'Do I have to stay until I'm assassinated?' Marjorie Taylor Greene lashes out over calls to finish her term



Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has had some choice words for her critics following her unexpected decision to retire in the middle of her term.

Greene announced she will be retiring on January 5, 2026, before completing her term after a public falling out with her longtime ally President Donald Trump. Greene claimed the dispute originated over her calls to release the Epstein files, an effort Trump later came around to support. Other reports suggest the two split after the White House quietly discouraged Greene from pursuing higher office.

'F**k you in the sweetest most southern drawl I can enunciate.'

Regardless of the root cause, Trump disowned one of his most loyal supporters, prompting Greene to call it quits. At the same time, Greene has had some harsh words for critics who said she should at least serve out the rest of the term she was elected to.

"Oh I haven’t suffered enough for you while you post all day behind a screen?" Greene asked Mike Cernovich, who called for her to finish serving her term. "Do I have to stay until I’m assassinated like our friend Charlie Kirk. Will that be good enough for you then?"

RELATED: 'Canary in a coal mine': Ousted speaker warns against the rising risk of GOP House resignations

Photo by ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/AFP via Getty Images

"S**t posting on the internet all day isn’t fighting," Greene added. "Get off YOUR ass and run for Congress. I fought harder than anyone in the real arena, not social media. Put down your little pebbles and put your money where your mouth is."

Greene went on to equate calls from critics to finish serving her term to "typical Republican men" demanding women to "get back in the kitchen." Notably this was on her official government account.

"Typical of Republican men telling a woman to 'shut up get back in the kitchen and fix me something to eat,'" Greene said. "F**k you in the sweetest most southern drawl I can enunciate."

RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene calls it quits after 'traitor' branding by Trump

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

"I have been trying to tell all you 'men' that our kitchen pantry is empty with spider webs, our house has been ransacked, the windows and doors are broken and busted, and the greedy rich bastards have twisted your minds into a sick state that you all continue in the two party toxic political system and act like college football playoffs yet is burying you and your children and their children and their children in a pine box in a shallow grave."

"Get off your ass and fix your own damn food and clean up the kitchen when you're done."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Was the latest Epstein document dump just Trump’s 4D chess trap? Steve Deace answers.



After two major Epstein document dumps left the nation deeply disappointed — no bombshells, no convictions — America is once again holding her breath in anticipation of the “big one”: the full DOJ files mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which President Trump signed into law last week.

In the meantime, however, a separate batch of more than 50,000 pages of Epstein estate records released by the House Oversight Committee in September and November 2025 has already delivered some politically explosive material.

Steve Deace, BlazeTV host of the “Steve Deace Show,” says he has gotten the same question over and over again from his audience: Was this Trump’s 4D chess master plan all along: Let Democrats dig their own grave by demanding transparency, knowing these already-released House documents would drop and embarrass some of their biggest names?

While the question is undoubtedly warranted, Steve says the answer is no — this was not some premeditated plan. It’s just the age-old paradigm at work again.

“I know people very close to the president of the United States … the kind of people that would know if such a plan existed,” says Steve, “and they were quite dismayed this summer when the president just kind of suddenly changed his tune back in July and said … ‘It's not a story. Why do you care? Move on.”’

But the chain of events certainly has the optics of a big Democrat gotcha scheme, he says. The timing of the revelations that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) asked Epstein for campaign donations after Epstein's sex-crime convictions and U.S. Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D) was taking real-time instructions from Epstein on what questions to ask during a congressional hearing seem almost too perfect to be accidental.

“And so I can see why people are wondering, ‘Was this just part of a very well-coordinated plan?’” says Steve. “It wasn't. I can promise you it wasn't.”

There’s an “undeniable truth in American politics” we all need to understand: “You can always count on Republicans to pre-emptively surrender,” and “you can always bank on Democrats then completely overreaching in response.”

This is true of our current administration, says Steve. The only difference is “their surrender line is not as pre-emptive as the previous people.”

