In an effort to smear Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, The New York Times relied on input from a supposedly impartial authority on ethics in government. Supposedly. The article targeted Duffy’s recent Department of Transportation project, a YouTube series titled “The Great American Road Trip.” Kathleen Clark, an attorney and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, was described by the NYT simply as someone “who specializes in government ethics.” Weighing in on the fact that Duffy’s family members were brought along for the ride and featured in the YouTube series, Clark argued that because those family members were not officially contracted to the DOT and were taking part in the project anyway, they were essentially receiving “gifts” from the series sponsors. “Gifts to the secretary’s family are absolutely not gifts to the department,” she said. “This is really gift laundering … This is an incredibly corrupt endeavor, and it’s dangerous, because it affects public safety.” But the NYT left out a few key details when describing Clark’s credentials. Clark, in her capacity as an attorney, served as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1991-1993 — during then-Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-DE) tenure as committee chair (1987-1995). The Washington University Professor has also served on the board of directors (as Secretary) of American Oversight, Inc. — a nonprofit organization that also claims to be nonpartisan but has a clear bias against President Donald Trump — since its formation in 2017. The group’s listed “priorities,” according to its own website, are described as follows: “We were founded in 2017 in response to the unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.” Headlines posted on the American Oversight Inc.’s website in the last several weeks read like a typical left-leaning advocacy group: ICE’s work with local police departments is being kept secret American Oversight launches investigation into Trump admin’s politicized prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center Statement from American Oversight and historians on today’s hearing to block Trump’s efforts to evade presidential records law Clark’s page on Washington University’s website adds another layer to the story: while her history up to 2017 includes several ethics-based academic publications, she has none listed since that year. In addition, she has no media listings prior to 2025. But beginning in February of 2025, she has been sought out several times to provide comments to various outlets. Every one came after President Trump was sworn in to begin his second term. Every one is an attack either on someone serving in Trump’s administration or on the president himself. Kash Patel’s $800000 Trump Media Award Raises New Conflict Questions Musk’s Inexcusable Conflicts Trump Hired Musk as a ‘Special Government Employee.’ Here’s What That Means Elon Musk Has to Fill Out a Public Financial Disclosure Legal Experts Say. Where Is It? Dr. Oz: How His Millions Collide With Medicare A Masters Tradition Unlike Any Other: Gifting Tickets to Government Officials Qatar gifting Trump $400M luxury jet raises ethical and legal concerns Trump fought to keep the ballroom fundraising contract secret. Here’s what’s in it. And Duffy brings her count up to nine. And while one might be able to excuse away some of that by pointing out the fact that even some Republicans raised ethical questions about some of those same topics, Clark’s social media footprint is … just the Left foot. Her X handle, which hasn’t posted since 2024, directs would-be followers to lefty-haven BlueSky — but her old posts include a slew of criticisms aimed at Trump ally Elon Musk. One thread from August 2024 bashes Vice President JD Vance over a 2021 interview. She reposted several comments comparing Trump to former President Richard Nixon and trashing the Supreme Court over its ruling on presidential immunity. And she criticized Justice Samuel Alito for refusing to recuse himself from January 6-related cases over his wife’s decision to hang a Revolutionary War-era flag at their home.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is touting a 66% increase in per-student education spending since taking office, but state reading scores show that the massive cash infusion has done little to improve literacy, and in some cases, student performance has worsened. Newsom celebrated the spending increase this week, boasting on social media that California now spends a record $28,282 per student as his administration makes what he called “historic investments in public education.” But state proficiency data complicates the governor’s victory lap: black students’ reading proficiency remained flat at 32% between the year before Newsom took office and the most recent reporting year, despite billions in additional educational funding. White students, meanwhile, saw reading proficiency fall from 65% to 62% over the same period. Reading proficiency of black students in California in the year before Newsom took office: 32% In the most recent year: 32% So, a 66% increase in spending led to a 