Month: May 2025

Screenshot / Inside Edition

A bronze sculpture honoring Melania Trump has been stolen from a riverside spot near her birthplace in Slovenia, nearly five years after it was installed to replace an earlier version destroyed by fire.

Slovenian law enforcement confirmed to CNN that the statue, located in the village of Rožno, had been reported stolen on Tuesday.

The statue stood near Sevnica, a small town roughly 90 kilometers east of the capital Ljubljana and known as Melania Trump’s hometown.

Police spokesperson Alenka Drenik Rangus issued a statement on Friday confirming that officers had “conducted an inspection of the crime scene and collected information.”

She added that “the investigating judge and the district state prosecutor were informed about the theft.”

A new bronze statue of first lady Melania Trump was unveiled in Slovenia this week, after a wooden version of the memorial was burned in July. pic.twitter.com/fZ3lkNMfhm

— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 20, 2020

Images published in Slovenian media depict the lower legs and feet of the statue still affixed to a tree stump, the rest of the piece having been cleanly severed.

This sculpture had replaced an earlier wooden version, which was torched by leftist vandals in July 2020. The charred remnants of that piece were removed and later featured in exhibitions.

Brad Downey, the artist behind the project, explained  that he had originally planned to produce the bronze cast for display in an institutional setting, but chose instead to install it on-site as a replacement for the origina.

“I had always intended to make a bronze version of the statue to exhibit in an institutional setting,” he said. ”But I decided to use it to replace the wooden sculpture after it was badly burned.”

BREAKING NEWS : Melania Trump Statue Stolen in Slovenia:

A life-size bronze statue of U.S. First Lady Melania Trump has been stolen from her hometown of Sevnica, Slovenia, prompting a police investigation. The statue, located in the village of Rozno, was sawed off at the ankles… pic.twitter.com/5FScRSTx8O

— World In Focus (@worldinfocuss) May 16, 2025

Downey had commissioned the wooden version from Slovenian artist Ales Zupevc, a fellow Sevnica native who, like Melania Trump, was born in the same hospital in the same year.

The wooden piece, with its stylized rendering of the First Lady in the pale blue outfit worn at the 2017 inauguration, received a mixed reaction from residents when first unveiled due its its unusual design.

Sevnica, a quiet town of around 5,000 people, has leaned into its association with Melania, promoting a line of themed goods — including chocolates, cakes, and locally-produced honey — aimed at tourists visiting the area.

Watch the cilp below:

The post Melania Trump Statue Stolen in Slovenia After Vandals Cut It from Base — Police Now Investigating appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Liberal activist and podcaster Ed Krassenstein has claimed that the Secret Service visited his home for posting “8647” in solidarity with disgraced former FBI Director James Comey.

The Secret Service also questioned Comey for his photo of seashells spelling out “8647” on X.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” the hyper-partisan activist wrote.

In response to the outrage over Comey’s post, Krassenstein also posted the number to his X account.

The following day, he was visited by Secret Service agents, who said they were “sent from Washington (DC).”

To all of the Trump supporters who want to pretend this isn’t happening and I’m making this up. Here is the video.

They called me at my gate in my neighborhood. I thought it was a hoax because I figured they would have been able to get into the gate, so I walked over to make… pic.twitter.com/3bsHhRGdTu

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) May 17, 2025

In a Friday post on his website, Krassenstein wrote, “This afternoon the United States Secret Service showed up at my door at the request of the Trump administration.”

Krassenstein claimed that the number, which many took as a call for assassination, is just a “common protest slogan used by Democrats to call for the impeachment or legal removal of Donald Trump, the 47th president. No threats. No violent rhetoric. Just a number. In fact, in the tweet thread I blatantly stated that I never support violence in any way and want him removed from office legally.”

He added:

Let me be crystal clear:
“86” is well-known restaurant slang for removing something.
“47” refers to Trump as the 47th president.
Put together, it means: remove Trump from office—legally, peacefully, and through democratic means like impeachment or the 25th Amendment.

Krassenstein elaborated in a video posted to TikToK.

@krassenstein The Trump administration just sent the Secret Service to my house for tweeting 8647 #breakingnews #trump #democrats ♬ original sound – Brian and Ed Krassenstein

Comey has also denied that his post was a call to violence.

“I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” Comey wrote on Instagram. “It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

During an appearance on Fox News, President Donald Trump said he does not buy Comey’s explanation.

Trump is right.

How can Comey say with a straight face as the former FBI Director that he doesn’t know what 86 47 means?

