Latest news with #HillaryClinton
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's favorite lines of defense aren't working in the Epstein controversy
An editor once asked me President Donald Trump's position on an issue I was writing about. "On which day?" I replied. Since he burst onto the political scene in 2015, Trump has made claims, dropped them, adopted a new argument that contradicts the old one, casually admitted something he long denied, changed the subject and generally just thrown every possible argument at the wall to see what would stick. He spent years arguing that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States, then simply admitted that wasn't true and falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for starting the rumor. He swore his 2016 campaign had only low-level contacts with Russia; then admitted his son, son-in-law and campaign head met at Trump Tower with a Russian woman claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton — and argued that anyone would do the same. Even his defense attorneys adopted this tactic, arguing during his impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that he could be tried instead on criminal charges, then claiming when he faced criminal charges that he had presidential immunity. It's all reminiscent of Bart Simpson's infamous defense when confronted with a note from school: 'I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.' Faced with controversy over the release of any records related to the late pedophile and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Trump has again tried the same defenses, but they don't seem to be working as well. By his own admission, Trump had a long history with Epstein that included socializing with him at a Mar-a-Lago party, attending a Victoria's Secret party together and flying on his private jet. (Trump has denied allegations of sexual misconduct and has denied any impropriety related to Epstein's crimes.) But after spreading a conspiracy theory related to Epstein's death in 2019, suggesting that his death may not have been a suicide in 2020 and promising in 2024 that he would declassify the Epstein files if re-elected, Trump has found himself in a bit of a pickle. The Department of Justice and FBI released a memo on July 7 concluding that there was no evidence of an 'incriminating 'client list,'' but that just fanned the flames. Trump then tried out several different arguments in succession: There's nothing interesting in the files: 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff.' Epstein is old news: 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy has been talked about for years.' This is a bad time to talk about it: 'I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we're having some of the greatest success and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas, too.' If there was anything incriminating about Trump in the files, the Biden administration would have released it: 'If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?' The Biden administration might have added false information to the files: 'You know, the Biden administration ran that for four years. I can imagine what they put into files.' Or maybe the Obama administration: 'These files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden.' It's all a hoax: 'I call it the Epstein hoax.' As before, these arguments abound with contradictions. Either there's incriminating information in the Epstein files, or there isn't. Either the files are boring but true, or they are salacious but a hoax. He can't simultaneously argue that the files are not very interesting but also hint that a secret cabal of Democrats planted explosive information in them. (At one point, he literally said of the records "it's sordid, but it's boring.") Trump put birtherism to rest by admitting he was wrong. It worked because as its chief proponent, he could effectively exonerate Obama of his baseless claims. Once again, Trump was one of the superspreaders of the Epstein conspiracy theories. But this time, he can't exonerate himself, and there's no one else who has the credibility to do it either. If we wait a few days, he may even have a new argument. This article was originally published on
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
DNI Gabbard Alleges 'Treasonous Conspiracy' In Trump-Russia Controversy
When President Trump won the presidency in 2016, defeating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Democrats accused him of 'colluding' with Russia to interfere in the election. A lengthy investigation followed these claims, but it never led to impeachment, as Democrats had hoped. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, recently released a report declassifying some information and alleging a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the outgoing Obama administration, accusing them of 'manufacturing' what they call the 'Russian hoax.' FOX News contributor and George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to discuss Director Gabbard's accusations and what the American people may learn from a Department of Justice investigation. An off-duty Customs and Border Patrol officer is in the hospital after being shot in the face Saturday night in New York City. Two illegal aliens have been arrested and are suspected of trying to rob the man at gunpoint. Homeland Security Secretary Noem says both of these men had been arrested and released several times. White House Border Czar Tom Homan said the city council in New York has locked them out of Rikers Island, so they can't take in undocumented immigrants who end up in jail. Former Acting ICE Director and now Homeland Security Senior Advisor Ron Vitiello about the shooting of this border agent and the uncooperation from sanctuary cities. Plus, commentary from the host of FOX Across America and FOX News Saturday Night, Jimmy Failla. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Obama hits back at Trump ‘treason' accusation over Russia investigation
Former President Barack Obama hit back Tuesday at President Donald Trump's accusation that his predecessor committed 'treason' related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Hours after Trump falsely accused Obama of trying to rig the 2016 election, the ex-president's office said it had no choice but to publicly refute the claim. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' Obama's office said in a statement. The 44th commander in chief's office debunked the claim that an intelligence report released last week by Trump Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard somehow amounts to new evidence against Obama or losing 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. ADVERTISEMENT The statement noted that neither Obama nor Clinton ever claimed that Russia succeeded in flipping votes from the Democrat to Trump's column in the election that catapulted him to the White House. It pointed to a 2020 bipartisan report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-chairman ex-Sen. Marco Rubio, that instead accused Russia of seeking to influence the election in Trump's favor. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama's office said. The statement came soon after Trump erupted in a rant against Obama during an Oval Office meeting with Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos. 'They caught President Obama absolutely cold,' Trump said. 'They tried to rig the election and they got caught.' ADVERTISEMENT 'It's time to go after people,' he added. 'Obama's been caught directly…He's guilty. This was treason.' Trump's outburst is seen by critics as an attempt to distract from negative attention regarding his relationship with late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and unanswered calls to release files related to the notorious pedophile's case. Trump's right-wing MAGA base has been pushing for the administration to publicly bare Department of Justice files on the case even after Attorney General Pam Bondi said she wouldn't release any more information related to the sex-trafficking case. Gabbard's report, released Friday, appears to be the latest effort to change the subject from Epstein. It downplayed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election by highlighting Obama administration emails showing officials had concluded before and after the presidential race that Moscow had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in Trump's favor. ADVERTISEMENT But Obama's Democratic administration never suggested otherwise, even as it exposed other means by which Russia interfered in the election, including through a massive hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails by intelligence operatives working with WikiLeaks. _____