0% increase in reading proficiency. https://t.co/62o27hKNWy — i/o (@avidseries) May 15, 2026 The figures raise fresh questions about whether Newsom’s education agenda has translated into measurable classroom gains, or whether the Democratic governor is using ballooning budgets to score political points while academic outcomes stagnate. When Newsom entered office in 2019, California’s K-12 schools received roughly $17,423 per student from state, local, and federal funding sources. Under his proposed 2026-27 budget, that figure has climbed to more than $28,000 per student, representing one of the sharpest spending increases in the nation. Newsom has repeatedly framed the increase as proof that his administration is transforming public education, describing California’s school funding as “the envy of many other states.” Yet long-running arguments from teachers unions and education officials that low funding was the primary driver behind California’s lagging academic performance now face greater scrutiny. California was once near the bottom nationally in per-pupil spending, but now ranks among the top tier of states. Student outcomes, however, have improved in tandem. Critics argue that much of the additional funding has gone toward expanding bureaucracy, new state initiatives, and higher compensation packages rather than directly improving core academic performance. Some districts have used the additional funding to shore up payroll and pension obligations even as enrollment declines and test scores remain weak.  The disconnect is particularly stark for minority students, whom Newsom and other California Democrats frequently invoke when defending higher education spending. Despite the governor’s 66% funding increase, black students’ reading proficiency has not improved during his tenure, raising questions about whether the state’s historic spending spree has failed to move the needle for one of the groups Democratic politicians most often claim to prioritize. In California, at least, Newsom’s record spending has so far produced a record bill, without the record achievement.

May 15 (Reuters) – Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis granted clemency on Friday to former county elections clerk Tina Peters, a Trump ally who was convicted of tampering with voting machines as she pursued concerns that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen. Polis wrote in his clemency letter to Peters that he was commuting her nine-year prison sentence to time already served and ordering her release on parole effective June 1. Prior to gaining clemency, Peters, 70, would not have been eligible for release until November 2028. “Thank you Governor Polis,” Peters posted on X. “I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past.” Peters was one of 44 individuals to whom Polis granted clemency on Friday. “The Clemency power is a serious responsibility, and not one that I take lightly,” Polis said in a statement. “This power has the ability to change lives – help grant a second chance for someone who has made grave mistakes – and it comes with great consideration, and sometimes even controversy.” Peters, a Republican, was an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump’s claims that he lost the 2020 White House race to Democrat Joe Biden because of widespread election fraud. Peters was the clerk of Mesa County when she was indicted in 2022, following an election security breach at her office that led to the posting of voting equipment passwords on a political blog. She denied wrongdoing but was convicted in 2024 on seven charges, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant. She was acquitted on three other charges. Last year, President Trump ordered the Department of Justice “to help secure the release” of Peters, saying she was prosecuted “for political reasons.” He said Peters was an “innocent American” whose incarceration was “unjust.” In December, Trump pardoned her, but a Colorado court ruled that he had no authority to do so since she was convicted on state charges. Trump lashed out at Polis that same month, accusing the governor of being beholden to transnational gangs. “The governor of Colorado is a weak and pathetic man who was run by Tren de Aragua,” Trump said. “The criminals from Venezuela took over sections of Colorado. And he was afraid to do anything, but he puts Tina in jail for nine years because she caught people cheating.” (Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis and Steve Gorman; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Michelle Nichols and Bill Berkrot)

