Friday, August 1, 2025

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

READ: Biden Indulged in 10 Minute Rant About Country Clubs and Burnt Penises During Special Counsel Testimony.

President Joe Biden delivered a long and rambling response when pressed by Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur regarding document retention during the final days of the Obama government. The 81-year-old Biden, ignoring Hur’s question, went on a nearly 10-minute rant discussing country clubs, interview practices of almost 60 years ago, and how a man he knew lost his genitals in a fire.

Hur asked Biden: “So now let’s talk about the Naval Observatory. So you’ve been living there for eight years. So at the end of your vice presidency, what kinds of papers or documents or files were at the Naval Observatory as you were preparing to leave and move out?”

The President began to respond substantively but quickly spiraled into a bizarre and unhinged tangent comparable to the iconic Simpsons scene where Homer Simpson’s father indulges himself in a winding story that ends up nowhere.

Read it for yourself:

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, if you’re talking about anything that was a substantive matter, classified or otherwise — you know, the fight in the Judiciary Committee over whether or not — I was the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. It was — really meant a lot to me. And so they might find stuff on the Violence Against Women Act in one section of a drawer or in the shelves of the library or of the Naval Observatory.

Or issues, you know, relating to — I know it’s gonna sound strange to you guys, but agriculture is a $4 billion industry, agriculture is a $4 billion industry in Delaware and the Delmarva peninsula, and so — or, you know, I’d have a lot of political things that — I, I don’t know where they were, but I know I had material that — where I, you know — like, there’s a whole, whole bunch of stuff around about how -~ what made me run for President in the first place, and about how things were — you know, I mean, for example, I, I was a — I got a job with a — I didn’t take law school very seriously, but I won the International Tort Competition. I was in — matter of fact, the first time in tort class, we had a really difficult professor. I mean, very well-known, Professor at Syracuse, and he called on me to — you know how they do in law school, discuss a case, you know, in your first torts class. And I had never read the case, and I stood up and I spoke for 10 minutes. The whole class stood up, started clapping.

The transcript notes there was laughter among those in the interview at this point.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And he said, Mr. Biden, you’ll be a hell of a trial lawyer. He said, not a single thing you — had to do with that.

Again, the transcript denotes laughter.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And — but at any rate, so — but in law school, I got in law school, and I got, believe it or not, a job offer from some prestigious law firms. I was not sure where I wanted to go, out west and where — I wanted to move to Idaho, I thought, and so I was going to go out and interview with Boise Cascade. That’s all I’d really — and — but I took a job with the best-known trial firm in Delaware in mostly civil defense issues. And, and so — and I remember a guy named [REDACTED] (phonetic), a brilliant guy that went to Amherst and Harvard and said — when he was interviewing me said, in those days, you had to — today you would be killed. You had to put your photograph in the upper right-hand corner when you’re applying for a job. And he looked at me and said, I assume you’re expecting to be hired on your looks.

Once again, the transcript denotes laughter.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And I said — and I thought the job was over, and I said, I said, well, it would improve the look of your firm.

Those present respond with laughter again, according to the transcript.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: I mean, I was just — So anyway, to make a long story short, they ended up offering me a job. And in Delaware, it has -~- used to have the lowest pass rate in the country because we’re not big on encouraging lawyers to come and play in Delaware. It’s a very tight bar. And, and so what happened was you take the bar, you graduate, and you have to clerk for somebody for six months. (Indiscernible 0:11:51.6). And they don’t give the bar exam until the middle of September. You don’t get your results to your — for the bar exam until January. And, and so — I — but I got hired in the meantime by this firm appropriately named Prickett, Ward, Burt Sanders. And, and to make a long story not quite so long, I was sitting second chair with the, with the, with the guy who ran the firm, Prickett, Mr. Prickett, and there was a young man who we were representing, [REDACTED] (phonetic) getting — and (indiscernible 0:12:34.3) construction company, you know, I had to turn those — we have more oil refineries than any place other than in Houston in Delaware and Pennsylvania, (indiscernible 0:12:43.6) up in that area.

