Author: sadamhussaindomki4@gmail.com

The best witness for the never-completed prosecution of President Trump, it turned out, was the prosecutor himself: Jack Smith. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released the transcript and video of Smith’s deposition, which is a stark reminder of the cost of letting Trump go unpunished and the danger of the President’s revenge-seeking against those who sought to hold him to account.

“Smith’s deposition was, in all likelihood, as close as he will get to making a closing argument,” Ruth Marcus writes. “It marks, most likely, the unsatisfying conclusion of an unsatisfying episode, one that underscored the limitations of the criminal-justice system in dealing with a lawless President.” Now, with Trump calling Smith a “criminal” who should be “investigated and put in prison,” one question is the jeopardy that Smith himself may face. “I am eyes wide open that this President will seek retribution against me if he can,” Smith said at one point in the deposition. Still, he said, of his testimony before the committee, “I came here. I was asked to come here.” Read more:

The most compelling witness in the unfinished prosecution of President Donald Trump was not a former aide or an insider—it was the prosecutor himself. The release last week of the House Judiciary Committee’s transcript and video of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s deposition offers a sobering look at how the effort to hold a former president criminally accountable ultimately stalled, and at the personal risks faced by those who pursued it.

In his testimony, Smith methodically defended the integrity and necessity of the investigations he led, effectively delivering what amounts to a closing argument that never reached a jury. As columnist Ruth Marcus observed, the deposition may be the closest Smith will come to that moment, marking an unsatisfying end to an episode that exposed the limits of the criminal-justice system when confronted with a defiant and powerful president.

Those limits are now compounded by the political aftermath. Trump has publicly labeled Smith a “criminal” and called for him to be investigated and imprisoned, language that underscores the former president’s willingness to seek retribution against perceived enemies. Smith acknowledged that danger plainly during the deposition, stating that he was “eyes wide open” to the possibility of retaliation, yet emphasizing that he testified simply because he was asked to do so.

The exchange leaves behind more questions than answers—not only about accountability for presidential misconduct, but about the future of those tasked with enforcing the law. Smith’s calm, procedural testimony stands in contrast to the fury surrounding it, serving as a reminder that while the case may be over, its implications for justice, power, and personal risk are far from settled.

Taylor Swift Condemns Trump After Police Dispute White House Narrative on ICE Shooting

Pop superstar Taylor Swift has issued a forceful public statement criticizing President Donald Trump after a newly circulated CNN clip appeared to contradict his account of a fatal ICE-involved shooting during a large-scale immigration operation in Minneapolis.

The clip, taken from a CNN interview, shows Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara asserting that Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was the only person injured during the January 7th raid. O’Hara’s statement directly conflicts with President Trump’s claim that an ICE agent was shot, hospitalized, and “recovering well.”

“This isn’t just a miscommunication — it’s misleading the country in the middle of a tragedy,” Swift said in a statement shared across her verified social platforms. “Americans deserve honesty, especially when a U.S. citizen has lost her life during government action on U.S. soil.”

ICE Operation Draws National Scrutiny

The shooting took place during a Department of Homeland Security operation involving approximately 2,000 federal agents in the Minneapolis area. According to DHS, agents were targeting undocumented immigrants and claimed Good was shot in self-defense after she allegedly followed ICE vehicles and positioned her car in a way officials described as obstructive.

Local authorities and multiple advocacy groups have challenged that narrative, noting that Good was a legal U.S. resident with no reported ties to the individuals targeted in the raid.

Public Reaction and Nationwide Demonstrations

The incident has ignited widespread public outrage, sparking protests, marches, and candlelight vigils across the country. Large turnouts were reported in New York City, along with Minneapolis and several other metropolitan areas. Demonstrators have demanded transparency, independent investigations, and clearer limits on the use of federal force during immigration actions.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s office has confirmed preparations to deploy the National Guard if local law enforcement requests assistance, citing escalating tensions and the need to protect both demonstrators and the community.

Swift’s Message Resonates Beyond Music

Swift’s commentary places her among a growing number of public figures who have challenged the administration’s portrayal of the event. She called the death “unacceptable” and urged elected officials and media outlets to “keep the focus on the facts and the human cost.”

Political analysts have noted that Swift’s voice carries unique influence among younger audiences and first-time voters, turning her criticism into both a cultural and political moment.

White House and DHS Stand By Their Position

The White House has not retracted Trump’s initial statements, and DHS officials continue to assert that the shooting was justified under self-defense protocols. However, the contradiction between federal accounts and the Minneapolis Police Department has fueled demands for federal oversight and potential congressional review.

Legal organizations, civil rights groups, and immigration advocates have called for body camera footage, dispatch logs, and use-of-force reports to be released to the public.

A Growing National Debate

The death of Renee Nicole Good has quickly expanded into a broader debate about immigration enforcement, federal authority, public communication during crises, and the treatment of legal residents during government operations.

For many demonstrators and public figures—including Swift—the core issues now go beyond one fatal incident. They center on transparency, truthfulness, and accountability at the highest levels of government.