Virginia Democrats just found out the Supreme Court is not in the mood for election-year do-overs. In a decision that could ripple far beyond the Commonwealth, the United States Supreme Court slammed the brakes on a Democrat-backed effort to redraw Virginia’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms, and it did it without a single justice publicly objecting. No fiery dissents. No dramatic explanation. Just a quiet little order that dropped like a hammer. The fight centered around a voter-approved map Democrats hoped would help flip four Republican-held House seats and possibly tilt control of Congress. Virginia voters narrowly approved the new map in April after Democrats pushed through a complicated workaround to sidestep the state’s bipartisan redistricting system. Republicans immediately cried foul, arguing the process violated Virginia’s constitution because lawmakers jammed the proposal forward after early voting had already started in a required election cycle. Virginia’s Supreme Court agreed in a razor-thin 4-3 ruling, tossing the map out entirely and saying the process was too compromised to stand. Democrats raced to the nation’s highest court begging the justices to step in and save the plan before the midterms heat up. But the Supreme Court basically responded with a cold shrug. Why does this matter? Because this is not just about Virginia. It is part of a nationwide political cage match over congressional maps as both parties scramble to redraw districts before November. Texas Republicans already moved to strengthen their map. California Democrats fired back with their own redraw. Now Virginia has become another major battlefield in the redistricting war that could decide who controls Washington. Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and both parties know a few district lines can change the balance of power overnight. Even more wild? Nearly $100 million was dumped into the Virginia referendum fight alone. To most Virginians, it probably looked like just another random ballot question buried halfway down the page. To both parties, though, it was political gold. But in modern politics, maps are power. And Friday’s ruling was a reminder that sometimes the most important election battles happen long before anyone actually votes.

NEW YORK, May 15 (Reuters) – Harvey Weinstein’s third trial in New York over allegations he used his Hollywood clout to prey upon and sexually abuse women ended in a mistrial on Friday, after a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on a charge he raped the aspiring actress Jessica Mann. Weinstein, 74, is expected to remain behind bars due to his convictions in other cases. Weinstein was a top Oscar-winning film producer until sexual misconduct allegations led to his downfall and fueled a wider social movement that encouraged women to come forward with accounts of sexual abuse by powerful men. His most recent trial centered on Mann’s allegation that Weinstein raped her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 while Mann resisted and repeatedly said “No.” It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors would seek to try the case for a fourth time. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the case, said his office was disappointed but respected the jury system. “We will consider our next steps in consultation with Ms. Mann,” Bragg said in a statement. Defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo told reporters outside the courthouse that he would encourage prosecutors to drop the case, saying nine jurors voted not guilty and three voted guilty. “In my view they were lucky to have won over three jurors,” Agnifilo said of the prosecutors. Mann said she told the truth but did not clearly indicate how she wanted to proceed. “I deserve justice,” Mann said in a statement. FIRST CONVICTION OVERTURNED Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to one count of third-degree rape and has denied assaulting anyone or having non-consensual sex. His lawyers have argued that Mann fabricated the rape allegation after regretting that her consensual romance with Weinstein failed to advance her film career. At his first trial in New York in 2020, Weinstein was convicted of raping Mann and assaulting onetime production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006. But the state’s highest court overturned the conviction and Weinstein’s 23-year prison sentence after concluding he did not get a fair trial. A Manhattan jury then convicted Weinstein of sexually abusing Haley at a trial in June 2025, but found him not guilty of assaulting former model Kaja Sokola. That jury deadlocked on the third-degree rape charge accusing Weinstein of assaulting Mann, leading Justice Curtis Farber to declare a mistrial on that count. The retrial began in April. ‘HOPELESSLY DEADLOCKED’ During their third day of deliberations on Friday, jurors sent Farber a note saying they were deadlocked. The judge urged them to keep trying to reach a verdict. Farber said outside the presence of the jury that it was clear they were “hopelessly deadlocked” and that there was no reason to keep them any longer. He told lawyers for both sides to return for a hearing on June 25. Juror Josh Hadar, 57, told reporters outside the courthouse that he voted not guilty over what he said were “contradictions” in Mann’s testimony. Weinstein was also convicted of rape in California in 2022 and is serving a 16-year prison sentence. He is appealing that conviction and sentence. The Miramax studio co-founder will face up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced for abusing Haley. (Reporting by Jack Queen and Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Rod Nickel and Bill Berkrot)