'if there was someone to win, it would be me'

'California set aside $1.1 million for the Fast Food Council'

'Exacerbated fraud and hurt patients'

Justices didn’t seem to break along predictable lines Wednesday, when they presented critical questions to both sides in a case regarding a Christian pastor’s free speech challenge to a Mississippi city ordinance.  In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether someone convicted under a law has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law to prevent its future enforcement without nullifying a prior conviction for violating that law. Brandon, Mississippi, adopted a city ordinance regulating protests around the city’s amphitheater. Pastor Gabriel Olivier preached outside a designated “protest zone” even after police warned him not to do so. He pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance but now wants to prevent future enforcement.  “I am grateful to have had my case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court—an opportunity few others in my situation have ever had,” Olivier said in a statement released by First Liberty, the religious freedom law firm that represents him, after the oral arguments concluded. “I pray this case results in a decision that allows others to be able to fight for their First Amendment rights in court.” Doors Olivier ‘Chose Not to Enter’ During his opening arguments, G. Todd Butler, representing Brandon, said Olivier had multiple opportunities to challenge the law and his conviction in state courts. Butler scoffed at the argument that “courthouse doors are closed” to Olivier.  “That argument ignores the countless doors the petitioner chose not to enter,” Butler told justices. “What this case is about is the petitioner’s preferred door, one that offers a favored venue, and an opportunity for attorneys fees.” Olivier shared his Christian faith near the amphitheater in May 2021. Police told him he was required to speak only in the designated “protest zone.”  Olivier first did as requested, but later argued the designated area was too isolated. So, he returned to his original location and was arrested for violating the city’s ordinance.  Had he challenged his arrest, it would have been less murky legal territory, since he would clearly have standing as someone harmed or affected by the law. However, in June 2021, Olivier made a no-contest plea, which is not admitting guilt but not disputing charges. He received a fine and a suspended 10-day sentence.  Olivier wanted to return to preach at the amphitheater area again, so to avoid another arrest, he challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinance in federal court.  Supreme Court Arguments During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about “collateral consequences” of challenging the law but not the conviction, and how that could affect the enforcement of the terms of future convictions that might be challenged in a similar manner. Allyson Ho, volunteering pro bono with First Liberty to represent Olivier, replied that past court rulings determined it “would not automatically, or even permissibly preclude the state” from enforcing the conditions of the conviction.  Along those same lines, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “What about a requirement that the individual show up for probation meetings?” Absolutely, your honor, because, again, the only effect that the federal judgment has is forward looking,” Ho replied. “It is a prospective relief. It prohibits the enforcement of the ordinance against him on a forward-looking basis. It does not reach back.” The district court and the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined Olivier could not challenge the Brandon ordinance even if its future enforcement would violate his constitutional rights. It based the dismissal on the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey (1994). The high court ruled in Heck that a person can’t bring a civil rights lawsuit if success in the lawsuit would imply the conviction is invalid—unless that conviction has already been reversed through appeal or clemency.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the plaintiffs’ call for only looking forward without challenging the previous conviction was unusual.  “By definition, a win by you, or win by a third party, would call the prior convictions into question,” Sotomayor said. “It will be used by you and others to try to go back in other proceedings and get those expunged or otherwise set aside. You may or may not win. But it will call it into question.” Ho disagreed, and said the high court has used only “two buckets” in applying the Heck precedent. Neither, she said, would apply to Olivier, since he was never incarcerated. “The first bucket are claims where the federal relief would result in immediate or faster release from confinement,” Ho said. “The second bucket is damages resulting from past confinement.”  Questions for Butler Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Butler, the city’s attorney, “about your initial litany of doors” for Oliver. “Were they all state forums, all state remedies, that you discussed? Is there any other federal remedy?” Jackson asked. “If we agree with you, this person ends up with no federal remedy, and that just seems odd.” Butler replied, “My laundry list of things were state court remedies.” But he said the Heck precedent was in part about steering plaintiffs to resort to state litigation.  