“This dynamic plays out over and over and over and over and over again,” he says, citing the most recent cycle: Republicans folded early on Obamacare repeal and lost 40 House seats in 2018; Democrats then overreached with a stolen 2020 election, lawfare against opponents, and vaccine mandates, only to get crushed in the 2024 red wave that swept Trump and the GOP back into power.

The same cycle is repeating itself with Epstein right now, he says. The GOP promised that heads would roll, but nearly a year into President Trump’s second term, not a single arrest has been made. Then Democrats overreached by demanding full transparency on the Epstein files — pushing the bill through Congress themselves — only to watch their own members get scorched by the revelations. Enter Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — a “total clown,” says Steve — trying to deflect by screaming "what is Trump hiding?" even though Democrats never touched the Epstein files during their four years in power.

So will this third release finally deliver?

Steve says most likely no. “I've already seen Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch going through the language of the legislation. He’s like, ‘I'm still going to have to sue these guys like a half a dozen times to get really everything we want.”’

But that doesn’t mean the drop will be all smoke like the first two. The fact that Larry Summers — Harvard president emeritus and Democrat heavyweight — has already resigned in anticipation of the release tells us there’s some real heat behind the smoke.

Steve reiterates his lesson: “You can always count on Republicans to pre-emptively surrender, and then you can always count on Democrats to way overreach in response to that, thus self-generating their own backlash.”

Add to that the fact that Donald Trump has this “providential anointing” that allows him to benefit greatly from his enemies, and it’s clear: This is no “seventh-dimensional chess that was nine months in the making,” says Steve.

“It’s just the paradigm.”

To hear more of Steve’s analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘A billion dollars' worth of exceptions’ — Glenn Beck: The REAL Epstein story isn’t the black book, it’s the bank



Jeffrey Epstein’s name is yet again dominating headlines as the American people await a third major handover of Epstein-related documents. President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, mandating the Department of Justice’s public release of all unclassified files related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Once again, everyone’s holding their breath for the flight logs, communications, and investigative records slated for release on December 19, 2025.

But Glenn Beck says “the real story” about Epstein isn’t the clients; it’s “the money.”

Per newly unsealed JPMorgan court documents from a 2023 U.S. Virgin Islands lawsuit, between 2002 and 2019 — despite ending Epstein's accounts in 2013 amid red flags — JP Morgan Chase filed just seven Suspicious Activity Reports on Epstein. It flagged only $4.3 million, while overlooking roughly 5,000 more suspicious transactions totaling over $1.3 billion, which were linked to potential sex trafficking, massive cash withdrawals, wires to Russian banks, and payments to or from high-profile Epstein associates.

“Let me just say this clearly so nobody really misses the gravity of this,” says Glenn. “You do not accidentally forget to report 5,000 suspicious wires. ... You don't misplace a billion dollars in wires to foreign banks and shell companies connected to a convicted sex offender under federal investigation. It doesn't happen.”

“It doesn't happen because a junior banker made a mistake. It doesn't happen because the compliance officer was sleepy. It doesn't happen because somebody's inbox was full. ... At a minimum: multiple officers, multiple departments, multiple sign-offs [chose] not to look.”

Why? Because “the bank decided, ‘Well, we want to continue to work with Epstein. He's valuable; he's connected; he's a referral engine to some of the richest people in the world,”’ says Glenn, arguing that somebody turned off the alarm bells on Epstein’s account.

“I'd like to know who turned those off. I'd like to know why they were turned off. I would like to know if it was just the leadership of the bank. I'd like to know that every single one of those bank officers all the way to the top go to prison,” he says.

“If you or I did this — if we had sent just a handful of suspicious wires — the bank would freeze your account, notify the Treasury before you could blink. But Jeffrey Epstein? A billion dollars' worth of exceptions.”

The most “terrifying question” we should all be asking ourselves right now, Glenn says, is this: “If a bank can look the other way on $1.3 billion for a sex trafficker, what else have the banks learned to ignore?”