CNET
17 hours ago
- Business
- CNET
What Are 'Trump Accounts'? Breaking Down the Big Beautiful Bill's Newborn Savings Accounts
These new investment savings account will be started for every newborn automatically over the next few years. Getty Images Amid the divisiveness surrounding the passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful" spending bill, one portion of the legislation seems like it would be agreeable to pretty much everyone: a new type of investment savings account for newborns, which the federal government will seed with money upfront. That sounds like a win for most folks, but are these accounts all they're cracked up to be? And how will they actually work? Most of the conversations and conflicts surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law on July 4, largely ignored these accounts, focusing on the potential damages from sweeping Medicaid cuts and the bolstering of immigration enforcement funding. As polarizing as those elements of the bill were, these new savings accounts, which congressional Republicans attempted to brand as "Trump accounts," had bipartisan support. In the past, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Cory Booker have suggested similar ideas to help parents begin building up savings for their children. These aren't going to be free money that new parents can use right away, as there are a number of rules about what can be done with the money. Additionally, the policy will only be in place for a few years unless extended. With all that in mind, keep reading for all the details you'll need to know about the so-called "Trump accounts" and what they mean for your family. For more, find out what recent political moves might mean for your student loan payments. Who's eligible for these new accounts? You can open one of these accounts in your child's name as soon as they're born, and so long as you, your spouse and the child have valid Social Security numbers. If the child's parents aren't married, only the parent opening the account and the child need Social Security numbers. As the policy currently stands, these accounts can only be opened for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. It's another example of a common theme highlighted by critics of the Big Beautiful Bill: benefits set to end around the time Trump will leave the White House and drawbacks kicking in once someone new is in office. Whatever the political machinations behind the timeline might be, just keep them in mind if you have a kid later than the start of 2029, since the policy might not be extended. What do the "Trump accounts" do? These accounts allow parents to contribute up to $5,000 a year towards a fund their child will have access to later in life. As investment accounts -- think a 401(k) for your new baby as opposed to a standard savings account -- they have the potential to accrue a lot more value over the years through capital gains and dividends, but they could also lose value depending on how markets move. Other entities, such as the parents' employers, can also contribute to these accounts, up to $2,500 a year. One of the most publicized and desirable aspects of these accounts is that, once one is opened for a new child, the federal government will seed it with $1,000 to get things rolling. This is why the savings accounts have gotten a thumbs-up from some experts, even if parents never add anything else to the account. "Someone is giving me $1,000 for my kid? That's a no-brainer. Who turns away free money?" Jaime Eckels of Plante Moran Financial Advisors said in an interview with CNBC. "From there, you'll have to decide what additional savings you'll have for your child." It's unlikely, however, that a significant number of Americans will be able to use these accounts to their fullest, since, as the Urban Institute noted, one-third don't currently have over $2,000 in savings or have surplus income high enough to make stock investments. Still though, you'll probably be happier to have that $1,000 from the government even if you aren't able to save much on your own. The Milken Institute estimated that the minimum seed from the government could grow to as much as $8,000 for your child over the course of 20 years. How can I open one of these accounts? You should be able to open one at any bank or participating financial institution. If no one gets around to it, the government will open one for the child automatically the first time you file a tax return with the new baby claimed as a dependent. When can money be withdrawn from one of these accounts? The holder of the account (that is, your child) can't withdraw any funds from them until they are at least 18 years old. Funds withdrawn from the account will be subject to the standard capital gains tax, and an additional 10% penalty until they're 59 and a half or older, similar to withdrawals from a 401(k) account. However, there are a number of notable life expenses that the money can be used for penalty-free, including higher-education costs and expenses incurred due to things like disability, domestic violence or natural disasters. Up to $10,000 can be withdrawn penalty-free to be put towards the purchase of a home, and $5,000 can be withdrawn to cover the costs of having a baby. For more, keep an eye on inflation with CNET's daily tariff impact tracker.
Russia Today
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Trump claims Obama ‘guilty of treason'
US President Donald Trump has accused Barack Obama of 'treason,' promising to 'go after' him and his administration's top intelligence officials over their alleged plot to 'rig elections' and stage the Russiagate hoax. Trump made the remarks while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. The former US president should be targeted directly by the Department of Justice, Trump stated when asked about the report released by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard last week that alleged Obama administration officials 'manufactured intelligence' to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia. 'This was treason. Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there with him, and so was Sleepy Joe Biden, and so were the rest of them: [former FBI Director James] Comey, [former DNI Director James] Clapper, the whole group,' Trump stated. 'They tried to rig an election, and they got caught. And then they did rig the election in 2020. And then because I knew I won that election by a lot, I did it a third time, and I won in a landslide,' he added. Gabbard's report was 'like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious,' the US president went on, accusing his predecessor of 'trying to lead a coup.' 'This is the biggest scandal in the history of our country,' Trump asserted. The report, which includes over 100 declassified documents, suggests that Obama's spy chiefs discarded all intelligence assessments that found no Russian involvement and replaced them with fabricated claims, paving the way for the Russiagate probe, described by Gabbard as a 'years-long coup' against Trump. Obama has strongly denied the allegations, reiterating his stance shortly after the latest Oval Office remarks by Trump. Gabbard's report contains nothing that 'undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Obama's office said in a statement. 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' it stressed.