Arrest James Comey! pic.twitter.com/Iy6IaS4EKT

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) May 16, 2025

“He knew exactly what that meant,” Trump said. “A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant. That meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear.”

In a statement about Comey being questioned, a spokesperson for the Secret Service said the agency takes potential threats very seriously.

“The Secret Service vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees. We are aware of the social media posts by the former FBI director and we take rhetoric like this very seriously. Beyond that, we do not comment on protective intelligence matters,” Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has said she believes Comey should be imprisoned for the post.

Jesse Watters: “Do you believe Comey should be in jail?”

Tulsi Gabbard: “I do…I’m very concerned for the president’s life.”

This is fu*king ridiculous pic.twitter.com/3JRHVn8v2d

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 16, 2025

“Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be, I’m very concerned for the president’s life,” Gabbard said. “We’ve already seen assassination attempts. I’m very concerned for his life and James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

The post Secret Service Visited Home of Liberal Activist and Podcaster Ed Krassenstein for Posting ’86 47′ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fox News host Jesse Watters has said that James Comey was “obviously trying to put a hit out” on President Trump.

The disgraced former FBI director is currently being questioned by the Secret Service after calling for Trump to be killed in a cryptic Instagram post.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” Comey wrote, alongside an image of the shells in the formation of the numbers “86 47.”

BREAKING: James Comey to be Escorted by Secret Service to DC Field Office For Interview Over Trump Assassination Post

During an appearance on The Five on Friday evening, Watters argued that Comey knew what he meant when he wrote “86 47.”

He explained:

I don’t know if he made it or not. He obviously was trying to put a hit out on Trump, got caught, deleted it, and he’s got a book out. Oh, what a coincidence. Any cop, any prosecutor knows the code for homicide. Eight. Six isn’t just a mafia slang, it’s a military slang. 86TO, and a rotary phone.

He was a marine. He obviously knew what he was doing here. And he’s not just any old FBI director, Martha. He tried to frame this guy for treason. Remember, he spied on his campaign He got caught, got fired, leaked, and then ran away from Durham so he wouldn’t have to ask, answer any questions.

He just called Trump a dangerous threat to the country. Who should be punished for the things he says. Now, I don’t know if this guy wants attention for the book. And by the way, the book is about right wing extremists who launch a terror attack in Manhattan.

Or if he wants to be arrested because his life sucks, he’s lost all his respect. No one likes him, and he’s probably dying and goading the administration to put him in handcuffs, because that’s all he really has. Any more going for him.

This man has set the Democrats back again. Everybody with common sense knows what this guy meant.

Watch the clip below:

Trump agrees with Watters assessment.

“He knew exactly what that meant,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier. “A child knows what that meant.”

“If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant?” he continued. “That meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.”

#BREAKING: President Trump just WENT OFF on James Comey after the “8647” threat issued against him.

“He knew EXACTLY what that meant. A CHILD knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant? That meant assass*nation. And it says it loud… pic.twitter.com/qdNiRXZiRu

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 16, 2025

The post Jesse Watters Says James Comey ‘Obviously Trying to Put a Hit Out on Trump’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Part of being a responsible adult is owning up to some of the dumber things you do in the heat of the moment.

Yes, people say and do stupid things all the time, but if they own up to them and learn from them, that prior idiocy can actually be a blessing in disguise.

And if they don’t? Well, it only makes them look bad — but it should still be called out given the rapidly dwindling levels of accountability left in this world in 2025.

Speaking of a total and complete lack of accountability, have you met WNBA and Chicago Sky star Angel Reese?

Reese — who appears to be a spitting image of her mother — has been getting used to reporters in her face again with the WNBA season having started Friday.

Sort of like this, back when she was a rookie for the Sky, just a little less than a year ago:

“I’ll look back in 20 years and be like, the reason why we’re watching women’s basketball is not just because of one person. It’s because of me, too. I want ya’ll to realize that.” – Angel Reese

(via @GNSportsTV) pic.twitter.com/dfn2LiuMrY

— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) June 4, 2024

Reese, who claimed to be unbothered by her “bad guy” role (quick fact check: that was false), started ranting about the state of women’s basketball.

She was trying to make the point that Indiana Fever wunderkind and reigning Rookie of the Year Caitlin Clark was not the sole reason that women’s basketball was enjoying a resurgence after years of apathy and stagnation.

“I’ll look back in 20 years and be like, the reason why we’re watching women’s basketball is not just because of one person,” she said last summer. “It’s because of me, too. I want y’all to realize that.”