Roberts pressed the city’s attorney about whether this meant an automatic arrest and jail time if Olivier preaches again at the amphitheater outside the protest zone.  “When you commit a crime, a particular one, and you’re convicted, you undertake not to commit further violations of that provision,” Roberts said. “Now, if he does, is he subject to reincarceration? Certainly, that’s a big part of the probation in this particular case.” Butler suggested Olivier may go to jail if he violates the ordinance again. “If he violated the ordinance, he would immediately not pass go and go straight to jail for 10 days, because he was under the suspended sentence,” Butler said. “And that constitutes custody under this court’s jurisprudence.” The city passed the ordinance in question in 2019, in response to what it considered a hardship for local police to control protesters that showed up in the area.  The Trump administration is siding with Olivier, as U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and Assistant Solicitor General Ashley Robertson gave a brief argument to justices, as well.  The post Supreme Court Justices Hear Street Preacher Who Challenged Law After Pleading No Contest to Breaking It appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In recent days, in the South China Sea, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group has been conducting operations and bilateral exercises with the Philippines, to include anti-submarine warfare drills. This comes as tensions have increased between China and Japan, on top of a simmering confrontation at the flashpoint of Scarborough Shoal with the Philippines. For decades, China has been conducting illegal maritime encroachments into its neighbors’ waters and is now trying to mask its malign activities with a new tactic—environmentalism. This is particularly hypocritical given China has destroyed many pristine coral reefs under an archipelago of man-made island military bases. China now plans to establish a maritime nature reserve that will consist of two parts: A “core zone” that will include the damaged reef within the Scarborough Shoal that will prohibit any human activity, and the “experimental zone” which will cover 400-800 yards of water on either side of the reef where research, the breeding of fish, and tourism may take place. Scarborough Shoal is not just a grouping of rocks and coral; it is a rich fishing ground. Fishermen from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been active in the area for generations. That changed drastically in 2012, when China reneged on a negotiated deal brokered by the U.S. and forcibly seized control of it from the Philippines. Today China has effective control of the shoal and is limiting access and increasing intimidation of non-Chinese fishing vessels.   Infographic showing Scarborough Shoal and other islands and reefs in the disputed South China Sea. (Graphic by JOHN SAEKI/AFP via Getty Images) In recent years, China’s increased presence around the shoal is up from an average of 48 ships a month near the end of 2024, to 95 ships a month during the first half of 2025. Countries with vested economic interests in the region are not happy about China’s actions, especially the Philippines, which stands staunchly opposed to China’s increasingly brazen dominance in their water. Scarborough Shoal is within the Philippine’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, making China’s plans particularly problematic given its proximity to the capital of Manila and strategic port of Subic Bay. One potential protection against China’s activities is the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, which states: “If one nation’s ’metropolitan’ territory, military, aircraft, islands, or public vessels are attacked, the other must respond in accordance with their ’constitutional processes.’” The United States has affirmed commitment to protecting the Philippine’s sovereignty under the Biden administration which released a joint statement with the Philippines president saying “An armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea, would invoke United States mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.” With all this in mind, it is critical the U.S. act quickly with the Philippines to deter Beijing from moving forward with its plan to establish a marine preserve at Scarborough Shoal. This should be done through both diplomatic pressure and increased military presence like the current U.S. carrier strike group in the region. In response to Chinese duplicity, in 2013, the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China and won. That case concluded with the international tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ruling in 2016 that China’s Nine-Dash Line violated the U.N.’s conventions and that fishermen from the Philippines and China have traditional fishing rights within the shoal. China does not recognize the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling and continues to claim sovereignty over the territory using the same disproven historical arguments. China may want to appear as if it’s protecting the damaged reefs within Scarborough Shoal, but China has shown it does