And this poor kid is down a hundred-foot vessel, chimney, scraping the hydrogen bubbles off of the inside. They were made to shut the plant down once every — whatever, about eight months or six months or a year, whatever it is. And he was wearing the wrong pants, wrong jeans, and he -~- a spark caught fire and got caught in the containment vessel and he lost part of his penis and one of his testicles and he was 23 years old.

And I sat through the -~ his presentation with the, with the senior, and we had in Delaware, which is – the Dupont family had no influence of course – contributory negligence. If you were slightly contributory negligence, you were out.

And so the senior partner turned to me and said, write a memo for tomorrow, we’re going to make a motion to dismiss after presenting this case. So I did. I wrote this memo. And son of a bitch, it prevailed. And I looked over at that kid and his wife home with two little kids, and I thought son of a bitch, I’m in the wrong business, I’m not made for this.

It is at this point that Biden transitions to discussing the admission practices of private country clubs in Delaware, before explaining his decision to become a public defender.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And I — there was a famous club called the Wilmington Club — no blacks, Catholics are allowed — have been allowed to be members. The DuPont family name. And we went to a place called the Wilmington Club, and he thought he was doing — he said, take the lunch at Wilmington. I said — the only time I ever lied that I can remember looking somebody in the eye, and I mean sincerely, I said, oh, my dad’s coming in today, I was going to see -~ okay. He didn’t give a damn where I went. I walked across and walked through to the second — the basement on a public building and walked in with a guy named Frank and I said I want a job as a public defender. He said, don’t you work for Prickett. He said, he said, are you okay, like what the hell’s the matter with you. I quit and became a public defender.

The process of that was that’s what got me — I had been involved in the civil rights movement. That got me deeply involved in trying to reform the Democratic Party, which was a southern Democratic Party. We were a slave state by law. We were one of the border states so we couldn’t figure — anyway, but the Democratic Party was a conservative party in Delaware. The DuPont family ran the Republican Party, but they were like Rockefeller Republicans at the time. And so I got involved with a group of people trying to reform the Democratic Party.

At this point Biden informed Hur his story was meant to illustrate the amount of materials he has kept over the years.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And the whole point of telling you all this is I had a lot of material that I kept notes on and, and when that — where as I was taking on the Democratic Party. And they came to me and asked me to — this group, this new Democratic coalition — I had, in the meantime, it’s two years down the road, I was 26 years old, 27. And I went to work part time for a criminal defense firm mainly, a real estate — there were five people. And so I was no longer a public defender because I couldn’t be a public defender and work for that firm.

President Biden’s moment of clarity does not last however, and he again plunges into a lengthy rant — several times to “make a long story short.”

PRESIDENT BIDEN: And one thing led to another and I joined this group to try to reform the party. And they came to me about and I was making the case we’ve just got to get more candidates to run, to — we’re not, we’re not represented. And the southern part of the state of Delaware will talk at you like this, for real, you go down — you think I’m joking, I’m not joking. “Damn, boy, I don’t agree with a damn thing you say,” but he said, “I know where you stand, know where you stand.” That’s how they talk. And it was solidly democrat, southern democrat. We were the only state in the nation occupied by the military for 10 months with drawn bayonets at every corner when Dr. King was assassinated, and that’s really what got me going. Long story, and I’ll end, because it relates to maybe some of the other things you may ask about, is that I had a lot of material that I did recent. When you’re the youngest guy in the room, you get to turn the lights on and off. And so I, I amassed a lot of material making the case why the party had to change and, and they — and it ended up that about 10 months in, the group from the area where I lived came to me and said they wanted me to run for the state senate. I said, no, no, no, I can’t do that. I just — I’m thinking of starting my own law firm and it’s going to — no, I can’t do that. And because they meet in Dover and dah, dah, dah.

