A leftist podcaster grilled Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin on Tuesday over his refusal to release the highly anticipated post-election autopsy examining how Democrats lost the 2024 presidential race. The DNC had initially signaled the autopsy would be made public, but in December 2025, the party announced it would not release the report despite Chairman Marin publicly pledging to do so. The reversal ignited a firestorm among some Democrats eager to understand why more than $1 billion in fundraising failed to deliver the White House to Kamala Harris. The review of the party’s 2024 wipeout is said to have centered around hundreds of interviews with operatives across all 50 states, raising concerns within the Democratic Party about airing internal divisions, according to Politico.  For Jon Favreau, former Obama speechwriter and co-host of Pod Save America, the public explanation isn’t cutting it. “Why did you change your mind on that?” he asked Martin, point-blank. Martin defended the decision, arguing the party is focused on applying lessons rather than relitigating the past. “What I said all along, even when I ran for this position, is that we were going to focus on the things that will help us win the upcoming election, right, making sure that we learn the right lessons that could help inform our victories,” Martin said. “It’s not completely accurate to say that we didn’t release that. Where we’re keeping our focus is on the lessons that can actually help us win.” Jon Favreau questions DNC Chair Ken Martin on why he won’t release the DNC’s autopsy on the 2024 election. pic.twitter.com/cypRJcK2bh — Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) April 28, 2026 When pressed again, Martin insisted the report contains no single explanation for the loss. “There’s no smoking gun in the report. And I know that’s what everyone’s so eager to learn this smoking gun,” Martin said. Favreau pushed back: “But if there’s no smoking gun, why wouldn’t you just release it then?” “Because we want to keep the focus on the lessons,” an irritated Martin said. “Because what ends up happening here is that people, of course, want to weaponize the report in a way, to look backwards, to point fingers, place blame, in a way that actually doesn’t keep us focused on the upcoming election.” “Guess what, John? In the third-closest presidential election in the last 100 years, everything mattered. There’s nothing that didn’t impact that election,” he added. The contentious exchange comes as pressure mounts within the party to release at least part of the report. At a DNC meeting last week in New Orleans, attendees stood up and screamed at Martin, according to Axios, and leftist groups have deployed mobile billboards reading, “RELEASE THE AUTOPSY.” Leaked details of the report are said to have highlighted the party’s staggering losses with young voters, a defensive message on immigration, and outdated data infrastructure, according to Politico. “Democrats are allergic to accountability,” Briahna Joy Gray, former national secretary for the 2020 Bernie Sanders campaign, posted on X.

Democrats melted down Tuesday over the second indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, blasting the charges as politically motivated and claiming they reflect a weaponized Department of Justice. “Different Trump defense lawyer running the DOJ, same old story. Weaponized justice. Vindictive prosecutions. Catering to an audience of one. Perverting the rule of law, one enemy at a time,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) bemoaned on social media.  Different Trump defense lawyer running the DOJ, same old story. Weaponized justice. Vindictive prosecutions. Catering to an audience of one. Perverting the rule of law, one enemy at a time. pic.twitter.com/9APAlbbuqj — Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) April 28, 2026 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) questioned the quality of the FBI investigation, calling it a “loser case.” “Did agents print out the seashells picture and look at it upside down? Send it for DNA testing? [Acting Attorney General Todd] Blanche is bringing this loser case again to kiss trump’s (sic) ass,” he wrote. This is an asinine statement by @DAGToddBlanche, that there was “a lot of work by law enforcement over the past year.” Did agents print out the seashells picture and look at it upside down? Send it for DNA testing? Blanche is bringing this loser case again to kiss trump’s ass. https://t.co/PQQxNUToJb — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 28, 2026 Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker escalated the criticism, slamming President Donald Trump as an “authoritarian” and accusing his administration of stripping Americans of their rights. “The president, on the other hand, is literally using the Department of Justice to take people to prison. He is indicting people and prosecuting people for no reason other than they are his opponents. So there’s a big difference in what each side is doing here,” Pritzker said in an interview with NBC. “It may take us a couple of years, in fact, to go after people like Kash Patel, like Kristi Noem, like Tom Homan, like Greg Bovino, but we are coming after them,” he added. Today on Meet the Press Now, JB Pritzker calls President Trump an “authoritarian, and if we are not pushing back every single day, then we’re doing it wrong.” A few seconds later, Pritzker threatens Trump admin officials: “It may take us a couple of years, in fact, to go after… pic.twitter.com/UxrRHq1L6R — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 28, 2026 Mark Elias, a prominent Democratic attorney, warned the case signals a lasting shift at the Justice Department. “We’re not talking about indicting a ham sandwich. We’re literally talking about indicting someone over seashells on the beach. Who knows what’s going to happen? Who knows who they’ll go after next?” Elias said on MSNOW.