As protests continue and Minnesota prepares for possible Guard mobilization, the political and emotional fallout shows no sign of slowing, leaving the nation waiting for answers in a rapidly developing story.

BREAKING: Five Republican Senators DEFY Trump and break ranks to pass a vote to neuter his military power in a shock betrayal.

If Donald Trump believed he could bomb another country, kidnap its president, and claim its oil reserves without pushback from a neutered Congress, he was faced with a rude awakening today as the usually compliant senior chamber of the federal legislature finally awoke from its torpor.

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate delivered a rare, bipartisan rebuke to Trump’s out-of-control warmongering, advancing a War Powers resolution to stop him from launching further military attacks on Venezuela without congressional approval. The vote — 52 to 47 — came after Trump ordered a weekend raid on Caracas that spiraled into injuries, civilian deaths, and the shocking seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, all without notifying lawmakers.

Trump’s excuse for not even notifying Congress in advance? They have a “tendency to leak.” That flimsy justification didn’t fly — even with Republicans.

Led by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and joined by Republican senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, and Josh Hawley, the resolution makes clear what the Constitution already plainly delineates: one man does not get to start a war.

“Bombing another nation’s capital and removing their leader is an act of war, plain and simple,” Kentucky Senator Paul said, bluntly reminding Trump that the presidency is not an imperial throne. Paul positioned his criticism in a way to make it less of a direct attack on Trump by adding, “The reason you argue on principle against even things that appear to be good … isn’t even always for the current president, it’s for the next president,” he said.

Senator Kaine of Virginia was even more critical, calling Trump’s actions “clearly illegal,” “deeply unpopular,” and “suspiciously secretive.” While Americans struggle with rising costs, Trump was busy launching a shadow war that experts say has already killed at least 110 people, with disputed claims about drug trafficking used as cover for what Democrats now say looks like a plan for regime change and the purloining of natural resources like Venezuela’s sizable oil reserves.

And the threat of unauthorized war doesn’t stop with Venezuela.

Trump has openly threatened military action against Iran, Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and Nigeria, while floating the idea of U.S. “boots on the ground” and even bragging that America would temporarily “run” Venezuela. That’s not strength — it’s reckless authoritarianism.

Republican leaders tried to spin the Maduro capture as a “law enforcement operation.” But the majority of senators weren’t fooled. As Murkowski put it, Congress must “affirm our role under Article I.” Or, as Paul warned, the country risks being “run by emergency.”

The resolution may face long odds in the House or a Trump veto, but the message is unmistakable: enough is enough. Trump is not a king. The Constitution still exists. And even this Senate knows a one-man war machine is a danger to democracy — and the world.

Trump’s control over Republicans in Congress is rapidly ebbing. Please like and share to spread the good news!

BREAKING: SHE WAS JUST TAKING HER KID TO SCHOOL! Renee Good’s ex-husband tells media that she was only there because she was dropping her six-year-old child off at school and was a “devoted Christian.”

He ex-husband, speaking to the media anonymously to avoid the inevitable death threats and harassment that would come from Trump’s despicable scumbag fans, said that Renee Good was “was no activist and that he had never known her to participate in a protest of any kind,” and that she was a devout Christian who had participated in mission trips when she was younger.

Good ‘had just dropped off her 6-year-old son at school Wednesday and was driving home with her current partner.”

Can you imagine?

You’re taking your child off to school on a normal day, have the misfortune to run into an ICE operation and then end up DEAD for no reason, then to have your name smeared by the f*cking PRESIDENT for being a terrorist?

Let this be a lesson to you, MAGATS. The death of Renee Good is a reminder that your skin color, your devoutness, your marriage status or the number of kids you have will not protect you from the violence of Trumpism.

They will kill you without hesitation and then blame you for it, and all your fellow MAGA lemmings will immediately scream that you deserved it.

Think about that.

BREAKING: In a rare show of bipartisan defiance, nine House Republicans crossed party lines to advance a Democrat-led bill that would extend Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) subsidies for the next three years.

The procedural vote marks a significant early win for House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his caucus, signaling cracks in Republican unity on health care just as the stakes intensify.

Debate on the bill is happening right now, with a final vote expected shortly.
If these nine Republicans continue siding with Democrats, millions of Americans could see their ACA health insurance subsidies preserved through 2028.

All eyes are now on whether this fragile bipartisan alliance will hold…the story still unfolding

In a rare and closely watched move on Capitol Hill, nine House Republicans crossed party lines on Tuesday to advance a Democrat-led bill that would extend Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as ObamaCare, subsidies for an additional three years.

The procedural vote represents an early and notable victory for House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his caucus, as it exposes growing fractures within Republican ranks over health care policy. GOP leaders have largely opposed extending the subsidies, arguing over costs and long-term federal spending, but the defection of the nine Republicans suggests a more complicated internal debate as pressure mounts from constituents.