And then next thing that happened was I came back about three weeks later. They said we want — to the office I was in at the time. I had now started my own office. And I didn’t realize no one my age ever started his own law firm. I hired two lawyers. I had no freaking money. But I hired them and paid them more than I was going to make, and I started this firm. And there — I remember standing looking out over the public and they said how about running for the county council. I said, no, no, I can’t go down. He said, they meet right across the street there only twice a week at night. You can do this. So to make a long story short, I ended up doing it. But I wanted to be sure that I was going to lose because — so I ran ina district that no one’s ever won, a Democrat had never won.

And I won it.

And next thing you know, I’m in a tough position.

My generic point was there was a lot of material that I had amassed that I wanted to save. I probably still have it somewhere. And so that stuff would travel wherever the hell

I was —

Hur, at this point, finally interrupts Biden. The special counsel steered the conversation back to the relevant question of document retention.

“Do you recall having these types of things with you at the Naval Observatory and this was part of the stuff you were trying to move out?” Hur asked the President.

“No. I had most of it at my house in that office,” Biden finally answered.

By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
More From The Pulse

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

West Point Delayed Correcting False Statement on Hegseth Admission.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: E-mails released via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit reveal West Point confirmed Pete Hegseth’s acceptance into the academy in 1999 but delayed correcting a false statement to the media that he never applied.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: West Point, Pete Hegseth, ProPublica, and the Center to Advance Security in America.

📍WHEN & WHERE: December 10-11, 2024, at West Point and online.

💬KEY QUOTE: “It is clear that while West Point quickly provided false information on the record that they were reluctant to correct the record, allowed false information to mislead the American public in the midst of the contentious confirmation hearing, and even falsely accused Secretary Hegseth of creating an illegitimate letter.” – Center to Advance Security in America

🎯IMPACT: The incident raises concerns about political partisanship at the military academy during Hegseth’s nomination as Defense Secretary.

IN FULL

Newly disclosed e-mails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by the Center to Advance Security in America, have brought to light that West Point confirmed Pete Hegseth‘s acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy in 1999 on December 10, 2024. Despite this, the academy hesitated to correct an initial false statement provided to ProPublica earlier on December 10, asserting that he had never even applied. Hegseth himself shared his acceptance letter publicly on X (formerly Twitter) the very next day.

“It is clear that while West Point quickly provided false information on the record that they were reluctant to correct the record, allowed false information to mislead the American public in the midst of the contentious confirmation hearing, and even falsely accused Secretary Hegseth of creating an illegitimate letter,” the Center to Advance Security in America said in a statement.

The situation unfolded after ProPublica questioned Hegseth’s admission claims on December 6, 2024. On December 10, West Point’s media relations chief, Theresa Brinkerhoff, mistakenly asserted that Hegseth had never applied. ProPublica approached Hegseth’s team, who insisted he had applied and been accepted, causing ProPublica to return to West Point for confirmation. Although internal confirmation of his acceptance was achieved at West Point later that day, officials refrained from updating the media, with one official whose identity has been redacted advising against confirming or denying the information with any media outlet.

This reluctance resulted in Hegseth preemptively posting his acceptance letter on December 11. West Point communications director Terence Kelley acknowledged the misstep off-the-record but delayed providing an official correction until 10:46 AM on December 11, several hours after Hegseth’s public post and nearly a day after the internal confirmation.

The academy later issued an apology, attributing the error to an “administrative error” and a failure to review archived databases. However, it is now clear that a deliberate decision was made not to correct the false information supplied to ProPublica until after Hegseth went public.

The incident garnered attention in light of Hegseth’s nomination as Defense Secretary by President Donald J. Trump, with West Point’s actions suggesting political partisanship at the military academy.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Trump Migration Crackdown Slashes Migrants Crossing Darien Gap to Near Zero.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Panama’s Darien Gap, a dangerous but once-busy route for migrants heading to the U.S., is now nearly deserted due to President Donald J. Trump’s immigration crackdown.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino, and U.S. border officials.

📍WHEN & WHERE: June 2025, Darien Gap, Panama.

