Trump, 80, Spotted With New Mystery Bruises on His Arm

While golfing over the weekend, President Trump appeared to have some concerning bruises on his arm.

Trump spent Labor Day weekend at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, and while he hit the links in his usual white polo shirt, dark bruises were visible up and down his left arm. The president’s former aide, John McEntee, who co-founded the conservative dating app The Right Stuff, posted a picture of Trump to Instagram Monday revealing the bruises.

It’s not the first time extensive bruising has been spotted on Trump’s skin. Trump often has bruises on his hands, which he tries to cover up (poorly) with makeup. The president has acknowledged this, claiming that the marks are the result of him taking “big aspirin” or shaking hands too aggressively. However, some speculate that he could be receiving some undisclosed intravenous treatment. Trump was last spotted with bruises on his arm while at the same golf course about a month ago.

The White House hasn’t been fully transparent about the president’s health, only revealing snippets about Trump’s medical checkups. On May 26, Trump saw a record 22 specialists, but offered no explanation as to why. He reportedly used to take a hair-loss drug that was conspicuously left off of his May trip to Walter Reed Medical Center, raising questions about what secrets are being kept about the 80-year-old’s health.

Trump frequently falls asleep in public and goes on off-topic rants that often make little sense. These diatribes and his physical appearance offer the only clues as to his health and mental state. For some bizarre reason, Trump was also sporting darker brown hair in New Jersey, too.

The president’s weekend jaunt also involved him making sure the Secret Service agents charged with protecting him ate his country club’s hot dogs—which the agency then had to pay for. His inseparable aide Natalie Harp was also on the trip, presumably to post to his social media accounts and feed him his usual diet of article printouts. What else is the president consuming that the American people should be worried about?

Flock Safety wants to record millions of Americans—but apparently no one is allowed to record it.

The disturbing double standard was revealed Tuesday by Atlanta News First, which found itself in a load of trouble after one of its investigative reporters stopped on the side of the road to film a Flock Safety employee upgrading one of the company’s cameras near his house.

Brendan Keefe—a Peabody, duPont, Murrow, and Emmy award–winning journalist—pulled ahead of the Flock Safety site in a marked press van, donned a high-visibility vest, and began snapping pictures. Almost immediately, the Flock Safety employee chucked his equipment into his truck and fled the site.

Keefe tried to tail the vehicle, but his efforts were interrupted by the Milton Police Department, which sent out three police vehicles after the Flock employee summoned them.

“I work with Flock Safety and I’m getting followed, harassed, pretty much, taking video and pictures,” the employee said in a 911 call obtained by the local news network.

When the operator prompted the employee to provide his name, he opted not to, claiming that he didn’t “want them to hear my full name” on the call “when they get it.”

Taking pictures and videos in public spaces where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is protected under the First Amendment. But Flock Safety’s close relationship with police departments across the country seems to have afforded the company protections beyond the scope of the Constitution.

“When you are lawfully present in a public space—such as streets, sidewalks, and parks—the First Amendment generally protects your right to photograph or film anything in plain view, including federal buildings and law enforcement,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Flock Safety deployed its first mass surveillance camera (which was, at the time, an Android phone placed inside a waterproof box) in Atlanta in 2017. Since then, the company has deployed tens of thousands of cameras to record and document the movements of everyday Americans, regardless of whether or not they’re suspected of a crime. That data is then sold to law enforcement agencies, offering them a seemingly infinite portal into the potentially consequential habits of their countrymen.

In April, the company—and its business model—were valued at $8.4 billion.

In most cases, the cameras were installed without community consent. The company has repeatedly defended its product, claiming that the cameras have provided more safety, and that the cited abuses stem from the way that police use their data, rather than the collection of the data itself.

“Ultimately, I would argue that the whole community is our customer,” Flock Safety chief communications officer Josh Thomas told Atlanta News First.

“Why can’t I opt out? Why can’t the spouse or ex-spouse of a police officer opt out of this kind of data collection on their movements?” asked Keefe.

“Why can’t a person opt out?” repeated Thomas. “It’s because if your car gets stolen, if something were to happen, moreover the government requires you to have a license plate.”

“It’s plain viewing information,” Thomas continued, missing the bitter irony of the situation. “Why can’t you opt out? You can, if you want to opt out of society.”

Elon Musk’s super PAC is stealing voters’ personal information—again.

The billionaire technocrat’s America PAC has launched an aggressive advertising campaign directing them to Vote Safe, a website claiming to provide users with information they need to “vote with confidence.” But all the while, the site is secretly collecting some information of its own, Judd Legum reported Tuesday on his substack Popular Information.

Any visitors to the site will unwittingly hand over their full name, birthday, home address, email address, cellphone number, IP address, browser, location, voter registration status, and district, not to mention every link they click on and every page they look at.

The website previously had a privacy policy barring America PAC from sharing this information with advertisers, political organizations, or third parties, but it removed that language last month. Now America PAC is permitted to sell or share your personal information with “our business partners.” That personal information includes not only where you are registered to vote but also the “inferences” the data makes about you.