The bill aims to preserve enhanced ACA subsidies that help millions of Americans afford health insurance premiums. Without congressional action, those subsidies are set to expire, potentially leading to higher costs for families across the country.

Debate on the measure is unfolding on the House floor, with a final vote expected shortly. If the nine Republicans who supported the procedural step continue to side with Democrats, the legislation could pass, securing subsidy extensions through 2028.

As the vote approaches, attention is focused on whether this fragile bipartisan coalition will hold—or whether party leadership and political pressure will pull wavering lawmakers back into line.

Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court is once again at the center of a political firestorm, this time over a deceptively technical question with massive economic implications: Does President Donald Trump have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval by invoking a national emergency law?

Online, the reaction has been explosive.

blob:https://newsnowuk.com/41acfdc9-bce3-4a44-8460-2f50f6ed1d6f

Headlines scream that the Supreme Court has “devastated the administration,” that “29 judges voted for removal,” and that Donald Trump’s power has been “stripped.” Viral thumbnails show gavels slamming down, courtrooms in chaos, and graphics implying a constitutional meltdown.

But beneath the noise, the truth is far less dramatic—and far more important.

What is actually happening is not a coup, not a judicial revolt, and not a vote to remove Trump from office. It is a routine but consequential legal battle over executive power, one that has been badly distorted by clickbait narratives designed to provoke outrage rather than understanding.

The Real Case Before the Supreme Court

At the center of the controversy is President Trump’s use of a national emergency statute to impose broad tariffs—tariffs that form the backbone of his economic and foreign policy strategy.

Trump has repeatedly described these tariffs as essential leverage in negotiations with both allies and adversaries. In recent remarks, he even characterized the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision as “life or death” for his presidency.

The justices are now weighing whether the statute Trump relies on actually authorizes such sweeping unilateral action, or whether Congress—not the president—must approve tariffs of this scale.

This is not a symbolic dispute. If the Court limits or invalidates this interpretation of emergency powers, it could significantly constrain how future presidents use economic tools in diplomacy.

Still, none of this amounts to Trump being “removed” or “overthrown.”

How Viral Headlines Twisted the Story

The online panic stems from two completely separate developments that were deliberately mashed together.

First, the Supreme Court is hearing cases involving presidential removal power—specifically, whether a president can fire leaders of so-called independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Federal Reserve.

Second, a group of 29 federal judges issued rulings blocking a Trump administration policy on mandatory immigrant detention, citing due process concerns.

These events are unrelated.

Yet viral posts combined them into a single narrative suggesting a coordinated judicial uprising against Trump.

That narrative is false.

International Criminal Court Set to Investigate Alleged Crimes Following U.S. Attack on Venezuela

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is preparing to examine allegations of crimes of aggression, war crimes, and violations of national sovereignty following a controversial U.S. military action in Venezuela that reportedly led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. The move signals a potential escalation of legal scrutiny as international institutions respond to what some governments and legal experts describe as a serious breach of international law.

According to diplomatic sources, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor is conducting a preliminary assessment to determine whether the alleged actions fall within the court’s jurisdiction. The review is expected to focus on claims that the use of force violated the United Nations Charter, undermined Venezuela’s sovereignty, and resulted in the unlawful detention of a sitting head of state. If the threshold for a full investigation is met, the case could become one of the most significant international legal challenges involving a former U.S. president.

Critics argue that the reported operation constitutes a crime of aggression, defined under international law as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty or political independence of another state without lawful justification. Human rights organizations have also raised concerns about possible civilian harm and due process violations, urging the ICC to act swiftly and independently.

Supporters of the U.S. action, however, dispute these claims, asserting that the operation was justified on national security grounds and aimed at restoring stability. They maintain that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over U.S. nationals and warn that an investigation could further strain already tense relations between Washington and international legal bodies.

The unfolding situation has sparked strong reactions across the globe. Several countries have called for restraint and due process, while others have demanded accountability through international courts. The United Nations has urged all parties to respect international law and avoid steps that could further destabilize the region.

As the ICC weighs its next steps, the case underscores growing debates about the limits of military power, the role of international justice, and whether global legal institutions can hold powerful actors accountable. Any decision by the court to proceed would mark a historic moment with far-reaching diplomatic and political consequences.

Pop superstar Taylor Swift became emotional while addressing a tragic shooting in Minneapolis that left 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good dead during an ICE enforcement operation.

Speaking publicly about the incident, Swift described it as “deeply disturbing” and said the details surrounding the woman’s death demanded national attention.

According to Swift, a doctor attempted to rush to Good’s aid after she was shot, but was allegedly confronted by ICE agents who drew their weapons and ordered him to step away, threatening to shoot if he intervened.

Swift emphasized the gravity of the moment, saying a life was lost and a medical professional was prevented from trying to save it.

Swift went on to sharply criticize former President Donald Trump over what she called “reckless and dismissive” comments about the shooting.

She concluded by saying the incident represents a larger moral crisis, adding that the public deserves honesty, accountability, and real answers about what happened that day.