💬KEY QUOTE: “In Panama’s Darien Gap, migrants are turning BACK before they even reach our border—only 10 migrants crossed in June,” said Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

🎯IMPACT: Migrant crossings in the Darien Gap have dropped to nearly zero, reflecting the effectiveness of the Trump administration’s border policies.

IN FULL

Once a major corridor for U.S.-bound migration, Panama’s treacherous Darién Gap has seen a dramatic decline in crossings. According to Panama’s migration authorities, only 10 individuals crossed the dense jungle in June 2025, marking a near-total collapse in traffic along what became a heavily used migrant route under former President Joe Biden.

The sudden drop follows the return of President Donald J. Trump’s hardline immigration policies, which include greatly strengthened border enforcement and efforts to orchestrate mass deportations. These measures stand in sharp contrast to conditions under the former Biden regime, when crossings through the region, once deemed impassable, surged.

In February 2024 alone, 37,166 migrants passed through the Darién Gap, and in 2022, the weekly average reached approximately 16,400. In 2023, over 530,000 migrants traversed the route, usually aided by organized smuggling networks.

Highlighting the change, U.S. Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin noted, In Panama’s Darien Gap, migrants are turning BACK before they even reach our border—only 10 migrants crossed in June. The world is hearing our message that America’s borders are closed to lawbreakers.”

This view is supported by figures from the U.S. southern border, where apprehensions of illegal migrants have sharply declined. Border Patrol agents reported only about 6,000 arrests in June, none of whom were released into the country. This is a steep drop compared to previous years: 83,000 in June 2024, 99,000 in June 2023, and 192,000 in June 2022, per U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

NYC’s Mamdani Bragged About Channeling Public Funds to Illegals.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A resurfaced interview revealed the Democrats’ candidate for New York City mayor, Uganda-born Zohran Mamdani, touting taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits for illegal immigrants as one of his “greatest victories.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, New Yorkers, and illegal immigrants.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The comments were made in a June 2021 interview with SAAG Interactive in Mamdani’s capacity as an assemblyman.

💬KEY QUOTE: “What this fund would do is provide some modicum of relief [to illegals]. And this fund was won in many ways because of the pressure brought by [illegals] that the state doesn’t even recognize, the state does not even see,” Mamdani said.

🎯IMPACT: Mamdani’s pro-illegal immigrant stance has drawn criticism from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and highlights his broader platform of supporting illegal immigrants, including expanding sanctuary city policies.

IN FULL

Democratic candidate for New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani described securing taxpayer funding for unemployment benefits for illegal immigrants as one of his “greatest victories” during a 2021 interview with SAAG Interactive. The fund, known as the Excluded Workers Fund, was created for illegal alien workers who were ineligible for federal and state unemployment benefits.

“When I think of the greatest victories in Albany this year, I think the excluded workers fund,” the Uganda-born assemblyman said. He continued, “And what this fund would do is provide some modicum of relief. And this fund was won in many ways because of the pressure brought by those that the state doesn’t even recognize, the state does not even see.”

“Without the pressure from those individuals, members of the state would never have taken this action because nothing happens because of benevolence, it happens because of pressure,” he added.

Mamdani’s campaign website outlines his commitment to expanding protections for illegal immigrants in New York City. The avowed socialist and Muslim extremist‘s platform includes measures to strengthen the city’s sanctuary policies, eliminate cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and increase legal support for undocumented residents.

Meanwhile, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons has criticized Mamdani for his silence following the recent shooting of a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer in New York City. “His silence in the face of this brutal attack speaks volumes about where his priorities lie, and it’s not with public safety and the American people,” Lyons said of Mamdani, who only became a U.S. citizen in 2018.

Mamdani has also faced scrutiny for his support of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which he discussed in the same 2021 interview. Other past comments include anti-NYPD posts accusing police of controlling minorities and the poor, and calls for the defunding of the NYPD and the abolition of prisons.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Ukrainian Lawmakers Brawl in Parliament as Zelensky Reverses Crackdown on Anti-Corruption Agencies.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Ukrainian lawmakers passed a bill reinstating the independence of anti-corruption agencies after protests. Two politicians fought in the chamber during the session.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, European Union (EU) officials, and members of Ukraine’s parliament.