not care about the environmental impact of its activities in the region. Chinese fishing vessels have participated in damaging practices when harvesting clams, and within the South China Sea, China is thought to have caused the destruction of around 4,600 acres of reef. Why does China suddenly care about this reef, and why build a nature reserve now? Satellite images released on Oct. 8 depict the placement of a barricade at the mouth of the Scarborough Shoal, which has been confirmed by the Philippine Navy. This is not the first time a barricade has been placed at the shoal, but paired with the plans for a nature reserve, it demonstrates China’s goal of gaining full control. As of Oct. 17, China was operating fighter jets and patrol aircraft in the skies overhead, as well as maritime security vessels nearby, and placed new buoys within and around the shoal to assert dominance over the disputed feature. On Nov. 16, China moved eight maritime ships and coast guard vessels that had previously been stationed at the shoal to Subi Reef, near Thitu Island which is claimed by China but is occupied by Philippine troops. Besides resources, China may be able to further strengthen its de facto administrative control of nearby waters, further restricting activities by the Philippines and other nations in the Scarborough Shoal. If China moves forward with its plan for a nature reserve, it is highly likely that there will be heightened law enforcement activity and presence near the shoal further burnishing its control of the shoal and surrounding waters. This was indeed suspect back in 2016, with China to turn Scarborough Shoal into a man-made island garrison, as it has done with several features under its control in the Spratly Islands. If this were to happen, it would threaten United States operations and exercises with the Philippines, along with access to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. The bases open to U.S. forces under this agreement include Fort Magsaysay, Basa Air Base, Antonio Bautista Air Base, Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, and Lumbia Air Base. If China succeeds in constructing this nature reserve, we should expect increased Chinese military presence, maritime coercion by paramilitary forces, and further encroachment. With rising tensions in the region and the recent deadly collision between a Chinese destroyer and a Philippine Coast Guard cutter, China will likely not back down lightly. The United States has strategic interest in this region. A little demonstration of resolve today could go a long way toward preventing a more intractable long-term problem at the Scarborough Shoal from getting worse. The post China’s Development of the Scarborough Shoal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Comedy Central’s Jordan Klepper stopped by The Daily Show: Ears Edition podcast on Monday to preview his upcoming special that claims there is a dissonance between President Trump’s campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize and his actions in cities like Portland, Oregon. As part of the sneak peek, Klepper hyped his travels to Portland, where he wandered into one of the city’s naked bike rides, which he portrayed as “uplifting” and “the best use of comedy” amid ICE operations. Klepper gushed, “I will say, when we showed up at the naked rally, it was cold. It was rainy. I didn't expect any people to be there. And there were hundreds and hundreds of naked people there. And after you get past the shock of so many naked people and dongs, it really was an uplifting, energetic vibe. It was people who were passionate about what was happening, what was happening with these ICE agents.”     He also recalled, “You saw these images, it was horrifying. And there are so many people who were like, we want to show up. We want to show solidarity. There was joy, there was comedy. I'm often asked, like, ‘What is the role of comedy in these weird, dark, and trying times?’” According to Klepper, “I think in the role of protest, this is the best use of comedy. It was organic, it was thoughtful, and it was joyful. And yet, that joy was being put up against these aggressive actions. And to me, it was like, this is joy as an act of protest. And that was very life affirming and interesting to see. We take that to the ICE facility, which is this sort of joyous act of solidarity. And when we arrive, like, there are these people dressed as animals. There's more protest, there's music, there's song, there is this feeling of protest. But there's also men who are shooting pepper bullets into the crowd.”  