Newsflash: Caitlin Clark is the real deal. She’s the center of the WNBA universe, whether anyone likes it or not.

Reese’s notoriety? It’s because she’s viewed as Clark’s greatest basketball rival! Her own status has been dependent on a rivalry that only one side ever really acknowledges.

(And it’s not coming from Clark’s side.)

Given the dubious nature of the claim that Clark’s star wattage is somehow not powering the WNBA, it was only fitting that Reese was asked about those remarks a year later, and she was.

A reporter asked Angel Reese if she wanted to expand on her bold statement from last year — that fans don’t just watch women’s basketball for one player, but they watch because of her too.

Angel’s response? “Next question.”

(via Chicago Sky) pic.twitter.com/xo07XIbeHN

— DraftKings (@DraftKings) May 13, 2025

“Last year you made a powerful statement saying the reason people are watching women’s basketball is not just because of one player, but because of you, too,” the reporter said. “A year later, do you feel like you’re –”

“Next question,” Reese said, cutting off the reporter with an audibly annoyed tone and visible exasperation.

Seriously? That’s all you got? This sort of lack of accountability is infuriating, especially when you consider the fact that there are likely little girls looking up to Reese, who, in complete fairness, is a ferocious rebounder and tenacious basketball player.

Reese, who’s never met a problem she’s at fault for, should answer that question a year after the fact. Does she think the league will continue to surge? Will this new crop of rookies help? Hurt? These are all legitimate and fair questions that the reporter could’ve gotten to before that terse and rude, “Next question.”

Instead, Reese did what all people lacking accountability do: She ran away.

It’s pathetic, and the sort of behavior that usually gets hammered out of most well-adjusted children by junior high school.

Accountability is utterly tantamount for growth. Without it, stupid mistakes will stay just that. Add a dash of accountability, and you’ve now turned your dumb error into a moment of growth and introspection.

Reese, ever the victim, seems utterly allergic to that growth. If anything, given the length of the above two clips, she’s going backwards.

And that’s a shame because — again — for whatever faults she may have, she’s a fine basketball player in the mold of a Dennis Rodman-type and she undoubtedly has scores of little girls looking up to her.

Instead of giving those fans some meaningful evolution to chew on, she’s giving them more venom and vitriol so they, too, can continually play victim and dodge accountability.

It’s shameful that there isn’t a responsible adult in her life to tell her these things.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Allergic to Accountability: Angel Reese Has Pathetic Follow-Up to Her Wild Claims appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire

By Susan Crabtree

The Secret Service may try to force former FBI Director James Comey to answer pointed questions into a social media post he issued depicting an image of “8647,” but a U.S. attorney whom President Trump appointed will determine whether to prosecute Comey over the post.

If Comey refuses to comply with their request for what’s known as a protective intelligence interview, the Secret Service leading the investigation into the Instagram post can apply for a subpoena through an assistant U.S. attorney. It’s that prosecutor who will determine whether the former FBI director is legally required to answer their questions, and the full U.S. attorney in the office ultimately will decide whether to bring charges against him for threatening the president, Secret Service sources tell RealClearPolitics.

As an attorney and former top law enforcement official in the nation, Comey is well aware that he can decline an interview without having an attorney present, so he may refuse to cooperate with Secret Service agents’ questioning until he can hire a lawyer to represent him. On the other hand, Comey could agree to demonstrate how open and transparent he is and immediately cooperate and sit down for an interview.

Top law enforcement and intelligence officials on Thursday said they were investigating Comey’s viral social media post, which many Trump supporters viewed as a threat against the president.

Just hours after Comey, who Trump fired in 2017, took down the post, claiming he was unaware the message has violent connotations, Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem announced that her agency and the Secret Service are investigating “this threat and will respond appropriately.”

FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also weighed in, arguing that the FBI is ready to assist the Secret Service with “all necessary support,” while Gabbard stressed that the administration and the Secret Service are taking the incident “very seriously.”

“There has to be accountability for this,” she told Fox News host Jesse Waters. “The Department of Homeland Security and Sean Curran, the current Secret Service director – a man who has been willing to lay down his life as the lead of President Trump’s Secret Service detail for years now – he takes this seriously and is leading the investigation into this threat.”

The Secret Service, however, declined to disclose its exact activities. Asked if agents had already try to contact Comey or located him or had plans to do so, agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi declined to specify.

“The Secret Service vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees,” he said in an emailed statement. “We are aware of the social media posts by the former FBI director, and we take rhetoric like this very seriously. Beyond that, we do not comment on protective intelligence matters.”