📍WHEN & WHERE: July 31, 2025, during a parliamentary session in Kiev, Ukraine.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This guarantees the normal, independent work of anti-corruption bodies and all law enforcement agencies in our country. It is the right decision.” – Volodymyr Zelensky

🎯IMPACT: The decision restores Ukraine’s anti-corruption safeguards, addresses public outcry, and aligns with EU governance rules.

IN FULL

Ukraine’s parliament voted on July 31 to reestablish the autonomy of its two key anti-corruption bodies, responding to widespread domestic and international criticism over a recent law placing them under the government’s control. The measure passed unanimously, with 331 lawmakers voting in favor, marking a significant political reversal for President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The parliamentary session was notable for being the first to be broadcast live since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and it reflected the gravity of the situation. Tensions ran high inside the chamber, culminating in a punch-up between two politicians. The cause of the scuffle remains uncertain.

President Zelensky addressed the nation following the vote, acknowledging the strong reaction, including protests in several cities, that the prior law had triggered. “It is very important that the state listens to public opinion,” he said. He emphasized that the new law secures the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), which was gutted by previous legislation.

The controversy began when Zelensky signed a law that transferred oversight of the anti-corruption bodies to the office of the prosecutor general, who is under Zelensky’s control. Critics, including European Union (EU) officials and human rights groups, saw this as a significant rollback of anti-corruption reforms. The backlash was swift: thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in Kiev, protesting despite ongoing martial law, and efforts by Zelensky to claim the anti-corruption bodies had been infiltrated by Russia.

The independence of NABU and SAPO has long been regarded as critical to Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership and continued access to Western financial support. Both agencies have played pivotal roles in investigating high-level corruption, including cases involving senior government officials.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Bud Light Parent Company’s Shares Plunge Again.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Shares of AB InBev dropped as much as 11 percent after reporting a larger-than-expected decline in second-quarter volumes, despite increases in revenue and profits.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: AB InBev, the world’s largest brewer, and its CEO, Michel Doukeris.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The stock drop occurred on Thursday, with shares last seen down 9.1 percent by 10:27 AM. London time. The performance reflects global markets, including China, Brazil, and the U.S.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The results pointed to the resilience of the beer category and the continued momentum of the company’s megabrands.” – Michel Doukeris

🎯IMPACT: The decline in volumes, particularly in China and Brazil, overshadowed profit growth and raised concerns about the company’s performance in key markets.

IN FULL

Shares of AB InBev, the world’s largest brewer, dropped as much as 11 percent on Thursday after the company reported a steeper-than-expected 1.9 percent decline in second-quarter volumes. Analysts had predicted a smaller 0.3 percent dip. Despite this, quarterly revenues rose three percent on an organic basis to $15 billion, and operating profit jumped 6.5 percent year-on-year, exceeding expectations. However, the American-Belgian multinational could face tariff impacts due to its European footprint and partial Brazilian ownership.

The decline in volumes was primarily driven by underperformance in China, where volumes fell 7.4 percent, and Brazil, which saw a 6.5 percent drop due to adverse weather and high comparisons. AB InBev noted it was “underperforming the industry” in China, a critical market. Shares later pared losses but remained down 9.1 percent by mid-morning in London.

CEO Michel Doukeris emphasized the resilience of the beer market and the strength of AB InBev’s “megabrands,” which include Budweiser, Stella Artois, and Corona. Analysts, however, expressed concerns over the significant volume declines in China and Brazil, as well as weaker-than-expected performance in other regions such as the Middle Americas and EMEA.

The beer industry is also grappling with broader challenges, including 50 percent tariffs on aluminum, which are expected to increase the cost of beer cans produced in the U.S. AB InBev previously stated that 98 percent of its cans are manufactured domestically. Meanwhile, wine and spirits producers are lobbying for tariff relief under ongoing EU-U.S. trade negotiations.