“This story isn't just about Epstein. This is about the machinery that allowed him to operate — all of the middlemen, all of the financial networks, all of the institutions that treated him like an asset instead of a criminal,” he says.

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis and his Epstein theories, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

CNN destroys Jasmine Crockett for ‘Jeffrey Epstein’ smear



Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas very confidently claimed on the House floor that Republicans, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, had taken money from Jeffrey Epstein. However, that Jeffrey Epstein was not the Jeffrey Epstein.

Crockett boomed into the microphone that Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Rick Lazio took money from a man named Jeffrey Epstein.

And in a segment on CNN, Crockett tried to spin her mistake when Kaitlan Collins asked about her defense of Democrat House Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who had been exposed for texting Jeffrey Epstein.


“You mentioned Lee Zeldin there. He’s now a cabinet secretary. He responded and said it was actually Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who’s a doctor that doesn’t have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is who donated to a prior campaign of his,” Collins said.

“Do you want to correct the record?” Collins asked.

“I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein,” Crockett responded. “Just so that people understand, when you make a donation, your picture is not there, and because they decided to spring this on us in real time, I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen because I knew that they didn’t even try to go through the FEC.”

“So, my team, what they did is they Googled. And that is specifically why I said, ‘a Jeffrey Epstein.’ Unlike Republicans, I at least don’t go out and just tell lies, because it was not the same one,” she continued.

“But when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So at least I wasn’t trying to mislead people,” she added.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is not buying it.

“You clearly were smearing,” Glenn laughs.

“She’s trying to say, ‘Well, I didn’t lie,’” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere chimes in. “Like that’s your defense in theory, right?”

Burguiere also points out that Crockett was proud of adding an “a” in front of “Jeffrey Epstein,” but she shouldn’t be.

“She knew she was lying. She knew there was a good chance this wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein,” he says.

“She’s insane,” Glenn adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Jasmine Crockett Says Questioning Dem’s Texts With Pedophile Is Racist

'You want to strip a black woman of her committee assignment'

How GOP leadership can turn a midterm gift into a total disaster



Did Donald Trump secretly plan this fight over the Jeffrey Epstein files to lure Democrats into another political trap? No. I don’t believe he did. I know people close to the president who were frustrated over the summer when he abruptly shifted from promising the files' release to calling it a “distraction” and a “hoax.” I said at the time on my show that the switch was the first major misstep of Trump 2.0.

But I understand why the 4D-chess theory is so tempting now. It looks like a setup. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) spent months attacking Trump over Epstein. Then we learned that Jeffries may have accepted donor requests from Epstein after Epstein’s first sex-offense conviction. And a Democrat from the Virgin Islands — Epstein’s district — was literally taking dictation from Epstein on what questions to ask in a congressional hearing.

The 2026 midterms are coming fast. If the GOP wants to avoid another preventable disaster, it had better stop rehearsing the same script.

Those are facts, not theories.

The deeper truth, though, has nothing to do with strategy. American politics follows two patterns, and both showed up again this week.

First, Republicans pre-emptively surrender. Always.

Watch Democrats tell soldiers to ignore orders while Trump follows every instruction a federal judge hands him. His restraint isn’t Romney-level, but the Republicans around him shrink the space for any real fight. That’s why Attorney General Pam Bondi is developing a well-deserved reputation for overpromising and under-delivering.

RELATED: The right message: Justice. The wrong messenger: Pam Bondi.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Second, Democrats always overreach when Republicans fold.

We saw it in 2018 when Republicans gave up on repealing Obamacare and lost 40 House seats for their cowardice. The pattern continued in 2020, as Democrats pushed their false god evangelism into insane absolutism — on “fortifying” elections, on arresting Trump, on forcing people into taking the poisonous jab, on transitioning kids. It was mark of the beast stuff, and voters wanted no part of it.