Klepper continued: There is an act of aggression that's happening. There's positive chants mixed with some right-wing agitators who are on the outside, who are screaming epithets at the naked people. They're being anti-LGBTQ. You're hearing a lot of stressful things. And then, as Scott says, suddenly, we see an aggressive act where these ICE agents push into the crowd, into a band that are literally dressed as bananas, playing music, shoved into the ground, pepper sprays being shot out. Our camera guy is coughing and pulled out because he's got pepper spray in his lungs. You're like, this, it's such a chaotic, wild moment that's filled with both joy and hatred and anger and righteous anger and cruelty and beauty, and fuckin' America right now. The implication is that law enforcement is beclowning itself because they are cracking down on people in costumes, but it actually just makes the people in the costumes look juvenile. Meanwhile, they allow Klepper to ignore the people in the crowd who are not joyful or uplifting. Here is a transcript for the December 1 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show: Ears Edition 12/1/2025 JORDAN KLEPPER: I will say, when we showed up at the naked rally, it was cold. It was rainy. I didn't expect any people to be there. And there were hundreds and hundreds of naked people there. And after you get past the shock of so many naked people and dongs, it really was an uplifting, energetic vibe. It was people who were passionate about what was happening, what was happening with these ICE agents. You saw these images, it was horrifying. And there are so many people who were like, we want to show up. We want to show solidarity. There was joy, there was comedy. I'm often asked, like, “what is the role of comedy in these weird, dark, and trying times?” I think in the role of protest, this is the best use of comedy. It was organic, it was thoughtful, and it was joyful. And yet, that joy was being put up against these aggressive actions. And to me, it was like, this is joy as an act of protest. And that was very life affirming and interesting to see. We take that to the ICE facility, which is this sort of joyous act of solidarity. And when we arrive, like, there are these people dressed as animals. There's more protest, there's music, there's song, there is this feeling of protest. But there's also men who are shooting pepper bullets into the crowd. There is an act of aggression that's happening. There's positive chants mixed with some right-wing agitators who are on the outside, who are screaming epithets at the naked people. They're being anti-LGBTQ. You're hearing a lot of stressful things. And then, as Scott says, suddenly, we see an aggressive act where these ICE agents push into the crowd, into a band that are literally dressed as bananas, playing music, shoved into the ground, pepper sprays being shot out. Our camera guy is coughing and pulled out because he's got pepper spray in his lungs. You're like, this, it's such a chaotic, wild moment that's filled with both joy and hatred and anger and righteous anger and cruelty and beauty, and fuckin' America right now.

Despite the dozens of convictions and all the evidence to send them away, Whoopi Goldberg, moderator for ABC News program The View, claimed the entire story was just “smoke and mirrors.” She added that it was all conducted in an effort by President Trump to “demonize immigrants.” She and co-host Sunny Hostin then teamed up to insist that Trump’s outrage and rhetoric about the massive fraud scheme was just him being “racist.” After playing an edited soundbite of Trump denouncing the scheme to defraud American taxpayers, Goldberg kicked off the discussion by downplaying the fraud: “Will trying to demonize immigrants till work for him or his base? Are they more concerned about other issues, right now? Is this going to continue? Or is this smoke and mirrors?” The first to spout off was purported comedian Joy Behar, who claimed the whole thing was distraction from Trump’s bad poll numbers: It seems like every time his numbers drop or he perceives his popularity is dropping no matter how much tush kissing the cabinet does on him – it's really disgusting to watch them kiss his butt, but anyway – every time that happens, he pulls out a race card. Last time it was the Haitians who were eating the pets. And now it's the Somalis in Minnesota who, by the way, there's only 84,000 Somalis in Minnesota, and 58 percent of them were born in the United States.   Downplaying the massive Somali welfare scheme in Minnesota, The View claims it's all "smoke and mirrors" and Trump's way of "trying to demonize immigrants." Behar also claims Biden's loss of the Somali vote over Gaza was actually Trump's lost voters; the real reason he's angry. pic.twitter.com/LL9vgTRyV5 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 3, 2025   Proving that she’d read anything someone put on a piece of paper for her, Behar seemed to mix up President Biden and Trump. She attributed Biden losing the Somali vote over his support for Israel to Trump. “But one of my spies told me that [Trump] lost support with the Somali Minnesota voters over the Biden administration’s handling of Gaza. So, again, it's personal. Everything’s personal with him,” she whined. She later walked that claim back after she was slipped another note, of course, she tried to spin it for Democrats too: “I got another note from one of my spies that says Democrats lost support among Somalis last year. Well, this will get their support back, I would think. Right?” Pretend independent co-host Sara Haines was the only one to admit that the fraud was real, but she too made it about Trump, decrying that he’s making people look at him and not the fraud. “But he's missing a win here. They did uncover it. They’re fixing it, this was a problem but because of how he talks about it, now it becomes it's all the Somalis,” she lamented.   