De Niro: I hate to say it, but loving our country is starting to sound like an abused spouse saying they love their abuser. I can’t love a country that starts stupid and inhumane wars, killing thousands of innocents and indirectly causing the deaths and suffering of millions more. I can’t love a country that takes healthcare away from millions of people and uses that money to enrich their pals in the Trump-Epstein class. I can’t love a country that sends out masked militias to shoot citizens in the streets, torture our neighbors, and separate families. I can’t love a country that’s led by a racist, misogynist, xenophobic tyrant. And let me just say it: I can’t love a country that’s led by Donald Trump and his sycophant Congress.

Today, Elon Musk, a trillionaire, pays the same amount into Social Security as someone making $184,500. If we end that absurdity and lift the cap on taxable income, we can make Social Security solvent for 75 years and expand benefits by $2,400. My Social Security bill does that.

If we liquidated Elon Musk as a financial entity we could each pocket $3,000. Just putting that out there. 3K. Not bad.

Trillionaires shouldn't exist and neither should billioniares. Tax every penny in net worth over $999 million at 100%. We can have extreme wealth concentration or a democracy but we can't have both at the same time. Pick one.

Americans are struggling to pay for groceries and gas while Elon Musk becomes a TRILLIONAIRE. When the federal government is for sale, the rich get richer and everyone else gets shafted. The system is rigged.

You’ve heard of Hobby Horsing, now witness the new and competitive sport of Synchronized Walking.

EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration plans to announce it is seeking to revoke the citizenship of 17 U.S. citizens accused of immigration fraud, expanding its unprecedented denaturalization campaign, CBS News has exclusively learned. cbsn.ws/49LajBM

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists. As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them. But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed. After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)? Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate? Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never). Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal? The editors said it was too much, they explained. The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so. It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life. And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it. Still fawning after all these years.