In a show of tradition and diplomatic goodwill, President Donald Trump and King Charles III exchanged symbolic gifts on Tuesday during the British monarch’s state visit. King Charles gave Trump a historically significant, high-quality reproduction of the 1879 design plans for the Resolute Desk, which sits in the Oval Office. The 1,300-pound desk was crafted from salvaged timbers from the British ship H.M.S. Resolute, as The New York Times reported. The original design plans are housed at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, England. In return, Trump gifted the British Monarch a framed copy of a 1785 letter from then-U.S. ambassador to Britain John Adams to John Jay, who was serving as U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Adams, who would later become the nation’s second president, described in the letter a meeting with King George III in which both sides agreed to move forward amicably despite lingering bad feelings from the Revolutionary War.  The exchange was widely seen as a symbolic nod to the enduring relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. First lady Melania Trump and Queen Camilla also exchanged gifts. Melania Trump presented the queen with a set of six engraved silver spoons from Tiffany & Co., while Queen Camilla gifted the first lady a designer brooch. It was also revealed this week that Trump and King Charles share a distant familial connection, as The Daily Wire previously reported. Research cited by The Daily Mail traces both men’s lineage back to the 3rd Earl of Lennox, a great-grandson of King James II of Scotland, making them 15th cousins. The official White House X account highlighted the discovery, sharing a chart tracing back the ancestry research along with a screenshot of Trump’s reaction on Truth Social: “Wow, that’s nice. I always wanted to live in Buckingham Palace!!! I’ll talk to the King and Queen about this in a few minutes!!!” King Charles and Queen Camilla are visiting the United States as the country approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence from Britain, a milestone both sides are marking as a sign of the continued strength of the transatlantic alliance. The royal couple arrived in the United States on Monday and is scheduled to visit Washington, D.C., New York, and Virginia.

Try as I might, I occasionally get sucked into the online doom-scroll and recently, I’ve been genuinely rattled by the pure hatred people carry for me on the internet. Not me as an individual, but my entire perceived identity. I am Republican, therefore I am an evil, worthless, unlovable person. Obviously. This is evident in the way we are discussed online.  Take applesauce.eater37. He posted a video of him and his friend with the caption, “When me and my Republican bro both interested in the Latina so I ask him who he voted for again.” In slow motion, with the song “Hemorrhage” playing in the background, the liberal (less attractive) male gets the girl and walks away with the Latina looking back in disgust at the morally depraved Republican. 689,000 likes. Ten million views. A comment section turned Republican roast sesh. “Why you have a republican friend in the first place?” “No one smart is attracted to republicans” “Let’s normalize this because I don’t want to date a guy who doesn’t care about women or anyone other than themselves.” “Who has a republican bro anymore? No more tolerance” “republican friend? in the MAGA era of politics? hell naw. i don’t even have republican family today” They deride Republicans as inhuman. Unworthy of friendship, beyond saving, deplorable. In another video, a man (with painted nails) explains that he left the conservative party, and you should too. The comments that followed? “Men learning empathy is so funny.” “Oh so you learned to critically think” Apparently, Republicans lack empathy and the ability to think critically.  This is coming from the same crowd that laughs when conservatives are shot, mourns when the bullet misses, and openly wishes for the next one to land. If we think critically about the irony there, we see that the party of supposed “empathy” and “tolerance” is often the most apathetic and intolerant crowd in the room. I believe in this case, culture is downstream from politics, and our politicians have been stripping Republicans of their humanity for years, all so they never have to engage with our arguments, our policies, or us in general. When Hillary Clinton calls us “deplorables,” when Hakeem Jeffries says our policies are “violent,” when Joe Biden calls MAGA Republicans “semi-fascists,” when too many in the mainstream left repeatedly call Trump supporters “Nazis” … they are delegitimizing us. Stripping us of human virtue. Belittling us, so that when we are harmed, it registers as a net positive. Nazis taken out! Good!  If our leaders are telling voters and constituents that the most powerful man in the world is a pedophile, a rapist, and a traitor, and his followers are child-harming, women-hating, country-loathing sympathizers — well, the culture will quickly turn against Republicans, who make up half the country. Where that stream turns into a waterfall is online. Hateful, polarizing, emotionally charged rhetoric is promoted and pushed algorithmically much farther than neutral language on social media, and who consumes most of that content? Young people. They are first taught that it is necessary to hurt or kill those who are preventing social change — in fact, it is morally obligatory — and then they are taught that Republicans are evil. So take out the evil, and you are good. This is reflected in the data. Politicians, pop culture, and online creators have spent years insisting corporations are evil, capitalism is to blame for everything, conservatives are