The View calls Trump and his supporters "racist" for condemning the Somali welfare scheme: GOLDBERG [mockingly]: I don know why you keep saying that because he says he's not a racist. BEHAR: What does that say about people who follow him? HOSTIN: I have yet to meet a racist… pic.twitter.com/W0mjLZj0Yb — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 3, 2025   Choosing to keep the focus on Trump and not the fraud, Hostin and Goldberg teamed up to suggest Trump’s focus and rhetoric surrounding the fraud was what was problematic about the whole situation; calling him “racist” in the process: HOSTIN: I think we need to call a thing, a thing. The President of the United States is using racist language. He is. He's using discriminatory language. He is targeting an entire group in a discriminatory way. GOLDBERG: Again. HOSTIN: Again and again and again. And when do we as Americans say being a racist or using hateful, racist language is unbecoming of the office of the president of the United States? We need to be able to say that. And we need to be able to say it out loud. As they were nearing the end of the segment, Goldberg argued that, “Even if everything that he is saying is correct, it doesn't change the fact that he is out of control” and “grasping at straws” to distract from the Epstein files.   Whoopi claims that "even if everything he's saying is correct," "he is grasping at straws" to distract from Epstein and prices. "What are you doing? why are you still there?!" she snaps at Trump through the camera. She also demands to know what's happening with the ballroom as if… pic.twitter.com/vD5ZN2FZUO — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 3, 2025   She also didn’t seem to understand why Trump was still in office: “So, what are you doing? Why are you still there?!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View December 3, 2025 11:03:06 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Will trying to demonize immigrants till work for him or his base? Are they more concerned about other issues, right now? Is this going to continue? Or is this smoke and mirrors? JOY BEHAR: It seems like every time his numbers drop or he perceives his popularity is dropping no matter how much tush kissing the cabinet does on him – it's really disgusting to watch them kiss his butt, but anyway – every time that happens, he pulls out a race card. Last time it was the Haitians who were eating the pets. And now it's the Somalis in Minnesota who, by the way, there's only 84,000 Somalis in Minnesota, and 58 percent of them were born in the United States. HOSTIN: And 87 percent of them are naturalized citizens. BEHAR: But one of my spies told me that he lost support with the Somali Minnesota voters over the Biden administration’s handling of Gaza. So, again, it's personal. Everything’s personal with him. SARA HAINES: Well, and the problem is how he’s handles it. He had a valid criticism. This is rated as the number one fraud scheme during the pandemic. These were programs that were supposed to feed kids. There have been 59 people convicted. It was over $1 billion. That's a big deal and it's not about the Somalis, it's about those people that were convicted making bad decisions. You don't paint it with that kind of gloss. But he's missing a win here. They did uncover it. They’re fixing it, this was a problem but because of how he talks about it, now it becomes it's all the Somalis. (…) 11:04:48 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I got another note from one of my spies that says Democrats lost support among Somalis last year. Well, this will get their support back, I would think. Right? (…) 11:05:33 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: A president who likes dog whistles. A president who likes to divide and have a target, and this time it's the Somalis. Before, it was the Haitians. Before, that it was the bad hombres the Mexicans; about the Venezuelans. You know, he wants to paint them all as gang members and members of Tren de Aragua. GOLDBERG [mockingly]: I don’t know why you keep saying that because he says he's not a racist. BEHAR: What does that say about people who follow him though? HOSTIN: I have yet to meet a racist that raises their hand and says, 'yes, I am a racist.'  but I think we need to be able to call- GOLDBERG: Oh, they do now. HOSTIN: Some do. Correct. Correct. GOLDBERG: They're very happy to tell you now. HOSTIN: I think we need to call a thing, a thing. The President of the United States is using racist language. He is. He's using discriminatory language. He is targeting an entire group in a discriminatory way. GOLDBERG: Again. HOSTIN: Again and again and again. And when do we as Americans say being a racist or using hateful, racist language is unbecoming of the office of the president of the United States? We need to be able to say that. And we need to be able to say it out loud. (…) 11:08:32 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: Even if everything that he is saying is correct, it doesn't change the fact that he is out of control. BEHAR: Yeah. GOLDBERG: He is grasping at straws. And Epsteingate is not going away. BEHAR: The prices are not coming down. GOLDBERG: Pete Hegseth is not going away. Prices haven't come down. I told you what we pay for eye drops. That hasn't changed. [Into the camera] So, what are you doing? Why are you still there?! HAINES: He's building that wing, that ballroom. GOLDBERG: You know, what? You notice you haven't heard anything about that? What's going on with that? (…)

