Resurfaced Video of Chuck Schumer Reveals
Resurfaced Video of Chuck Schumer Reveals…
NOTE: This article is an updated version of “Must-Watch: Senate Mocks Schumer as He Calls NYT Poll Biased” and now includes new details highlighting Senator Chuck Schumer’s 2005 push for a 27.5% tariff on China — exposing his long history of hypocrisy on trade and economic policy.
Back in 2005, Senator Chuck Schumer proudly stood before the cameras demanding a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports, claiming America had to “stand up to China” to protect American workers. He called China a “currency manipulator” and insisted tough trade penalties were the only way to stop Beijing from undercutting U.S. manufacturing. At that time, Schumer said America “cannot continue to allow China to cheat its way to the top.”
In his own words, Schumer declared, “It’s time to put some muscle into our trade relationship with China. For too long, the Chinese government has been playing games with the value of its currency in order to get a competitive edge. As a result, U.S. manufacturing jobs and profits are disappearing at an alarming rate. We can’t afford to let any more time go by without taking concrete and strong action.”
He wasn’t alone. Schumer’s bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, threatened to slap China with a 27.5% tariff unless it stopped manipulating its currency. At the time, Schumer said,
“This report proves that our bipartisan legislation is needed as a tough-love effort to get the Chinese to stop playing games with their currency.”
But years later, when President Donald Trump took bold steps to confront Beijing using the very same tariff strategy, Schumer turned on his own words. He accused Trump of “starting a trade war” and claimed tariffs would “hurt consumers.”
The hypocrisy is impossible to ignore.
The same senator who once demanded tariffs to protect U.S. jobs now ridicules the president who actually followed through. Schumer’s transformation—from a Democrat willing to stand up to China to a partisan willing to attack any Trump policy—shows how far the party has drifted from its working-class roots.
Trump’s America First policy sought to correct decades of unfair trade deals and rebuild domestic manufacturing. Yet Schumer, who once called for the same thing, sided with globalist talking points instead.
Schumer’s reversal didn’t go unnoticed. Conservative commentators have resurfaced his old speeches, comparing them to his modern-day criticisms of Trump’s tariffs. The contrast paints a clear picture of political convenience.
Even the New York Times in 2005 described Schumer’s proposal as “a serious warning to China.” Today, the same outlet calls Trump’s trade policy “reckless.” The double standard could not be clearer.
Schumer’s credibility continues to unravel as his past statements resurface. His record shows that when it was politically safe to criticize China, he did. But when Trump took real action, Schumer suddenly changed his tune.
And it’s not just on trade where Schumer’s inconsistencies shine through.
Recently, the Senate Minority Leader faced ridicule after claiming a New York Times poll blaming Democrats for the government shutdown was “biased.”
The laughter erupted in the Senate chamber as Schumer argued that his hometown paper was unfairly portraying Democrats in a negative light.
The New York Times/Siena College poll surveyed 1,313 registered voters between September 22 and September 27. It found that 65 percent of respondents said Democrats should not shut down the government, while only 27 percent said they should. Even Democrats were split, with less than half supporting a shutdown if their demands were unmet.
Schumer dismissed the poll as biased, saying, “Now I know the leader is going to show a poll that says that the Democrats will be blamed for the shutdown. There are many more polls that show Republicans are blamed. The question in that poll is biased. Biased. It’s in the New York Times, but it’s biased.”
He added, “I don’t always believe in the New York Times, you can be sure of that. Neither do you.”
That admission triggered laughter across the Senate floor, even among Democrats who seemed caught off guard by Schumer’s sudden skepticism of his longtime media ally.
The irony is glaring: Schumer is now accusing the same outlet of bias that he routinely cites when convenient. It’s a familiar pattern. When facts expose Democrat failures, Schumer cries foul. When coverage benefits his party, he celebrates it.
The government officially shut down as the clock struck midnight on October 1 after Democrats blocked the Republicans’ clean continuing resolution.
The New York Times poll reflects what Americans already know: Democrats’ shutdown tactics are deeply unpopular. Yet Schumer, instead of facing the truth, chose to discredit the data.
“Americans are tired of political games,” one conservative outlet wrote in response to the viral Senate clip. “Schumer calling polls biased only exposes how out of touch Democrats are.”
Obama Goes Crazy When Sen. Kennedy Exposes Michelle and Letitia James’ Secret Relationship
Obama Goes Crazy When Sen. Kennedy Exposes Michelle and Letitia James’ Secret Relationship! Shocking! In a jaw-dropping Senate moment,Sen. Kennedy drops a bombshell that sends Barack Obama into a fury. The shocking revelation? A long-buried secret relationship between Michelle Obama and New York AG Letitia James. The political world may never be the same.
In a dramatic Senate hearing that left onlookers stunned, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) unleashed a shocking allegation, claiming a “long-buried secret relationship” between former First Lady Michelle Obama and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The explosive accusation, delivered during a July 20 session of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reportedly sent former President Barack Obama into a fury, with sources describing his reaction as a “meltdown” that has set the political world ablaze. The claim, amplified by viral posts on X, has ignited fierce debate, with no concrete evidence yet to substantiate Kennedy’s bombshell, raising questions about its validity and motives.
