(Note, for now, The Unknown will be on Rumble; find out why here.)
Richard Luthmann and I were back for the 62nd episode of The Unknown.
In the current events segment, President Trump was in Asia, and Richard called it another momentous occasion.
He was making agreements, or at least close to an agreement with South Korea.
President Donald Trump said Thursday in South Korea that Seoul has agreed to invest $350 billion in the United States, marking a partial breakthrough in trade negotiations after months of discussions.
“South Korea has agreed to pay the USA 350 Billion Dollars for a lowering of the Tariff’s charged against them by the United States,” Trump wrote on Truth Social after meeting South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Gyeongju, South Korea.
Lee’s chief of staff, Kim Yong-beom, and other senior officials said at a briefing Wednesday that Trump and Lee had resolved some of the key issues around the $350 billion investment pledge Seoul made as part of a preliminary July agreement to avoid higher U.S. tariffs. According to a report in the Seoul-based Yonhap News Agency, South Korea has committed to spending $200 billion in cash, paid in installments not exceeding $20 billion per year. The remaining $150 billion will be directed toward the U.S. shipbuilding industry, according to Lee’s aides, a top manufacturing priority for the Trump administration.
After the broadcast, Trump also announced the framework for a deal with China.
President Donald Trump touted an “amazing” meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, saying the two leaders reached agreements to reduce tariffs on Chinese imports, delay Chinese restrictions on its rare earth mineral exports and secure Chinese purchases of American soybeans and other farm products.
Still, key topics -- including Chinese designs on Taiwan and a potential deal to keep TikTok operating in the U.S. -- were not addressed, according to the post-meeting remarks from Trump and official Chinese readouts.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One following the meeting with Xi, which lasted about 1 hour and 45 minutes, Trump said the 20% tariffs on China related to fentanyl were being reduced to 10%, bringing the total amount of duties imposed on Chinese imports from 57% to 47%.
China has committed to buying US stuff before and they don’t follow through. Also, while he’s making deals in China, Trump raised tariffs on Canada after a mean commercial.
President Donald Trump announced he’s adding an extra 10% tariff on Canadian imports over a negative TV commercial featuring a speech by President Ronald Reagan.
Officials in the province of Ontario have said the ad, which protests Trump’s tariff policy, will be pulled from the airwaves next week. However, Trump said in a social media post that given the ad was played during Game 1 of the World Series Friday night, he is increasing duties on Canadian goods.
The ad was played again during Game 2 of the World Series on Saturday night.
Tying tariff rates to hurt feelings is bad policy. Trump has made some deals, but he’s also raised a lot of tariffs. I give him a C+ grade so far.
In Chicago, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used a lot of tear gas, frightened quiet neighborhoods, while alienating almost every resident.
A Chicago area judge- US District Judge Sara Ellis, an Obama appointee- ordered ICE to stop firing tear gas, for the Chicago commander to produce all after action reports since September, and for him to come to her court every day for a briefing until their next hearing next week.
An appeals court blocked her order requiring the commander, Greg Bovino, to come to her courtroom daily for a briefing.
Though ICE is engaging in gestapo like tactics, the Judge is also drunk on power, in my opinion; I don’t think she can dictate what their use of force limits are.
What the Hales
In the What the Hales segment which started 29 minutes in, Jeremy Hales and his minions nuked my YouTube account. Worse yet, they’re dancing on my grave.
The claim is that the channel had nudity and sexually explicit content, a charge as contrived as all of Hales complaints.
I’m in contact with YouTube, hoping to appeal the appeal. YouTube insists that no action is ever taken without a good reason.
I’d like to share that we rely on YouTube community members to report or flag content that they find inappropriate. Reporting content is anonymous, so other users can’t tell who made the report. That means a mass report can be made on your content or channel, but it’s up to our team to review and confirm if your channel or content really violated our policies and guidelines. If our review team doesn’t find any violations, no amount of reporting will change that, and the video and channel will remain on our site.
That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it. If this was so, why are they allowing a second appeal? I think everyone knows that YouTube, and most successful social media platforms, primarily rely on AI to process complaints like these.
YouTube has still not said which videos are the offending ones. Overnight they removed my entire channel. They won’t say which videos caused the removal, nor will they let me remove any offending material.
How is that for transparency?
Our stories
In the final segment which started 1:08:00 in, we detailed Julie Holburn’s article on Francesca Amato.
Julie’s reporting followed reports by Richard and me about a fake bill Francesca used to get hundreds of parents to DC.
She claimed that there was a Congressional hearing, when she held a meeting in a library.
After the initial reports, Francesca pushed the envelope and claimed that both Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Alabama Republican Congressman Barry Moore were sponsoring the bill.
Julie reached out to both offices, and they denied this.
A staffer for Rep. Barry Moore’s Washington office said the congressman’s staff merely helped Francesca Amato reserve a room “as a courtesy” after she used the name of author, investigative journalist, and Alabama congressional candidate Terri LaPoint. Moore’s office, the staffer said, had a longstanding working relationship with LaPoint and had recently collaborated with her on H.R. 5647, the Advocates for Families Act of 2025, introduced in September.
The staffer added that confusion arose when Amato invoked LaPoint’s name, leading some staff to believe she was part of the H.R. 5647 team. According to the staffer, Amato sent roughly 20 emails requesting a meeting room and later appeared in person at the D.C. office seeking space. “We did not sponsor or endorse the event or a bill,” the staffer said.
…
When contacted, David Bader, press secretary for Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he initially believed the inquiry referred to a similar-sounding bill — Sen. Tim Scott’s Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, a legitimate measure introduced in January 2025. After a quick computer search for FJAA turned up nothing, he said:
“I will look into this one — and get back to you with some details,” Bader said.
That clarification underscores one of several key distinctions: although a federal bill (S. 204) does exist under Sen. Scott’s name, the event organized by Amato and the FJAA has no comparable official existence—no sponsors, no hearing, no congressional record.
Naturally, Francesca threatened to sue after the article came out.
Your publication contains false and defamatory statements about me that were made without any legitimate journalistic standards or ethics. You did not contact me, seek comment, or attempt to verify the facts, and instead published a distorted version of events that is entirely false.
Under U.S. law, knowingly publishing false statements that harm another person’s reputation constitutes defamation — including both libel (written defamation) and, where applicable, slander (spoken defamation). This includes fabricating information, publishing unverified claims as fact, or presenting opinion as fact in a misleading way.
Because your statements were made publicly and have caused reputational harm, emotional distress, and potential economic damage, your actions fall squarely within the scope of civil liability under state defamation laws. Additionally, your conduct may constitute false light, a separate tort recognized in many states, which protects individuals from being portrayed to the public in a misleading or damaging way.
It is important to note that calling yourself a journalist does not shield you from legal accountability. Real journalism requires diligence, fact-checking, and fair opportunity for response. You did none of these things. Instead, you acted with negligence — and potentially actual malice — by publishing untrue claims without evidence or fair process.
I am demanding that you immediately remove all false and defamatory content you have posted about me and issue a public retraction. If this matter is not promptly corrected, I will consider every available legal remedy, including a defamation lawsuit, injunctive relief, and other civil actions to protect my rights and reputation.
She previously threatened to sue me after my article.