Despite Republican Matt Van Epps winning Tuesday’s special election for the Tennessee Seventh Congressional District by nearly nine points and neatly in line with the Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+10, the major broadcast networks giddily touted the results Wednesday as proof of a Democrat wave in next years midterms because Van Epps failed to win by 22 points like President Trump did. The networks also continued their ongoing failure to mention Democrat candidate Aftyn Behn’s history of controversial comments, including her calls to defund the police and avowed hatred of Nashville, a city partially inside said district she ran to represent. CBS Mornings remained the only show to give the race a full segment. Co-host Gayle King chose to frame the outcome as a Democrat “push...to flip a Republican seat” that “fell short.”     Correspondent Nicole Valdes said from Nashville in the 95-second segment that Van Epps won “a district that has been reliably red for years, but this time around, it was surprisingly competitive.” Valdes didn’t offer an explanation for why it was close or whether Behn did anything to improve her chances. The closest Valdes got to any semblance to a reason was....money: This result was much closer than what we saw a year ago when President Trump scored a 22-point victory in this same district. It’s the reason Democratic officials say Republicans should be “shaking in their boots” ahead of next year’s midterms. The tight margins led to a massive amount of money pouring into both campaigns. In fact, a CBS analysis found at least $8 million was spent on the race with more than $6 million donated by outside groups. Now, Van Epps received more than $1 million from President Trump’s super PAC and support for his campaign, of course, surged after getting the President’s endorsement back in October. “Now, Van Epps last night said that Trump’s endorsement “made all the difference.” He will, of course, be replacing now retired-Representative Mark Green for the remainder of his term but will have to run for re- election again in the 2026 midterms,” she concluded. ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today could only muster news briefs of 31 and 28 seconds, respectively. On ABC, correspondent Will Reeve touted the “surprisingly tight race” in a district “President Trump won there by 22 points in 2024, but up until Election Day, Republican Matt Van Epps only had a slim lead and bold-faced names from both parties had campaigned there.” “And, overnight, Van Epps did win by under ten points and that relatively tight margin a potential warning sign for Republicans ahead of next year’s midterms,” Reeve bragged. Filling in on a weekday, Sunday host Willie Geist hyped Van Epps emerged victorious in “a hotly contested and closely watched special election for a deep red congressional seat” against “a well-funded challenge from Democrat Aftyn Behn.” “President Trump carried that district by 22 points just last year. Van Epps ran a reliably MAGA campaign, promised to continue the legacy of Mark Green, the Republican who resigned from that seat earlier this year,” he added. As for Behn, none of the networks mentioned she was a total Karen in conceding the race. Our friend Rusty Weiss at RedState had more on that: [I]t comes as no surprise that Behn couldn’t simply make a civil concession call to the winner of the election, Republican Matt Van Epps. Nope, she felt entitled, having just been trounced (more on this later), to lecture the winner and make demands. This, according to Behn herself. “I called the Congressman-elect, Matt Van Epps, and I had one question for him,” she told a crowd of supporters after the loss. “What will define what happens next? Do not let the Affordable Care Act subsidies expire. Do not raise health care costs for working families in Tennessee.” You just lost an election, Aftyn. Nobody wants to hear your demands, your wish list on Obamacare. The winner of the election doesn’t need your guidance; he’s doing just fine. The voters made that clear. To see the relevant transcripts from December 3, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Just days ago, Jack Posobiec predicted future government leaks to damage President Trump were incoming — and not 24 hours after his prediction, it was proven right.“When the first impeachment of President Trump happened in 2019, it was regarding leaks from a phone call, believe it or not, with Ukraine and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy,” Posobiec told BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”“So in that case, you had Alexander Binman, who was an Army officer. You had the CIA officer Eric Ciaramella that was detailed to President Trump’s White House and the National Security Council. I’ve said that I think what they’re trying to do is gin this up again. They’re trying to get someone ... to start leaking classified information, national security information,” he continued, adding, “Like, oh, I don’t know, the current peace negotiations between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia.”The plan, Posobiec told Wheeler, would be to get “another impeachment of President Trump.”