The Secret Service treats social media threats to all presidents as a top priority requiring immediate attention and have likely tried to locate Comey and may try to conduct what’s known as a protective intelligence interview to determine the motivations behind the post and whether anyone else was involved in the decision to release it on Instagram, where Comey first posted it.

Charles Marino, a former Secret Service agent and national security expert, late Thursday predicted that James Comey was “gonna have a very, very, very long night.”

From his experience in the USSS, Marino predicts the Washington field offices for the Secret Service and the FBI have already been activated and either already have or are planning to pay Comey a visit tonight to interview him about the threatening social media post against Trump.

“Look, here’s the deal: They’re sending agents out, and they’re going talk to him, and he’s not going to have a choice,” Marino said. “He’s going to have to talk to them, because this stuff about, well, you know, I found this on the beach. I didn’t know what it meant. None of that makes sense.”

“These threat investigations are immediate,” he said. “There’s no delay in these types of investigations, they are going to seek to speak to him as soon as possible.” Marino also noted Comey can be prosecuted for the threatening social media post under 18 USC 871, which governs threats against presidents.

The Secret Service closes out a high percentage of these investigations into online social media threats after determining that the people are either incapable of formulating an actual attack or don’t have the means to do so, according to two sources in the Secret Service community. But if the Secret Service agents investigating Comey uncover information undermining his explanation that he didn’t know that “86” has a violent connotation or evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, then they can forward their findings and recommendations to the U.S. attorney for prosecution.

Because the probe is focused on a social media post with an impact across jurisdictions throughout the United States, there is more flexibility in determining which U.S. attorney to submit any evidence uncovered. Marino confirmed that Jeanine Pirro, a fiery former Fox News host whom Trump recently appointed to the position of U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., could be in the mix of potential prosecutors determining whether to charge Comey with a crime for issuing the Instagram post.

It would be the case of a lifetime for Pirro, a former New York judge and district attorney who vigorously and regularly defended Trump on Fox News. But critics would no doubt impugn her obvious bias in favor of the Trump administration should she take on the case.

“Comey is going to have some ‘splainin’ to do,” Marino added. “In this current political climate …This case has to be presented to a United States attorney for acceptance of the case or declination.”

Several celebrities have made threatening remarks or posted about wanting to see Trump die on social media, while only one suffered a notable career setback for doing so. Comedian Kathy Griffin faced backlash in 2017 for circulating a photo of herself holding a bloody severed Trump head. CNN fired Griffin from her long-running gig co-hosting the network’s New Year’s Eve special with Anderson Cooper, and two departments within the Justice Department investigated her for a conspiracy to assassinate the president.

Griffin argued the photo was protected speech but later apologized as the harsh criticism continued among even some fellow left-leaning comedians, including Stephen Colbert.

Also in 2017, Madonna, during a surprise appearance at the anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington, said she “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

The Secret Service opened an investigation and tried to interview Madonna, but she referred them to an attorney. Ultimately, the Secret Service did not press for a subpoena, according to one Secret Service source familiar with the case.

Madonna at the time said her comment was a metaphor and was taken out of context. But for average Americans, threats to “blow up” a person’s house or a place of business are usually taken very seriously by police. At the very least, it’s commonplace for police to conduct cursory investigations of these types of comments, whether they are made publicly or privately and reported to police.

Late into Thursday night, James Comey’s name was still trending on X.com as a debate raged over whether his tweet amounted to a threat to President Trump, and if so, how serious it was. Meanwhile, copycat social media influencers released their own “8647” memes and defended them as free speech. Ed Krassenstein, a left-wing anti-Trump social media creator with more than a million followers, posted four billiard balls lined up to form “8647.”

Therein lies the rub that makes Comey’s tweet so dangerous, according to Marino.

“Do I personally think that James Comey has an intention to do harm in a physical manner to the president? No, I don’t,” he said. “Do I think that what he just posted has the ability to incite others? Absolutely.”

Others on social media and cable news Thursday night questioned whether Comey was trying to gin up publicity in advance of the release of his new book, “FDR Drive,” a legal thriller, which will be out May 20.

Watters asked Gabbard whether she thought Comey was trying to “goad” the Trump administration into investigating and prosecuting him to make him a legal martyr so he can regain political relevance.

After two assassination attempts against Trump, it doesn’t matter, Gabbard said.

