Trump Wants Beyoncé & Oprah Prosecuted For Kamala Endorsement, Social Media Laughs At His Epstein-Avoiding Desperation
In a post to Truth Soclal, Trump wrote: 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low-rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing absolutely NOTHING!'
Trump, who has leveled these claims before, is referring to Beyoncé's appearance at a campaign rally in her hometown of Houston months before the election. The superstar appeared with Kelly Rowland and her mother, Tina Knowles, to express her support for the campaign. She didn't perform, but said in her speech that she supported Harris for the sake of her daughters.
'We are at the precipice of an incredible shift, the brink of history,' Beyoncé said. 'I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother. A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in. A world where we have the freedom to control our bodies. A world where we're not divided. Our past, our present, our future, merge to meet us here. Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what's possible with no ceilings, no limitations. Imagine our grandmothers, imagine what they feel right now. Those who have lived to see this historic day.'
Campaign records show that the singer's production company, Parkwood Entertainment, was paid $165,000 for her appearance to cover associated production costs.
Oprah's production company, Harpo, was paid $1M for her Unite for America event, which brought a group of first-time voters together in Michigan for a rally in September 2024. Oprah explained that while she was not paid for her appearance, the behind-the-scenes production staff was.
'I was not paid a dime. My time and energy was my way of supporting the campaign,' Winfrey said in an Instagram post last year. 'I did not take any personal fee—however, the people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story,' she added.
The Rev. Al Sharpton's organization, the National Action Network, received a $500,000 donation from the Harris campaign in two separate $250K installments. Sharpton, who hosts a syndicated radio show and an MSNBC show, sat down with Harris on MSNBC last October, just before the election. It generated some controversy because Sharpton didn't report the payments to MSNBC , but it never gained traction.
Trump has also accused former President Obama of committing treason and said he should be arrested in multiple social media posts. Now traveling and playing golf in Scotland, the president's accusations are believed by many to be a distraction from the alleged Epstein files, which Trump said he would release during his campaign and in the first days of his presidency. But after Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel announced there was no pertinent information to share, including Epstein's supposed 'black list' of names of men who abused underage girls, even Trump's supporters are criticizing him.
In his Truth Social post, Trump added, 'These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.'
Turns out that it's not illegal for a celebrity to be paid to endorse a candidate, as long as it's disclosed and properly categorized by the campaign. However, there's no factual basis for an $11M dollar payment to Beyoncé, Oprah has already explained the payment to her production company, and as for Sharpton, it's not unusual for a campaign to donate to an organization that can help their election efforts.
Now that we have that straightened out, let's see the Epstein files. See the reaction to Trump's latest allegations below.
Trump Wants Beyoncé & Oprah Prosecuted For Kamala Endorsement, Social Media Laughs At His Epstein-Avoiding Desperation was originally published on cassiuslife.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Buzz Feed
4 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Theory: Taylor Swift's Secret Cameo In Happy Gilmore 2
As you may know, Happy Gilmore 2 finally hit our screens last week, and it is jam-packed with celebrity cameos — in fact, Screen Rant estimated that there are at least 72 surprise appearances in the movie's 114-minute runtime. These cameos range from Eminem to Haley Joel Osment, and even Adam Sandler's wife, Jackie Sandler, puts in a guest appearance. But for Taylor Swift fans, there is one specific Happy Gilmore 2 cameo that they are most invested in, and that is her boyfriend Travis Kelce's brief but incredibly memorable role as 'The Waiter,' who faces the wrath of Bad Bunny's character, Oscar, after he fires him over a minor slip-up. This leads to Oscar fantasizing about getting his revenge, and in a dreamlike sequence, Travis is tied to a post, shirtless, and then slathered with honey before a bear approaches and attacks him. Earlier this week, Netflix posted a short behind-the-scenes video that showed this sequence being filmed, and off the back of it, some Swifties have become convinced that Taylor also had a top-secret role in the movie as… The bear who attacks Travis. For reference, Taylor does have previous when it comes to dressing up as a bear: And when she promoted Happy Gilmore 2 on her Instagram story amid its release, she included a telltale honeypot emoji: Netflix themselves added fuel to the fire when they replied to an Instagram comment that read: 'They should've dressed Taylor as a bear for an epic surprise' with '👀.' Somebody else commented on the post: 'From the moment I saw it, I knew Tay was the bear 😉,' and another echoed: 'You just know Taylor is the bear.''Taylor is definitely in the suit,' one more added, and everyone was saying the same thing over on TikTok, too.'Was Taylor the bear 😭' one person asked, and even the official Betty Crocker TikTok page got involved as they commented: 'Is Taylor the bear??? 🍯'And another insisted: 'Everybody knows it was Taylor the bear.' Despite the Swifties' confidence, Adam did previously say that he didn't ask Taylor to cameo in the film, telling Extra: "We didn't want to bother Taylor. Just let Taylor entertain the world like she does.' And it's also worth noting that stunt actor Brandon Alan Smith is credited as 'Bear Performer' on Happy Gilmore 2's IMDB page… But hey, maybe that's just what they want us to believe... As always, let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
Politico
4 minutes ago
- Politico
Sarah McBride has a blunt diagnosis for her party's problems
'I do think that a voter asks two questions when they're considering who to vote for. The first question is, does this candidate, does this party like me? And by extension, do they respect me?' 'If you can't answer that first question to a voter's satisfaction, they won't even get to the second question, which is, what does this party think? What does this candidate think? And I think we lost that first question,' she said. Democrats around the country have been trying to figure out how to regain support from voters after Republicans won control of the White House and both chambers of Congress last year. Democratic leaders have conceded the party has a brand problem, but intraparty debates on party strategy have yet to produce a clear path forward. A Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that 63 percent of voters view the Democratic Party unfavorably — the highest level of unfavorability for the party in a Journal poll since 1990. McBride said she believes the party's brand going forward should focus on working-class people and protecting democracy and stressed again that a core tenant of the party's brand should be 'we're not going to be assholes to voters.' 'I do think that we have to basically create a tent that is united on three fundamental principles,' she said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. 'One is working people need more support and help. Two, democracy and freedom are good. And three, we're not going to be assholes to voters.' McBride suggested that voters may be forming negative opinions of the party based on online discourse, rather than from party leaders, and that 'the loudest voices online' may be pushing voters away who might otherwise vote for Democrats. 'The reality in today's environment is that your party ecosystem is defined not just by politicians or the party, but also some of the loudest voices online that in voters' minds reflect and represent that broader coalition,' she said. 'When we have an environment where we've got some very loud people who are shaming and calling people who disagree with them — even in rhetoric — bigots, when we have those folks saying that to a wide swath of voters, including voters we could win, and we aren't explicitly stating something to the contrary, then a voter will then just paint us all with one broad brush,' she added. The full interview with McBride is available on Sunday's episode of 'The Conversation.'