“And if the Democrats are able to be victorious in taking back the House, many people think that’s a possibility for 2026, then this will be something that they have on the shelf ready to go day one,” he explained.“I think that there’s a plot afoot, I absolutely think that it’s a color revolution designed to overthrow the sitting commander in chief, the president of the United States,” he added.Wheeler is astounded by how quickly Posobiec was proven correct.“Less than 24 hours after that aired ... Jack’s prediction came true. We were greeted this morning with a leak, a leak of a classified phone call, or I would assume it was classified, a transcript of a phone call between Vladimir Putin’s senior foreign policy adviser and Steve Witkoff, who is President Trump’s special envoy,” Wheeler explains.“This phone call between Witkoff and Putin’s senior foreign policy adviser is being presented in exactly the same way as that phone call between President Trump and Zelenskyy was presented all those years ago,” she continues.Now the left is “framing this as some kind of great scandal.”“They’re saying President Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff has advised the Russian government, has given advice to Vladimir Putin, on how to coerce Trump into agreeing to a certain peace plan,” Wheeler explains, pointing out that “there was nothing remotely scandalous about anything that was said in that call.”“The scandal, of course, is that this call was leaked to Bloomberg and that this was released publicly. That is a bad faith move by a bad actor, and we should figure out who leaked that to Bloomberg because it will be detrimental to actually creating a peace deal,” she says.“President Trump is not only a good negotiator, he’s a good negotiator because he negotiates at a very high level, but he uses very basic negotiation techniques and tactics. One of the most effective negotiation tactics, when you have something that you want the other party to agree to, is to make the other party think that your idea is their idea,” she continues.“That is what you’re seeing play out with Steve Witkoff,” she adds.Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

As deportation operations continue to clean up sanctuary cities across the country, the Department of Homeland Security is focusing on another hub of problematic immigration: the Minneapolis-St. Paul region of Minnesota. The Washington Examiner reported that Tom Homan, the Trump administration's border czar, hinted at an immigration enforcement surge there as soon as this week. 'Focus is on those Twin Cities more because of the criminal activities there that've been uncovered by DOJ and DHS.'In a Fox News appearance on Tuesday, Homan suggested that plans were already in the works to increase resources in the Twin Cities in particular. “I can tell you, the focus is there. It's coming, but I don't want to give a lot. I can't tell you how many people are on the ground now, and how many people are going to be on the ground. I'll leave that to the secretary of homeland security, but focus is on those Twin Cities more because of the criminal activities there that've been uncovered by DOJ and DHS,” Homan said in the interview.RELATED: It’s not ‘racist’ to notice Somali fraud Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty ImagesCiting an anonymous source familiar with the operations, the New York Times reported that the operation will target Somalis with final deportation orders in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region.Roughly 100 ICE agents have been called in for the operation, according to NYT. This surge in law enforcement comes as the federal government expands its investigations into massive COVID-era fraud schemes. Over 75 indictments have already been issued, and Governor Tim Walz has been accused of obstruction in the case. "Today, I have ordered an investigation into the network of Somali organizations and executives implicated in these schemes," Small Business Administration administrator Kelly Loeffler said on Tuesday in an X post. "Despite Governor Walz's best efforts to obstruct, SBA continues to work to expose abuse and hold perpetrators accountable, full stop."In his now-infamous Thanksgiving Truth Social post, President Donald Trump highlighted the plethora of problems the state of Minnesota is facing in connection with the Somali community. "Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are completely taking over the once great State of Minnesota. Somalian gangs are roving the streets looking for 'prey' as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses hoping against hope that they will be left alone," he said. Trump singled out Walz and Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar:The seriously retarded Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, does nothing, either through fear, incompetence, or both, while the worst 'Congressman/woman' in our Country, Ilhan Omar, always wrapped in her swaddling hijab, and who probably came into the U.S.A. illegally in that you are not allowed to marry your brother, does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country, its Constitution, and how "badly" she is treated.DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin stated, "What makes someone a target of ICE is not their race or ethnicity, but the fact that they are in the country illegally."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!