The latest example came this week, when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) answered a question from a friendly reporter about why Democrats never pursued the Epstein files when they had the chance by snapping, “What is [Trump] hiding?” The Senate had just voted almost unanimously to release those files, and instead of revealing Trump, former Bill Clinton hack Lawrence Summers stood exposed for his ties to the sex offender, seeking his counsel as “wingman” in an effort to seduce the daughter of a high Chinese Communist Party official.

RELATED: ‘Swamp protects itself’: Republicans shield Epstein-texting Democrat — allegedly to save Cory Mills’ hide

Anna Rose Layden/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Both parties cling to their worst instincts. Republicans surrender too easily. Democrats push too far. And no politician in modern history has been buoyed more by his opponents’ excesses than Donald Trump.

So once again, Republicans hold the advantage on the Epstein files — at least for the moment. But early signs suggest they may squander it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Pam Bondi appear ready to narrow or redact the release into something the base will see as betrayal. If that happens, Democrats won’t need to win the argument. Republicans will beat themselves.

The 2026 midterms are coming fast. If the GOP wants to avoid another preventable disaster, it had better stop rehearsing the same script.

A little discipline — and a little courage — would go a long way.

Clinton Treasury Sec. Larry Summers Cozied Up To Epstein, And Likely The CCP

Summers sought advice from Jeffrey Epstein on pursuing an extramarital affair with a CCP-connected mentee, raises serious ethical concerns.

'You're a piece of s**t': Nancy Mace and Cory Mills clash in heated exchange after failed censure



Florida Rep. Cory Mills (R) evaded another censure effort Wednesday night, but not without some heated criticism from a Republican colleague.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina forced a censure vote on Mills Wednesday over "alleged stolen valor, arms deals he's under investigation for and alleged abuses toward women." Mace also went after Mills after a handful of Republicans blocked the censure of Democrat Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands, who colluded with Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing.

'The more we learn about this guy and his purported activities, the worse it is.'

Mace alleged that Plaskett's censure failed because Mills cut a "backroom deal" to suppress his own censure. Similar allegations were made toward Mills back in September when he was the deciding vote to protect Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's censure for the insensitive comments she made following Charlie Kirk's assassination.

"Another backroom deal so Cory Mills can’t get censored [sic] for Stolen Valor," Mace said in a post on X. "I have the General who 'recommended' him for the Bronze Star on record saying he never wrote it, never read it and never personally signed it. This. Is. Washington."

RELATED: 'Backroom deal': Nancy Mace to force a vote on Cory Mills after Republicans shield Epstein-texting Democrat

hoto by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The two Republicans reportedly had a heated exchange on the House floor Wednesday night, with Mace calling Mills a "disgrace" and mouthing the words, "You're a piece of s**t."

Mace later addressed these outbursts in a post on X, saying the real scandal is Mills' track record.

"While Rep. Cory Mills is worried about my 'mean' words on the Floor last night — I'm worried about our national security and what sort of arms deals he or his companies have with foreign countries. I'm worried about how court records show he abuses women and had to have a restraining order set against him for it. I'm worried about how stealing the stories of other soldiers constitutes STOLEN VALOR and spits in the faces of veterans who gave it all Hold your tongue and sit this one out Mr. Mills."

The censure vote ultimately failed 310-103, with 204 Republicans and 106 Democrats defending Mills.

Only eight Republicans — Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Kat Cammack of Florida, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, and Mace — voted to advance the censure measure.

Although the censure failed, Mace still called the effort a win.

RELATED: 'Swamp protects itself': Republicans shield Epstein-texting Democrat — allegedly to save Cory Mills' hide

Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images

"Last night was a win with either outcome of the vote," Mace said in a post on X. "Now the Left can't do any more backroom deals with Mills or use Mills as a bargaining chip whenever a Republican moves to censure another. And his investigation has been formally referred to an Ethics Subcommittee."

"However, I pray leadership will remove Mills from his committees until Ethics is done with Mills. The more we learn about this guy and his purported activities, the worse it is."

Blaze News reached out to Mills' office for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!