She pointed out that Comey made a career out of prosecuting mobsters, who regular use the term “86” as code for murder and that the phrase had already been circulating among anti-Trump and anti-Elon Musk protesters as calls to assassinate the 47th president.

“This is a guy issuing a hit on President Trump,” she said.

The post Secret Service Could Force Comey To Answer Questions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Is it possible to broker a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine? There have been doubters and skeptics on this question from the moment the first round of diplomacy occurred a few weeks after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion. The general consensus in Washington’s think tank circuit and Europe’s halls of power is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is simply too thick-headed, greedy, and intransigent to talk to. The only figure of major consequence who thought a settlement could be achieved was Donald Trump—and even his optimism, on the campaign trail and then in office, was predicated less on the ability of the combatants to strike an honorable peace and more on his supposed magical powers of persuasion. 

But even President Trump is getting discouraged these days. Objectively speaking, the Trump administration’s first three months of shuttle diplomacy has been a wash. This hasn’t been for a lack of trying. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, peace envoy Steve Witkoff, and Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg have done an extensive amount of traveling during this time—Witkoff has reportedly met with Putin four times. Meanwhile, Trump has browbeaten Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into participating in the U.S.-mediated process (something Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, refused to do) and the administration has even put a draft peace deal on the table for discussion. Trump has taken a lot of heat for his diplomacy-first approach, particularly from those perfectly comfortable with having Zelensky dictate U.S. policy on the war. 

But for those of us who supported diplomacy from the start, we must admit that the trend line isn’t good. Sure, this week Ukrainian and Russian officials met in Turkey for the first time in more than three years at Trump’s urging. Yes, this in and of itself is an accomplishment of sorts. But getting to this meeting was riddled with so much gamesmanship by the two sides, with Zelensky daring Putin to fly to Turkey and Putin responding by sending two lower-level Russian negotiators instead, that one wonders if either leader is capable of going beyond histrionics. As Rubio said before the May 16 session took place, the odds of success were slim: “I don’t think anything productive is actually going to happen from this point forward, until [Trump and Putin] engage in a very frank and direct conversation, which I know President Trump is willing to do.” 

The meeting, which lasted about one hour and 40 minutes, didn’t produce any bombshells. But it would be a mistake to assume bombshells were in the offing anyway. While a prisoner exchange was agreed to, there wasn’t progress on the real matter at hand: getting to a deal. The Russians reportedly submitted hardline demands to the Ukrainians, including a full withdrawal from the parts of Ukraine Putin annexed in 2022. The topic of a ceasefire was broached, yet not settled.

At this point one wonders if Trump should spend any more of his valuable time on striking a deal to end the war. Withdrawing from Russia-Ukraine diplomacy wouldn’t be a sign of defeatism but rather a reflection of reality. Mediators can do plenty during peace negotiations, like bringing the warring parties into the same room, shuttling proposals back-and-forth, and leaning on one side or the other (or both) to bring an agreement to fruition. This is what Jimmy Carter did during the 1977-1978 Israel-Egypt peace negotiations, what Richard Holbrooke did at Dayton in 1995 to end the war in Bosnia, and what President Bill Clinton tried to do with Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat during the closing months of his presidency.  

But ultimately the talent of the mediator isn’t the most important variable in conflict diplomacy. Rather, the willingness of the parties themselves to break from maximalism and permit the other side a graceful off-ramp is usually the difference between success or failure. Clinton couldn’t get an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal across the finish line because Barak and Arafat were too divided on the big questions, such as what the borders of a future Palestinian state would be, how Jerusalem would be divided up, and how the Israeli settlements would be dealt with. Compromise, the one ingredient required to close, was too high a bar.

The Ukraine-Russia talks aren’t dead in the water like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was (and still is). But evidence for an imminent breakthrough just isn’t there. When the Trump administration finally got Ukraine to support a 30-day ceasefire arrangement in March, the Russians shrugged the proposal off. When the Trump administration convinced Kiev to sign onto a 30-day ceasefire in the Black Sea weeks later, Moscow linked its participation to U.S. and European sanctions relief. And when Putin declared unilateral, short-term ceasefires to mark important dates on the Russian calendar, Zelensky viewed it all as a public relations gambit by the Kremlin to persuade Trump that it was Moscow, not Kiev, who most wanted peace. 

Zelensky and Putin both claim they endorse an end to the three-year-long war. The problem, as always, is that the two leaders aren’t working on the same paradigm—indeed, they are operating in separate universes. Originally, Zelensky demanded an immediate 30-day truce before authorizing direct talks with Putin, only to change his approach after Trump, to the surprise of Kiev’s European allies, called for direct talks right away. That solved one problem but created another: what to actually talk about? The Russians want to get to work on a comprehensive solution; the Ukrainians want to talk about nothing at this point other than getting a ceasefire. 