morally bankrupt, and Christianity is useless. The old moral code — the Ten Commandments we inherited from Judaism and Christianity — disappears. Suddenly, capitalists deserve to die. Forty percent of Americans with graduate or professional degrees now say “violence is often necessary to create social change.” Forty percent of Gen Z said the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO was acceptable. And 22% of liberals under 44 say it’s okay to feel happy when a political opponent dies. When you strip certain people of their morality, throw the entire moral compass out the window, and then argue that in your shiny new worldview violence is good if it’s aimed at the bad — then it is okay to kill Republicans. In fact, it’s encouraged. We saw this in the manifesto of Trump’s most recent alleged assassin, Cole Allen. A normal, nerdy Democrat, radicalized by MSNOW, CNN, and Bluesky, who decided it was his moral duty to kill the president. He was doing us all a favor. The other problem is that many on the Left have no higher power reeling them in, hitting the pause button, or telling them “No.” They answer to no one but themselves. And they’ve decided we are beneath contempt, so it’s best to block, banish, and spray us with bullets. Politics used to be about ironing out our differences. Now it’s about throwing away anything that doesn’t fit their ideal mold. The only way for them to see us as human again or even worthy of life is a return to faith and a shared moral code: thou shalt not murder, steal, bear false witness, covet, or dishonor your parents. You know, the Ten Commandments. Pretty solid rule of thumb. Will the Left accept it? Will they see us as created in the image of God, just like they are? Or are we too egregious beyond reckoning? The party that values the unborn, the living, and the dead. The party that rescued more than 62,000 unaccompanied migrant children from sex trafficking and forced labor in the last year alone. The party that launched Trump Accounts and expanded the Child Tax Credit to build generational wealth for low-income families. The party that expanded school choice and educational freedom. The party that puts violent criminals behind bars to protect its citizens. Could the Left ever extend such a party even one iota of respect? Well, Leftist judges are now blocking the Commandments from classrooms. They’re publicly lamenting that the shooter missed. Heck, I’ve already been labeled a racist and a bigot by people who’ve never met me. So no, I don’t think they’re coming around anytime soon. I suspect they would celebrate my death on Instagram — and the comment section would cheer.

What is the kind of speech that promotes violence?  The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be social consequences for what someone says. So what kind of speech deserves social consequences?  Jimmy Kimmel is America’s poster child for all idiotic political discourse. Long ago, Jimmy Kimmel ditched comedy in favor of smug lectures and fake tears. He’s not funny. He’s not clever. He’s just an annoying left-wing agitprop creator.  But when Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk on the Left and in the legacy media start pushing genuinely conspiratorial speech, their rhetoric is no longer just about bad jokes on television. Should he be on the unemployment line? Let’s discuss three basic standards when it comes to political speech in the United States. First: the illegal. There actually is illegal political speech in the United States. If you say, “I want to go kill the president of the United States,” that’s illegal. It’s either incitement or it’s an active threat. It came out of your mouth. It may be a form of speech, but it is also an active threat.  Under the Brandenburg test, incitement is any speech that is intended to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.  If I say, “You should go kill the president,” I’d probably have to say for it to be an illegal incitement, “I want you to go kill the president right now.” If I said that  — (obviously I’m using this as an example. No one should ever do political violence) — in that particular scenario, that would be incitement.  Second: Typical inflammatory rhetoric. This would be stuff like “Fight, fight, fight” or the Sarah Palin map of districts that targeted particular congressional districts. One of the targeted districts happened to be Gabby Giffords’ district. The Left tried to claim that because of that map, somebody tried to shoot Gabby Giffords. That’s silly. When people say, “We need to go to war with the Democrats,” or “We need to go to war with the Republicans,” is that going to lead to actual violence? No, because that sort of rhetoric is pretty typical of normal inflammatory rhetoric in politics. And we should not conflate that with incitement.  Third: The permission structure for violence. We have been talking about that a lot over the past couple of years. That stuff is truly dangerous. This is the conspiracism, the justification of violence. This is how you get crazy people to believe the president is a pedophile, meaning a threat to children, a rapist, meaning a threat to women, and a traitor, meaning a threat to the country, and in charge of all of the systems of power, and therefore can only be stopped through violence. But conflating these things leads to confusion that leads to inaction. If you try to lump together “We should go fight the Democrats” or “We should go fight the Republicans” with “The Democrats are pedophiles attacking children at a pizzeria,” or “The president of the United States is running a pedophile grooming gang,” those are not at all the same. Treating them as the same leads to inaction and an inability to agree on what is appropriate and what is inappropriate.  