AB InBev previously saw significant losses for almost a year after a Bud Light marketing campaign featuring the transgender social media personality Dylan Mulvaney sparked a boycott in April 2023.

Image by Like_the_Grand_Canyon.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Zelensky Demands Regime Change in Russia.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is urging the international community to pursue regime change in Moscow, arguing that Russia’s leadership will continue to destabilize neighboring countries even after the war in Ukraine ends.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Andrii Sybiha.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Ukraine and Russia, July 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “If the world doesn’t aim to change the regime in Russia, that means, even after the war ends, Moscow will still try to destabilize neighbouring countries.” – Volodymyr Zelensky

🎯IMPACT: Zelensky’s stance suggests he is disinterested in making a compromise peace with Russia’s leadership, meaning the war will likely continue dragging on for the foreseeable future.

IN FULL

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Russia will continue to threaten neighboring countries unless the world works to “change the regime” in Moscow. The Ukrainian leader warned on Thursday that Russia’s leadership rejects the “post-World War Two” order and called for the threat to be removed permanently.

“Russia keeps launching such attacks, even when the whole world is calling on it to stop the war,” Zelensky said following overnight airstrikes by Russia. He added that the Kremlin persists with the war because it cannot recognize its “natural borders’’ and sees them as “wherever it wants them to be.”

“They are mentally stuck in another century, a time of brutal violence, depredations, a total disregard for human rights and equality. We all know that such ideas and such times must never return to Europe, and we all know how to protect ourselves from that, how to protect Europe from what Russia is bringing,” Zelensky said.

“If the world doesn’t aim to change the regime in Russia, that means, even after the war ends, Moscow will still try to destabilise neighbouring countries,” he added.

His comments suggest he is not poised to strike a compromise peace deal with Russia, meaning that the war—which Ukraine is currently losing—is less likely to be brought to a close in the near future.

Image via the Presidential Office of Ukraine.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Declassified Durham Report Annex Exposes FBI Role in Prolonging Trump-Russia Hoax.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A newly declassified annex from special counsel John Durham’s report on the Trump-Russia hoax reveals the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) dismissed intelligence suggesting Hillary Clinton’s campaign fueled the allegations.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The FBI, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Durham, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe, and other high-ranking officials from the Obama administration.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Trump-Russia hoax emerged during the 2016 election cycle, with subsequent revelations relating to it being disclosed up to the present day.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain.” – Sen. Grassley

🎯IMPACT: The revelations raise further questions about the FBI’s handling of politically charged intelligence, with implications for public trust in federal agencies.

IN FULL

A declassified annex to John Durham’s report has revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) dismissed intelligence suggesting that allegations of collusion between President Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia may have been fueled by Hillary Clinton’s campaign or Russian disinformation. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released the annex, which remains partially redacted, after years of calls for transparency.

The document highlights how the FBI was informed of intelligence indicating that some of the information it received about Trump’s campaign might have been linked to Clinton’s campaign or was a product of Russian disinformation. Despite this, the FBI reportedly dismissed the intelligence as “not credible” without taking investigative steps to verify or refute the claims. Durham’s report criticized the FBI’s handling of this information.

Sen. Grassley, a leading figure in investigating Russiagate, stated, “Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain.” Grassley emphasized the damage caused by what he described as one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history.

The annex also notes that top officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan, briefed former President Barack Obama, former President Joe Biden, and other high-ranking officials about intelligence concerning a “purported Clinton campaign plan” to link Trump to Russia. The fraudulent Steele Dossier, funded by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, was cited as a key element in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which Durham found was mishandled.

During an interview, former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe stated, “What hasn’t come out yet and what’s going to come out is the underlying intelligence… part of this was a Hillary Clinton plan, but part of it was an FBI plan to be an accelerant to that fake Steele dossier.” Ratcliffe added that the declassified annex underscores inconsistencies in testimony from figures like Clinton, Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey.