The business partners include Facebook, Google, X, an advertising firm called the Trade Desk, a tracking company named Increment Data, and Iterable, an email and text-massage marketing company, among others.

In the last week, America PAC has spent more than $180,000 promoting Vote Safe, Legum reported. Musk has pledged to spend more than $100 million on the midterms.

This isn’t the first time Musk’s America PAC has pulled this grift. Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, the former billionaire bureaucrat poured $800,000 into digital advertisements to target voters in key battleground states. In certain states, users reported that the supposed voter registration website collected their information without ever referring them to register to vote.

Musk also waded into murky legal waters with his direct mail scheme. In Georgia, residents received partially pre-filled absentee ballot applications from Musk’s America PAC, in violation of state law. Members of the Georgia State Elections Board voted to issue a formal letter of reprimand to Musk’s America PAC—but it seems that nothing happened after that.

Despite the technocrat’s pledge last year to stay out of politics, his America PAC is planning to once again direct its efforts toward door knocking, direct mail, and digital advertising during the midterm elections.

The Trump administration is moving to strip a rule barring private equity officials from engaging in “pay-to-play” schemes with government officials.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is planning to revoke Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act, arguing that it chills employees’ political speech. The regulation, known as the “Pay-to-Play” Rule, bars investment advisers from getting paid to advise government clients for two years after making a political contribution to certain officials and candidates.

In the 16 years since the rule was implemented, it has only resulted in a handful of penalties. The proposed change comes after private equity spending increased in 2024, and flipped toward Republicans.

SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda released a statement last week arguing that the “blanket ban” had functionally undermined advisers’ constitutional rights. “Many investment advisers found it easier to simply prohibit all political contributions by their employees, thereby chilling speech and conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment,” Uyeda said.

But the rule was intentionally written to be broad in order to address the difficulties state and local prosecutors had in proving quid pro quo deals, Axios reported Tuesday.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins also released a statement last week supporting the proposal, claiming that the rule “discourages full participation in the electoral process through contributions to candidates.

“People should not have to choose between their political-speech rights and a job in a particular industry,” he said.

If approved, the change will unleash a flood of bribes to public officials, and even invite private equity to pay tithes to President Trump himself.

The Department of Homeland Security is running a police unit that uses Americans’ financial records to predict whether they could commit crimes and is turning over their names to local police.

404 Media reports that the DHS’s Predictive Intelligence Targeting Teams, or PITT, are feeding intelligence to local law enforcement, who are then pulling people over who are not suspected of any specific crimes. In one case, a PITT unit analyzed the financial activity of Kyle Olson, who was driving across Montana. Local police pulled him over, claiming that his license plate was obstructed. He was later charged with a DUI, according to the publication.

The documents from that case are what led to 404 Media’s discovery. Olson was provided a DHS document explaining the rationale behind his traffic stop, written by Border Patrol Agent Matthew Phelps, who is assigned to the “Spokane Sector Border Patrol Targeting & Intelligence Division (TID)—Predictive Intelligence Targeting Team (PITT).”

Phelps wrote that his job entails reviewing “law enforcement–sensitive databases,” including financial activity, to build intelligence before the government hands it over to local police. Phelps handed over “information contained within law enforcement-sensitive systems suggesting financial activity patterns commonly associated with illicit narcotics activity,” the document states. He handed it over to Montana Highway Patrol, who pulled over Olson.

“It was relayed to me by U.S. Border Patrol targeting analyst Matthew Phelps that he had identified a vehicle that had indicators of possible narcotics trafficking,” wrote Sergeant James Beck of the Montana Highway Patrol. Olson had marijuana edibles, marijuana cuttings, and butane hash oil in his car from his job at a licensed cannabis farm in California, which he was transporting to his home in Wisconsin.

At least one PITT unit is based near Spokane, Washington, and patrols the U.S.-Canada border, while another is based near Laredo, Texas, near the border with Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, which is also part of DHS, already uses automatic license plate readers, and those are integrated into the agency’s predictive policing tactics.

The concept is ostensibly to find people who may have already committed crimes, but 404 Media didn’t find any instances of this occurring. Instead, the government seems to be using predictive policing to create pretexts to pull over and detain people. Border Patrol refused to answer the publication’s questions about what financial activity it’s monitoring, and if it had a warrant to pull over Olson.

A CPB spokesperson told 404 Media in an email that “U.S. Border Patrol uses intelligence-informed analysis and planning to support national security operations, allocate resources, and help identify potential threats and bad actors to public safety. These efforts are conducted consistent with applicable law, policy, privacy protections, and oversight requirements.

“For operational security reasons, we do not discuss specific analytical methods, data sources, targeting criteria, investigative techniques, system capabilities, or deployment details. Public disclosure of such information could compromise law enforcement operations and investigations as well as creating safety risks for agents and the public,” the statement said.

The units raise a number of disturbing questions about whether the Trump administration is obtaining data illegally, then using it to illegally charge people with crimes. The Trump administration has shown numerous times that it’s willing to flout the Constitution, and in this age of mass surveillance, it doesn’t seem to feel limited in any way.