None of this even accounts for the chasm between what Ukraine wants in a hypothetical settlement and what Russia considers acceptable. Putin, despite suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties over the last 16 months for an area smaller than the size of Delaware, is still harping on his original terms: formalizing his annexation of five Ukrainian regions, curtailing the size and capability of the Ukrainian armed forces, and dictating Kiev’s foreign policy. The Ukrainians remain dead set against any of this, and the loss in men and materiel over the last three years don’t seem to be having an appreciable effect on what they are—and aren’t—willing to live with.

All of which is to say that Trump’s declining optimism is indicative of where the war is at this stage. If progress continues to elude, the White House could hardly be blamed if it threw up its hands, quit the peace process, and consoled itself that no stone was left unturned.

The post Don’t Blame Trump If He Gives Up on Russia-Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

The message to Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk is clear: America is watching.

As Poland’s presidential election approaches—the first round will occur Sunday, the same day as nearby Romania’s second round—the significance is not lost on American public figures, including President Donald Trump.

Barring a shock result, the candidates emerging to the second round will be Warsaw’s Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who is aligned with the liberal, EU-backed government of Tusk; and Karol Nawrocki, a prominent historian aligned with the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, which led conservative governments from 2015 to 2023. 

For conservatives, the short-term prize is the status quo: outgoing term-limited President Andrzej Duda is informally allied with PiS. His presidential veto has been a critical, albeit imperfect, check on a government that has arrested political opponents, disregarded judicial rulings, scrubbed the media ecosystem, and handicapped its opponents’ participation in elections. This is the “Smiling Poland” promoted by the EU bureaucracy, regional talking heads like Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder, and the partially departed Biden foreign-policy apparatus. 

To their chagrin, the Nawrocki campaign is ascendant. Polls suggested a comfortable Trzaskowski advantage for months, but Nawrocki has surged and enters the final weeks as the arguable favorite.

“Tusk’s candidate [Trzaskowski] is far from the image of a nice, calm, confidence-inspiring guy,” journalist Marek Pyza wrote recently in the conservative weekly Sieci. “In recent weeks, he gives the impression of an exhausted, offended narcissist, frustrated that he has any opponents in this race, that anyone dares to ask him any uncomfortable questions.”

Nawrocki’s momentum coincides with a string of visible endorsements. In late April, President Duda backed Nawrocki as his successor. Earlier this month, Nawrocki unexpectedly visited the White House for the National Day of Prayer. He posed for photos with President Trump and met with several key administration officials.

The transatlantic visit “can be viewed as a kind of endorsement,” explained Jarosław Szczepański, a political scientist at the University of Warsaw. “This can be interpreted as support because the U.S. administration, seeing that Nawrocki could be a continuation of Andrzej Duda’s presidency, is supporting him as much as diplomatic protocol allows.”

Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee followed up the visit with a letter to Michael McGrath, EU Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, and Rule of Law, in which they requested “a briefing about how the actions of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government might infringe upon Americans’ right to free speech online and what the EU is doing to respond to the Tusk government’s anti-democratic actions.” 

Neither an unofficial Trump endorsement nor a statement from House Republicans is likely to move the needle with Polish swing voters. These moves are about putting Polish and European officials on notice that the United States will not tolerate anti-democratic liberal overreach in a country as strategically important as Poland.

The coincidence with Romania’s presidential election is symbolic. (In a TAC interview this week, Romanian candidate George Simion asserted, “I’m proud to call Karol Nawrocki—a close ally and the likely successor to President Andrzej Duda—a friend.”)  Since Vice President J.D. Vance’s February speech at the Munich Security Conference, the world has witnessed France ban Marine Le Pen and Germany classify Alternative for Germany as an extremist group, both acts reminiscent of the banana-republic justice served in Romania last year. 

The election outcome is not assured, even in the absence of liberal machinations. Even polls favorable to Nawrocki suggest a close race. Trzaskowski has the full backing of Polish and European institutions and next-door neighbors in Germany, not to mention the Polish urban managerial class, for whom the opposition conservatives are anathema. Then, irrespective of polling, there are simply too many variables of voter behavior in the second round.

