Bondi joins the presidential cancer cluster nobody’s allowed to notice; Carroll perjury indictment looms, Hoffman in the crosshairs; Biden sues to bury the Hur tapes; CIA ‘loses’ $40M in gold; more
JEFF CHILDERS
Rose Rambles
May 28, 2026

[snip]

🌍🇺🇸 ESSENTIAL NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🇺🇸🌍

Yesterday, adding another dimension to Bondi’s sudden and unexpected ‘transition’ from Attorney General to a new position, CNN reported that she “was diagnosed with thyroid cancer after leaving the Justice Department in April.”

(Axios broke the story. It really has been punching above its weight lately.) The story said Bondi “underwent treatment and is recovering from surgery a few weeks ago,” whatever that means.

The good news is that the most common types of thyroid cancer are not aggressive and usually well managed with treatment, having five- and ten-year survival rates over 90%. It sounds like she is probably in that category.

CNN reported that Bondi will soon join a White House task force related to AI, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

And if that were all the news, the story wouldn’t be worth reporting again here, not amidst this exciting Annus Operum. But Bondi’s thyroid cancer is not the story. The story is the bizarre cancer cluster, every story reported this month (May), all within about 1-3 weeks:

I take that back. The cancer cluster isn’t the real story. The odds that this cluster could just be a random group misfortune, however improbable, isn’t the story, either.

The real story is the even more baffling total silence about this astonishingly media-ripe string of cancerous coincidences. Nothing abou(t) it — zero, zip, nada — in the New York Times, which loves a tasty story about bad luck befalling conservatives.

Instead, over the span of a couple of weeks, the trad-media curtly reported a string of cancer stories all tied, in one way or another, to President Trump’s inner circle.

A former attorney general announces thyroid cancer weeks after being ‘pushed out’; the White House chief of staff discloses breast cancer; a senior intelligence official resigns citing a spouse’s cancer; a close family member of the president’s son is diagnosed with breast cancer.

Each got its own appropriately somber write‑up, usually (but not always) with sympathetic quotes and reassuring language about treatment and recovery.

What’s missing is not information, but curiosity. Not one network connected these cancer dots together, not even Axios, HuffPo, or Mother Jones.

No anchors asked cancer experts, even cautiously, “Is it unusual to see this many serious diagnoses in such a tight cluster?” No reporters even phoned an epidemiologist who’d say that it’s more common than you might think, which, at minimum, would at least have acknowledged that the question exists.