The vice president mused about Epstein's Democratic friends, wondering 'what they did' with him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Democrats warn Cantor Fitzgerald about tariff-related trades; note firm's link to Lutnick
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have warned Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., financial services firm linked to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, that its tariff-related trades pose a potential conflict of interest. Wyden and Warren ask in their letter to Brandon Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, and Secretary Lutnick's son, for details on its work on tariff refund agreements and whether anyone at the firm has communicated with President Trump, Secretary Lutnick or other Trump administration officials. The Democrats are raising the alarm over financial products created by Cantor Fitzgerald that would allow clients to hedge against business risks posed by the uncertainty over whether the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs against major foreign trading partners. 'Specifically, Cantor has created a 'litigation finance' product that places the company in the position of betting that courts will strike down Trump's tariffs. Given that one of the purported architects of President Trump's tariff policy is Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, your father and former Chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, the firm's actions raise obvious conflict-of-interest and insider dealing concerns,' they wrote. The Democrats raised the issue after Wired reported last month that Cantor Fitzgerald's investment banking arm was exploring the creation of a financial product for clients to bet on the legal outcome of Trump's tariffs. If the courts declare Trump's tariffs, which the president says are authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), companies that paid tariffs would likely be entitled to large refunds from the U.S. government. Cantor has reportedly offered companies an opportunity to trade their legal claim to a future tariff refund in exchange for twenty to thirty percent of the duties the company paid, Wyden and Warren noted. If the courts strike down the tariffs, Wyden and Warren say, Cantor could reap a financial windfall. 'Cantor has reportedly already made a deal with at least one company for its refund rights, valued at approximately $10 million and 'anticipate[s] that number will balloon in the coming weeks.' A Cantor representative reportedly said the firm has, 'the capacity to trade up to several hundred million of these presently and can likely upsize that in the future to meet potential demand,'' they wrote. 'This financial product effectively represents a bet that President Trump's tariffs will ultimately be declared unlawful by the Supreme Court,' they argued. Wyden and Warren are asking Brandon Lutnick to describe the scope of this activity and any contact Cantor employees have had with the Trump administration. They want to know how many tariff refund agreements have been drafted and how many have been finalized and how many different counterparties are involved with these agreements. They want information on whether Cantor created the tariff refund agreements at the request of a specific client or whether it originated the idea. 'We are concerned about the negative impacts of these tariffs and seek additional information regarding efforts by Cantor to profit from them,' they wrote. A spokesperson for Cantor Fitzgerald did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: Trump takes on Smithsonian's lefty bias and statue-toppling libs melt down
Democrats who cheered the toppling of statues of American heroes such as Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt in 2020, are suddenly deeply concerned that the Trump administration is seeking to curate the Smithsonian museums to better express American exceptionalism. Please, spare us. Take Tim Walz, governor of Minnesota and self-professed white guy taco connoisseur, who took to X this week. "If you're trying to erase history, you're on the wrong side of it," he wrote. But where was this pious outrage when protesters illegally tore down a 90-year-old Christopher Columbus statue at his state capitol in 2020? That erasure of history was done by an angry mob, with no process. I know, because I read all about it in a 2022 article with the fluffy bubblegum title, "Meet the Indigenous Activist Who Toppled Minnesota's Christopher Columbus Statue." Care to take a guess where that article was published? I swear, I'm not making this up: It was in the Smithsonian Magazine. Here's a gem from the apologia, sympathetically describing the vandalism, "'It's a beautiful thing because we have suffered from what [Columbus] did to us,' said Dorene Day, an Ojibwe woman who brought several of her children and her grandchildren to the protest." I'm sure you will be shocked to know that the Smithsonian article did not quote a single Columbus supporter, or even acknowledge that such a position was remotely possible. It basically lamented that the statue had not come down sooner. This is exactly the kind of one-sided, far-left version of history that President Trump and his administration seek to rectify with their review of the museums' offerings. Don't get me wrong, the Smithsonian is a wonderful institution. But the leftist lean has been clear for a long time, including the initial exclusion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from the African American History museum. This speaks to an issue that goes back much farther than the radicalism of 2020. For decades, perhaps half a century, progressives have held hegemonic control over our cultural and historical institutions; Their rule went all but unchallenged. In their version of events, America is always at fault for the oppression of Americans and pretty much everything else that's wrong in the world. One display about Cuban immigration blames U.S. intervention in Latin America and entirely leaves out the name Fidel Castro. This all raises the question of who gets to decide how we tell the story of our nation? In 2020, under the approving gaze of Democrats, it was protesters who illegally made the decisions. And even when statues were removed "officially," it never involved a referendum, rather wokesters just formed little committees and had their way with our history. In their version of events, America is always at fault for the oppression of Americans and pretty much everything else that's wrong in the world. According to a recent poll, only 37% of Democrats do not think there is anything to celebrate as the United States turns 250 years old next year. This is because the elites in the academy and our cultural institutions have instilled this version of events in the "well educated." The story of history changes over time. It was not until the 1950s, for example, that the Crusades began to be looked at as some kind of racist, colonizing enterprise, and today, it is being revisited by some scholars, viewed more as a needed defensive counterattack against Muslim aggression. This is not to say that one version of events, be they about the Crusades or the Civil War, is right or wrong. But what is wrong is to ignore the arguments in favor of American greatness so as to only expose our dark underbelly. Essentially, somewhere along the line, the decision was made that patriotism does not belong in the museum. It is a bizarre stance that flies in the face of the very history of museums, and there is no reason for the Trump administration to let this fester any longer. Walz and the statue-toppling hypocrites really need to sit this one out. They have already proven that they will happily destroy history to suit their agenda, so they have no leg to stand on in denying conservatives a seat at the Smithsonian table. The process to make changes to the Smithsonian under Trump are open, public, and transparent. Finally, this can be a national debate and not just leftists forcing anti-American ideas down our throats. This process is a lot more than we ever got in 2020, when history was simply taken from us. Many Americans, from coast to coast, welcome it.
Time Magazine
a minute ago
- Time Magazine
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional map. Read More: 'Time to Stand Down': Newsom Gives Trump Deadline to Call Off Redistricting Plan In Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured representation. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution We used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price.