Kennedy’s remarks came during a heated discussion on the politicization of the Justice Department, where he referenced a Justice Department probe into James, who is accused of mortgage fraud by Trump administration officials. Citing “credible sources,” Kennedy alleged that James and Michelle Obama shared a “close, personal relationship” that influenced James’ aggressive legal pursuits against Donald Trump, including her 2023 civil fraud case that resulted in a $454 million judgment against the Trump Organization. “This isn’t just politics—it’s personal,” Kennedy declared, hinting at undisclosed communications between the two women that he claimed “could shake the foundations of Democratic leadership.” The senator’s cryptic remarks, lacking specific evidence, prompted gasps in the chamber and immediate backlash from Democratic lawmakers.
Obama’s Reaction and the Fallout
Sources close to Obama, who was not present at the hearing but reportedly watching remotely, described him as “livid” and “visibly shaken” by Kennedy’s claims. A post on X, citing an unverified source, claimed Obama called the allegations “a disgusting lie” during a private conversation, slamming the senator for dragging his wife into political mudslinging. The reaction fueled speculation, with some on X suggesting Obama’s anger stemmed from fear of exposure, while others argued it reflected outrage at a baseless smear. “Kennedy’s playing with fire, but where’s the proof?” one user tweeted, reflecting the polarized sentiment online, where #ObamaMeltdown trended alongside #KennedyBombshell.
The alleged “secret relationship” remains undefined, with Kennedy’s vague phrasing leaving room for interpretation. Some conservative outlets, like Fox News, speculated it could refer to a professional alliance tied to Democratic Party strategies, while tabloid-style posts on X hinted at a personal connection, though no credible evidence supports such claims. Michelle Obama, who has repeatedly dismissed rumors about her marriage and personal life, has not publicly responded, but a spokesperson called the allegations “fabricated nonsense” designed to distract from James’ legal battles. James, known for her high-profile cases against Trump, labeled the claim “retribution” for her work, echoing her defense against the mortgage fraud probe.
Context of the Accusation
The timing of Kennedy’s claim aligns with heightened scrutiny of James, who faces a Justice Department investigation led by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi over alleged mortgage fraud involving properties in Virginia and Brooklyn. The probe, initiated by a referral from Trump’s Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, accuses James of falsifying records to secure favorable loan terms, a charge her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, dismissed as “political retribution.” Kennedy’s mention of Michelle Obama appears to build on recent conservative narratives, including a July 18 YouTube video claiming Senator J.D. Vance exposed a similar “secret relationship” between the two women, though that claim was debunked as lacking evidence.
The Obama-James connection, if it exists, may stem from their shared history in Democratic circles. James, the first Black woman to serve as New York AG, has cited Michelle Obama as an inspiration, praising her advocacy for women and minorities in a 2019 speech. However, no documented evidence suggests a deeper relationship beyond professional admiration. The lack of specifics from Kennedy has led critics, including
The Washington Post, to label the claim a “political stunt” aimed at inflaming Trump’s base ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Public and Political Reaction
The allegations have divided observers. On X, some users hailed Kennedy as a “truth-teller exposing Democratic corruption,” while others condemned him for spreading unverified gossip. “No receipts, no credibility,” one user posted. Democrats, including Senator Richard Blumenthal, accused Kennedy of “stooping to tabloid tactics,” while Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz called for further investigation into James’ actions and any Obama ties. The controversy has also reignited rumors about the Obamas’ marriage, with
Fox News noting “concerning” body language during a recent public appearance, though Michelle Obama has dismissed divorce rumors as “baseless.”As the story unfolds, Kennedy’s office has promised to release “further evidence” but provided no timeline. Without concrete proof, the claim risks being dismissed as political theater, especially given James’ ongoing legal battles and the polarized climate. For now, the political world watches closely, wondering if this bombshell will reshape narratives or fizzle out like past unverified scandals.
Trump’s Government-Issued Phone Seized in Expanding ‘Arctic Frost’ Controversy
A new political firestorm is unfolding in Washington amid revelations that former President Donald Trump’s government-issued phone was reportedly seized as part of Operation Arctic Frost, a sweeping surveillance program authorized during the Biden administration.
The disclosure has raised alarm across the political spectrum — not only because of its implications for privacy and executive privilege but also because it suggests that the Justice Department may have extended its reach well beyond traditional investigative boundaries.
The controversy centers on Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose probe initially focused on election-related matters but has since evolved into what critics are calling an unprecedented political surveillance campaign targeting Trump and his allies.
From Election Inquiry to Surveillance Operation
When Operation Arctic Frost was first launched in early 2023, the Justice Department described it as a limited effort to investigate alleged interference surrounding the 2020 presidential election. However, newly released documents and congressional testimony suggest that its scope rapidly expanded to include warrants, data seizures, and electronic monitoring of individuals with ties to conservative political circles.