In a rapidly gentrifying Poland, the margins are getting tighter for conservative electoral coalitions. As usual, supporters of the agrarian Polish People’s Party (PSL) are enjoying considerable attention. Due to animosity toward PiS, it is part of the ruling government, but its socially conservative views often cause it to bicker with coalition partners. Nawrocki cannot afford to shed voters in the agrarian strongholds where PSL is influential. 

Supporters of the centrist Szymon Hołownia, an influential figure in the current government who has run a disappointing presidential race, might decide in sufficient numbers that they are exhausted of the Tusk-Trzaskowski camp. Some supporters of the smattering of left-wing candidates could decide Trzaskowski is a bigger threat than the conservative; likewise, voters of two right-populist candidates might elect not to side with their more mainstream conservative rival. Of course, a critical mass of voters might simply stay home.

Perhaps analysis of these traditional electoral factors is quaint in this European political environment. Arguably the most important question is whether Prime Minister Tusk and his allies in Brussels would allow Nawrocki to win—and then take office.

“You will win,” President Trump reportedly told Nawrocki during their DC meeting. More revealing was Tusk’s alleged response to the question of what he’ll do if Trzaskowski loses: “I’ll manage.”

Maybe these are the musings of experienced politicians with access to high-quality information. Nonetheless, predictable wheels are turning. On Wednesday, Polish data-network operator NASK announced suspicious Facebook ads potentially funded from abroad. Warsaw and Brussels must soon determine how many more lines they are willing to cross.

The post Eurocrats Watch Poland With Bated Breath appeared first on The American Conservative.

Predictions to the contrary, Ukraine and Russia’s first direct talks in three years, held in Istanbul on May 16, went quite well. Most importantly, the two sides agreed to keep talking. 

For the Trump administration, which has made ending the war in Ukraine a priority, this initial round of negotiations marks the exact sort of breakthrough it had hoped to create. Washington’s priority now should be to encourage continued talks between the combatants, even as fighting persists. This will require pushing back on Europe’s calls for more pressure on Putin and resisting the temptation to interfere before the two sides are ready to tackle issues that cannot be addressed without American involvement. After all, the most sustainable peace will be one agreed to by Ukraine and Russia together, not one coerced by the United States or Europe. 

Despite naysayers on both sides of the Atlantic and the uncertainty up to the last minute, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators not only met, but achieved notable results. According to statements made by the heads of the Ukrainian and Russian delegations, the two teams agreed to at least three next steps: to conduct the largest single POW exchange to date (1,000 personnel on each side); to produce a written version of their vision for peace for discussion at a future session; and to hold initial discussions about a meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.

The positive report from the Russian and Ukrainian delegations, as well as their Turkish hosts, contrasted sharply with the negative reactions of Zelensky himself and key European leaders, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This group, assembled for a meeting in Albania, called the Russian refusal to accept an unconditional ceasefire “unacceptable,” and urged Trump, once again, to join them in imposing greater costs on Russia. Tusk even argued the Russians had “de facto broken off negotiations” and now was the “time to increase the pressure.”

The European assessment is as unsurprising as it is inconsistent with the facts on the ground. Since Trump’s election, European leaders have sought to convince him that Putin would never seek a stable settlement in Ukraine. As Trump and his team sought ways to resolve the brutal war, Europe has interfered with and even undermined U.S. efforts. Europe’s leaders have, for instance, encouraged Zelensky to set maximalist conditions for peace, adopted new sanctions packages aimed at Russia, floated plans for “reassurance forces” that would require an American backstop the Trump administration opposes, and offered unsubstantiated warnings of Russia’s plans to invade NATO territory. The European reaction to talks in Istanbul was simply more of the same—an attempt to extend the war, reconstitute Biden’s “coalition of democracies,” and pull the United States deeper into a conflict that does not advance its interests.

If Trump is serious about peace, he won’t listen. Trump should rule out new ultimatums and coercive measures targeting Russia of the kind pushed by Europe. These sticks are unlikely to work against Putin. As Russian negotiators indicated in Istanbul, Moscow is ready to keep fighting for several more years if necessary and believes that it can withstand additional Western punishment whether in the form of sanctions or whatever additional military aid might be sent to Ukraine.

Instead, Trump should encourage Ukraine and Russia to keep talking. The administration can support continued negotiations by framing today’s meeting in Istanbul as a constructive first step and signaling its support for further working level discussions. A Putin-Trump meeting—a prospect floated by President Trump himself—could help signal American support for the Ukraine–Russia negotiations and indicate that the United States sees Russia as an essential interlocutor in any effort to resolve the conflict. But a potential presidential meeting should not be billed as an all-or-nothing occasion to determine Putin’s willingness to end the war in Ukraine. There is no simple test, or single headline, that can settle this question. Continued conversation between the combatants—and away from the spotlight—will be far more revealing of each side’s motivations.