Image by Paul Morigi Photography.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

D.C. Bar Association Continues Its Anti-Trump Lawfare, Recommends Jeff Clark Be Disbarred.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Acting Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Director Jeff Clark has been recommended for disbarment in a politically motivated case brought before the District of Columbia Bar. The complaint against Clark dates back to the 2020 election when he drafted an unpublished letter outlining legal paths for certain lawmakers to challenge the election results.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Jeff Clark, the D.C. Bar, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the former Biden government.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Bar Association determination was issued Thursday, 31, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “A majority of the Board recommends that Respondent be disbarred. We recognize that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases.” — The D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility

🎯IMPACT: Unless the District of Columbia Court of Appeals intervenes, Clark will face the suspension of his ability to practice law within 30 days as his case continues to proceed.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump‘s Acting Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) director, Jeff Clark, has been recommended for disbarment in a politically motivated case brought before the District of Columbia Bar. The complaint against Clark dates back to the 2020 election when he drafted an unpublished letter outlining legal paths for certain lawmakers to challenge the election results. At the time, Clark was serving at the Department of Justice (DOJ) as Assistant Attorney General.

“A majority of the Board recommends that Respondent be disbarred. We recognize that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases. But that is not surprising given the underlying facts. In making this recommendation, we are mindful of the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and deter the respondent and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct,” the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility wrote in their recommendation, issued on Thursday.

“Lawyers must observe the highest standard of professional conduct. At a minimum, they must be honest. While dishonesty is always intolerable, the facts here are significantly aggravating to warrant disbarment: Respondent was prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie about the status of its investigation of an important national issue (the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election),” it continues.

“Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements, and they certainly cannot urge others to do so. Respondent persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated,” the D.C. Bar recommendation concludes.

Critics soundly argue that the recommendation is a clear and disturbing attempt to punish an attorney for simply stating their legal opinion, a point that was repeatedly brought up and acknowledged by the board during a hearing last year. Even more troubling, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—under the former Biden government—never provided a reason for their raid on Clark’s home, an incident some contend was thinly veiled political harassment.

Unless the District of Columbia Court of Appeals intervenes, Clark will face the suspension of his ability to practice law within 30 days as his case proceeds. Notably, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who lied on a FISA warrant targeting the Trump campaign, only received a sentence of 12 months’ probation and 400 hours of community service, along with only losing his law license for one year. Clinesmith is currently an “active member” in “good standing” with the Bar.

Curiously, it was controversial U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg who issued the unusually light punishment to Clinesmith.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Researchers Create New Hybrid Bird Flu for Vaccine.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Researchers in Japan have engineered a new strain of bird flu, combining genetic material from two wild viruses to create a pathogen known as Vac-3.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Japanese scientists, U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)- funded researchers, and U.S. institutions such as the University of Georgia, Mount Sinai, and Texas Biomed.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The study was published last week in NPJ Vaccines, involving experiments conducted in Japan.

🎯IMPACT: The research raises biosecurity concerns over gain-of-function experiments and the potential for man-made pandemics.

IN FULL

A recent study published in NPJ Vaccines reveals that Japanese scientists have engineered a novel strain of bird flu by combining the genetic components of two different wild influenza viruses. The synthetic virus, designated Vac-3, was created in the lab, propagated in chicken eggs, and inactivated with formalin for use as a whole-particle vaccine in long-term tests involving nonhuman primates. This strain—formally named A/duck/Hokkaido/Vac-3/2007 (H5N1)—was artificially assembled and does not occur in nature.

This development comes in the wake of disclosures about U.S. government-funded experiments involving lab-created H5N1 bird flu variants. Some of those strains reportedly caused 100 percent mortality in exposed mammals. In those cases, scientists employed synthetic DNA to construct the viruses and, under a $59 million federal contract, deliberately infected live cows. Japan has also been cooperating with U.S. researchers on additional influenza-related projects, including hybrid viruses combining horse and human flu genes that reportedly replicate much faster than naturally occurring strains.