According to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), one of the few lawmakers with access to classified briefings on the matter, the operation quickly crossed ethical and constitutional lines.
“What began as a targeted investigation has turned into an overreaching surveillance dragnet,” Grassley said in a statement. “We’re talking about a program that gathered communications data from elected officials, journalists, and even former members of the executive branch. That’s not oversight — that’s abuse.”
Sources familiar with the Senate investigation told The Federal Ledger that a classified subpoena signed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the same judge now facing impeachment articles in Congress — authorized access to data belonging to several Republican lawmakers and former administration officials.
Among those targets, according to internal Justice Department memos, was the government-issued mobile device used by Donald Trump during his presidency.
Attorney General Pam Bondi Confirms Seizure
The most shocking development came Monday, when Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that the Biden administration had indeed handed over Trump’s official phone to the Special Counsel’s office in late 2023.
“This was not only irregular — it was unconstitutional,” Bondi said during a press briefing. “A former president’s communications are protected under executive privilege. The seizure of that phone without clear judicial authorization or congressional notification represents a violation of both precedent and propriety.”
Bondi added that her office is preparing a legal response and will seek the release of documentation explaining how the device was obtained and what data was accessed.
The Justice Department, in a brief statement, said the seizure was conducted “in accordance with established national security procedures” and declined to comment further on an “ongoing investigation.”
Constitutional Questions Mount
Legal experts say the revelation opens a Pandora’s box of constitutional concerns.
Dr. Angela Watkins, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia University, said that while law enforcement has some leeway in pursuing investigations, the surveillance of a former president’s communications represents “uncharted territory.”
“Even during Watergate, the line between law enforcement and political retaliation was fiercely debated,” Watkins said. “But the idea of one administration obtaining direct access to the communications of its predecessor is something that strikes at the heart of executive independence.”
Historically, presidential communications have been treated with extreme caution under the Presidential Records Act and related statutes. While those laws allow for the preservation of official materials, they also require judicial or congressional approval before access can be granted for investigative purposes.
If the Justice Department bypassed those procedures, analysts warn, the operation could represent one of the most significant breaches of executive privilege in modern history.
Bipartisan Shock — But Divided Reaction
While most Republican lawmakers expressed outrage over the seizure, some Democrats urged caution, emphasizing that details of the operation remain classified and that the Justice Department should be allowed to complete its work.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said accusations of political targeting were premature.
“No one is above the law,” Goldman said. “If evidence exists that sensitive communications were used inappropriately or violated national security standards, it’s the Justice Department’s duty to investigate — regardless of who’s involved.”
Republicans, however, are calling for immediate hearings. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) announced plans to subpoena documents related to Arctic Frost as early as next week.
“This isn’t about national security — this is about political control,” Comer said in a Fox News interview. “The Biden administration weaponized federal power to spy on its predecessor. That’s something we associate with authoritarian regimes, not the United States of America.”
Operation ‘Arctic Frost’: What We Know
Sources close to the investigation describe Arctic Frost as a multi-agency data collection program authorized under the Department of Justice and coordinated with the FBI and NSA.
According to leaked memos reviewed by The Federal Ledger, the operation’s stated purpose was to trace digital communications “linked to ongoing election-related threats.” However, internal reports indicate that its targets expanded to include members of Congress, political donors, journalists, and think tanks perceived as sympathetic to Trump’s policies.
The operation allegedly relied on nondisclosure orders — secret court directives preventing private companies from revealing that federal agencies had requested access to data.
That aspect of Arctic Frost is now the subject of a separate congressional investigation, after several telecommunications companies acknowledged receiving sealed orders from the DOJ between 2023 and 2024.
Impeachment Moves and Legal Fallout
The Arctic Frost revelations have already set off a chain reaction in Washington. On Monday, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) introduced articles of impeachment against Judge James Boasberg, who authorized the subpoenas that enabled the surveillance effort.
Gill accused Boasberg of “abuse of power” and “betrayal of the public trust,” arguing that his actions allowed the Biden administration to engage in “domestic political espionage.”
Meanwhile, several former Justice Department officials have reportedly been subpoenaed by congressional investigators seeking to determine how far up the authorization chain the decisions went.
The Broader Political Impact
The Arctic Frost scandal comes amid an already volatile political climate, with the government partially shut down over disputes about spending and surveillance reform. For many observers, the timing is no coincidence.
“The government shutdown has exposed deep institutional mistrust,” said Mark Feldman, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. “And now we have revelations that the Justice Department may have engaged in domestic spying. The optics are devastating — not just for the administration, but for the public’s faith in democratic accountability.”
Trump’s legal team has not commented on whether the seized phone contained classified or personal data, but sources close to the former president said they are considering legal action to compel its return.
For now, the controversy shows no sign of slowing. Lawmakers are preparing for a new round of hearings that could reveal even more about the inner workings of Arctic Frost — and whether the U.S. government’s surveillance powers have crossed a line that can’t be easily redrawn.
“This is bigger than Trump or Biden,” Grassley said. “It’s about whether the intelligence powers of this country are being used to protect liberty — or to destroy it.”