When you create insane theories about people being corrupt and evil and using their power in corrupt and evil ways, and those conspiracy theories suggest those people are a threat to you, it is not a gigantic surprise when somebody attempts to assassinate the president.  I think Jimmy Kimmel is awful. Kimmel has been terrible at his job for years. I think that he has surrendered laughter in favor of applause from his left-wing friends. If Jimmy Kimmel were to get fired, after he said before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner that Melania Trump had “the glow of an expectant widow,” I would shed zero tears.  Zero. I think that he is a propagandist. I do not think that he is funny. I think that he has betrayed his audience in surrendering humor in favor of left-wing agitprop.  But, in this particular situation, I will say, I think that if Jimmy Kimmel were to be fired over his comments about Melania, it would be like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion. You’re hitting him with the wrong charge. I think that Melania has every rationale for being furious at Jimmy Kimmel for being a scumbag.  I also think what Jimmy Kimmel was joking about was the idea — which is egregious enough — that Melania hates the president, would be happy if he were dead, and could inherit his wealth — was disgusting, but was not, in fact, a call to violence.  Kimmel defended his joke by saying it was a joke about their age difference, adding, “I understand that the first lady had a stressful experience over the weekend, and probably every weekend is pretty stressful in that house. And also, I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do, and I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.” His defense is actually worse than the original joke, which was tasteless. First of all, suggesting that Melania having stressful weekends is akin to somebody trying to kill her husband is insane and ridiculous. And for a person who tries to brand himself as Captain Empathy, Kimmel lacks true empathy in any realistic sense. And then, of course, he turned, swiveled, and clocked the president for his political rhetoric. It is amazing how our world has changed. The kind of hatred that has become commonplace in our politics is so clear. Back in 1981, somebody tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan, a few days before the Oscars. And Johnny Carson, who was then the dominant late-night host — and a Democrat— was hosting the Oscars. He said, “Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I’m sure that all of you here, and most of you watching tonight, understand why we delayed this program for 24 hours because of the incredible events of yesterday. That old adage, ‘the show must go on,’ seemed relatively unimportant. The Academy, ABC television, and all of us connected with the show felt, because of the uncertain outcome as of this time yesterday, it would have been inappropriate to stage a celebration. But the news today is very good, as you know. The president is in excellent condition. At last reports, he’s been conducting business.” The audience applauded. Do you think that you’d get anything like that from Hollywood today if the president had been shot in the chest?  I think that Kimmel’s jokes are terrible. I think they’re unfunny. I don’t even believe his woke politics. This is a dude who used to do “The Man Show” with Adam Carolla, in which women bounced around on trampolines without bras. Do I believe the new woke Jimmy Kimmel? I don’t, but again, bad jokes, tastelessness, being bad at his job, that’s not the reason why Jimmy Kimmel should have been fired long ago. If you want to talk about the kinds of rhetoric that lead people to try to kill the president, the answer is not his joke about Melania or making light of the idea of the president passing away or something of that ilk. That is not what leads to violence.  What leads to violence is pretty obvious: the actual conspiracism. Jimmy Kimmel has spent years calling the president a pedophile. He has accused him of being involved with Epstein. That is also what is in the actual shooter’s manifesto.  Kimmel has said, “He’s coming after our right to vote. He’s protecting pedophiles and won’t explain it. He’s lining the pockets of billionaires, all while neglecting the sick, the poor, the hungry, in the name of Jesus, by the way.” Also: “When your best friend was a pedophile and you’re losing bigly in the swing states with an election coming up, what do you do? I’ll tell you what you do. You fire the weapons of mass destruction. And that would mean he’d have to come up with another distraction from the war. And if you do need that, Mr. President, I got a good one for you; you know what would distract us from the war? Release the unreleased Trump Epstein files.” Also, to Trump: “Thank you for watching. I’m surprised … . Isn’t it past your jail time?” Also: “And by the way, if Trump wants to send a rapist somewhere, he can just jump on a bus himself, you know.” It was Jimmy Kimmel calling Trump a cover-up artist for pedophilia and a rapist, and all the rest — that is the permission structure for the violence.  So should Jimmy Kimmel lose his job? If we’re going to talk specifically about the kinds of rhetoric that need to be called out, that should have social consequences, conspiracism, anti-evidence idiocy that imputes evil to an opponent without evidence: That’s the kind of stuff that’s bad.  I’m not blaming Melania for being deeply upset with that joke from last week, because obviously, if you hear that joke and time flattens and then somebody tries to shoot your husband, you should be beyond furious. But the kind of rhetoric that we all should be fighting is the rhetoric that encourages conspiratorial thinking.