Ending the war between Russia and Ukraine will take time and require many rounds of talks. At this point, process is more important than high profile summits or dramatic dealmaking. It may take longer than he originally hoped, but with a little more patience, Trump’s goal of peace in Ukraine looks increasingly achievable. 

The post The Istanbul Talks Were a Success appeared first on The American Conservative.

Local leaders in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s district just shut down a brothel – a place of illicit prostitution – that was near two elementary schools, and of course, they did so with no help from the congresswoman.

Just a few days ago, it was reported that people in AOC’s district are complaining that she does nothing to help them. This story seems to confirm such claims.

When does AOC ever do anything for her constituents? She certainly seems to have the time to fly around the country, first class with Bernie Sanders, fighting the so-called oligarchy.

FOX News reports:

‘Bodega brothel’ near schools in AOC’s red-light district shut down without her help, local leaders say

A well-known local brothel near two schools in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s red-light district has been shut down by the NYPD after months of advocacy by local leaders who say the progressive lawmaker did nothing to help them close it.

Nicknamed the “bodega brothel” by locals, the establishment was operating on the second floor of a local bodega just off the Roosevelt Avenue strip in Queens, where prostitutes are known for openly soliciting sex on sidewalks, local Democratic district leader Hiram Monserrate told Fox News Digital.

Video from inside the brothel reveals five cramped, makeshift rooms divided by wooden panels and shower curtains, each just large enough to hold a bed.

The bodega is located across the street from two public schools, and students have been forced to walk past the sex workers outside the brothel on their way to and from class for months. An hour before Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall earlier this month, Fox News Digital observed children walking by with their parents as three women stood outside.

AOC did nothing to stop this but you can bet that she will continue to claim that she and her party care about women and children.

The people of her district need to vote her out of office and send her packing. She’s useless.

The post Local Leaders in AOC’s Crumbling District Shut Down a BROTHEL Near Two Elementary Schools With No Help From Her appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The journalist Mark Halperin is one of the few people working in media who was honest with the public about Biden’s condition, and was probably the first person to claim Biden was going to drop out of the 2024 race after his disastrous debate performance.

During a recent video report, he went after CNN and singled out ‘media reporter’ Brian Stelter for his dishonesty and hypocrisy in covering the scandal.

Stelter deserves this roasting and so does Jake Tapper, who is also mentioned. If you’re not a fan of CNN, you’re going to want to watch this.

RedState reports:

It was Stelter choosing to fangirl over the book rather than acknowledge the media’s politically-motivated, grotesque dereliction in coverage of concerns about Biden’s health that was just too much for independent journalist Mark Halperin to tolerate.

In commentary from his most recent podcast, Halperin went off, calling Stelter’s actions part of a pattern of “journalistic corruption” in the press:

And then you’ve got at CNN, this guy Brian Stelter, who’s their media reporter, who’s an ally of Jake Tapper, to protect Tapper’s image, to enhance Tapper’s image. He’s got a media newsletter. He’s supposed to cover the media. Guy doesn’t write about the biggest failure in the history of American media. Instead, he writes about how great Tapper’s book is.

And today in his newsletter – guy’s a fan of irony – he writes about how it was so important for Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson to have the truth in their book, the full truth, that they hired the head of The New Yorker’s fact-checking department to fact-check their book.

Okay, again, the job of a media reporter, I would think, is not to protect and promote his colleague. And this is no innocent here, Brian Stelter. In addition to promoting and protecting Jake Tapper, Brian Stelter has been, over the course of the entire Biden presidency, one of the biggest critics of those on the right and those few people like me in the independent media who have tried to hold Joe Biden accountable.

Here’s the video:

.@MarkHalperin: “You’ve got at CNN this guy Brian Stelter, who’s their media reporter, who’s an ally of Jake Tapper, to protect Jake Tapper’s image… It’s nothing short of journalistic corruption, and it’s missing the moment…”

Watch and download:https://t.co/r9TLzXCunB pic.twitter.com/zbA1XzouyK

— Next Up with Mark Halperin (@NextUpHalperin) May 15, 2025

CNN, Jake Tapper, and Brian Stelter, among others, should never be allowed to live this down.

The post Independent Journalist Mark Halperin Mercilessly Slams CNN and Brian Stelter Over Biden Decline Hypocrisy (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.