The Japanese research team emphasized that Vac-3 stimulated more robust immune responses than current flu vaccines, mainly because it retained its full genetic content, including viral RNA. Their approach, called whole-particle vaccination, is designed to activate the body’s innate immune sensors and “rewire” immune responses.

Though the term “gain-of-function” is not used in the study, the methodology behind Vac-3 fits the criteria. The virus was produced by merging genes from different influenza viruses to enhance its immunogenic properties. According to a 2025 Executive Order from the White House, gain-of-function research includes work that alters a virus’s interaction with the immune system, such as increasing its ability to evade or overactivate immune defenses.

The research also introduces significant biosecurity concerns. In their testing, scientists exposed macaques to a deadly H5N1 strain to evaluate how long immunity from Vac-3 would last. This involved constructing a virus that had never previously existed, infecting primates with it, and later challenging them with a lethal strain, all conducted within a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory. While the stated goal was vaccine development, such experiments could trigger future pandemics.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Democrat Jamie Raskin Backs UK Govt’s Censorship Law.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is backing the British government’s Online Safety Act—a censorship law which critics argue stifles free speech and is aimed at harming U.S.-based social media and technology companies—after a blow-up with Reform Party leader Nigel Farage.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Reps. Jamie Raskin, Eric Swalwell, Jasmine Crockett, and Jim Jordan; Nigel Farage, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and British Technology Secretary Peter Kyle.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Raskin’s embrace of the Online Safety Act came during a congressional delegation trip to the UK this week.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We thought there were some very good things in the Online Safety Act…” — Rep. Jamie Raskin

🎯IMPACT: The Democratic Party’s embrace of UK-style censorship is well outside the American legal mainstream regarding free speech rights and appears to be driven almost entirely by Raskin and others’ desire to undermine President Donald J. Trump.

IN FULL

Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is backing Britain’s far-left Labour Party government on the Online Safety Act—a censorship law that stifles free speech and harms U.S.-based social media and technology companies. The Maryland Democrat’s embrace of British censorship came this week as American lawmakers traveled to Great Britain on a congressional delegation led by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH).

“We thought there were some very good things in the Online Safety Act, and there might be some problematic things,” Raskin said during an interview with the press in London. The staunchly anti-Trump Democrat added: “I think the intervention of Democrats who don’t have a dog in that fight was maybe too much for [Nigel Farage] to handle, but we did want to make some general points about the freedom of speech.”

Raskin’s reference to Reform Party leader Nigel Farage stemmed from an argument that broke out between Congressional Democrats and the Brexit leader during a meeting with British lawmakers. Farage was responding to off-topic remarks Raskin made, accusing U.S. President Donald J. Trump of being a threat to free speech. Raskin states that Farage injected during his remarks, stating, “We’re not here to talk about Donald Trump.” The Marland Democrat continued: “[Farage] said that I am a guest here, and I should act like a guest. And I told him that he was a host, and he should act like a host.”

House Democrats claim Farage accused Raskin of being “the most pig-headed person he’d ever met,” while Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) alleges, “Farage just looked unhinged and like a giant manbaby.”

For his part, Raskin defended his own outburst by dismissing Farage’s valid concerns regarding his own experience being the target of politically motivated censorship, such as debanking, by stating the incident was an “explosive reaction of one British politician who obviously didn’t want any challenge to his view that he’s a free speech victim.”

Notably, Farage has been the target of political smears because of his pro-British stances. The National Pulse reported earlier this year that Farage successfully resolved his long-standing debanking dispute with NatWest Group, nearly two years after the closure of his accounts at the bank’s Coutts subsidiary. The settlement, which includes an apology from NatWest, brings closure to a saga that led to the resignation of the bank’s former chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, in 2023.

Additionally, Farage was smeared as being “on the side” of pedophiles and extreme pornographers in comments made by British Technology Secretary Peter Kyle over the Reform leader’s pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act. The National Pulse reported Wednesday that the office of the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, approved the remarks by Kyle.

Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, often accused of taking her duties as a lawmaker less than seriously, quipped, “There was a little bit of drama, and somehow it did not involve me or Swalwell.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.