aliyev's capacity to tap into his hybrid warfare toolkit. While Baku, for tactical and strategic reasons, will still seek to utilize certain methods of hybrid warfare, it will, nonetheless, be unable to utilize its wide-ranging toolkit the way it has for the last five years. Within the confluence of such developments, Aliyev's penchant for relying on kinetic and coercive diplomacy will also lose efficacy, since the theater of conflict has been transferred to a normalization format with immense U.S. investment. In no uncertain terms, the normalization process brings Armenia a state of de facto peace, and while a peace treaty, if achieved in the future, will produce a de jure outcome, the more important variable, in the immediate and near future, is that Aliyev's war machine, which had fed off of the power disparity with Armenia, would have go into hibernation. What the U.S. normalization initiative has done for Armenia's security architecture is quite unique: it has given Armenia a transit route that it controls, not the Zangezur Corridor of Aliyev's dreams or the FSB-controlled corridor of Moscow's desires, while at the same time strengthening Armenia's position as a regional actor. Finally, inherent in the normalization initiative is the implicit understanding that Azerbaijan will have to withdraw from the territories it has occupied within Armenia-proper as the TRIPP project comes close to conclusion and reaches the opening stage. More simply put, Azerbaijan will either have to withdraw or act as an obstructionist force against the U.S. project, for the U.S. normalization initiative envisions the operationalization of TRIPP with the de-occupation of Armenian territories. Thus, Azerbaijan's occupation of Armenian sovereign territory will soon become a liability, and what Aliyev had initially deemed an important instrument of leverage against Armenia will now become a source of diplomatic weakness in its relations with the U.S. Quite similar to what will also happen soon with the POWs: as the process develops, the issue of Armenian prisoners of war, a topic of growing importance to the White House, will become a political liability for Baku.
Libyan Express
02-08-2025
- Libyan Express
Trump moves subs after Russian provocation
US Navy photo shows nuclear sub with 154 Tomahawk missiles transiting Suez Canal on April 7, 2023. Based in Kings Bay, Georgia. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced the repositioning of two nuclear submarines in response to what he described as 'highly provocative' remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, raising concerns over escalating tensions between Washington and Moscow. In a post published Friday on his Truth Social platform , Trump said he ordered the submarines to be deployed 'to the appropriate regions,' though he did not specify their location or whether they are nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed—a detail typically withheld under U.S. military protocol. 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev… I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned,' Trump wrote, cautioning that 'words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences.' The move follows a series of inflammatory exchanges between Trump and Medvedev, who now serves as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council. Medvedev had lashed out at Trump's recent demands for a ceasefire in Ukraine, calling them theatrical and accusing Washington of issuing dangerous ultimatums. Speaking to reporters later, Trump said his decision was made 'on the basis of safety for our people,' in light of what he described as a threat from the former Russian president. 'We didn't think it was appropriate,' he said. 'We're going to protect our people.' Medvedev has been a vocal supporter of Russia's war in Ukraine and a frequent critic of the West. On Thursday, he referenced Russia's 'dead hand' doctrine—a term widely interpreted by analysts as a reference to Moscow's nuclear second-strike capability—in a Telegram post warning of potential consequences if tensions with the U.S. continue to escalate. The Kremlin has not officially commented on Trump's remarks, but Russia's stock market experienced a sharp decline following the news. The exchange between Trump and Medvedev comes amid mounting pressure from Washington on Moscow to end its war in Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly issued deadlines for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire, most recently demanding an end to hostilities by 8 August. Previous ultimatums included threats of sweeping sanctions on Russian energy exports and other economic measures. With both the United States and Russia maintaining the world's largest nuclear arsenals, the latest rhetorical standoff has heightened international concern over the risks of miscalculation or escalation. Medvedev, who served as Russia's president from 2008 to 2012, responded to Trump earlier this week by saying 'each new ultimatum is a step towards war,' accusing the U.S. of provocation. Trump, in turn, dismissed Medvedev as 'the failed former president of Russia' and warned him to 'watch his words,' saying the Russian official was 'entering very dangerous territory.'
