'local government has allowed inmates to run the asylum'

Left-wing organizations are sounding the alarm that Democrats could lose as many as 19 congressional seats in the near future if the Supreme Court decides to ax the principle of drawing congressional districts along racial lines. Reacting to the potential for a massive shake-up in the House, Atlanta-based Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo doubled down on support for redistricting. Fair Fight Action was founded by unsuccessful Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. “The only way to stop it is to play offense—aggressively redraw maps wherever possible, focus relentlessly on taking back Congress, and be ready to use that power to pass real pro-democracy legislation and hold this corrupted court accountable,” Groh-Wargo said in a statement reported by Politico. A recent brief first reported on by Politico from Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund openly worries that the court changing the interpretation of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 could “cement one-party control of the U.S. House for at least a generation.”  The brief goes on to note that the Supreme Court has already found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which deals with federal review of changes to election laws in the states, to be unconstitutional in the 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder.  In the upcoming Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais, which is to be reheard next week, the state of Louisiana is asking the highest court in the land to end “race-based redistricting” on the grounds that it is incompatible with the principles of equal protection. If the court agrees with Louisiana, then it could lead to much worse electoral outcomes for Democrats, who rely on gerrymandered congressional districts to get elected. The court first heard the case in March.  At the heart of the legal case is whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted correctly under the precedent set by a previous Supreme Court case called Thornburg v. Gingles, which instituted a multipronged test to determine whether racial minorities were having their voting power unlawfully diluted.  The Supreme Court’s potential rewriting of the game of politics comes as both Republicans and Democrats are looking to stack the congressional map in their favor. In Texas, the state Legislature has redrawn the borders of House of Representatives’ districts, while in California, Democrats are pushing a referendum vote to overrule the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to redraw the state’s congressional map to further benefit them. “[Republicans are] playing by a different set of rules. They can’t win by the traditional game, so they want to change the game,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said. GOP-dominated Missouri and Indiana have also been mulling efforts to redistrict. Meanwhile, Republicans have raised the issue of not counting illegal aliens in the decennial census, which is used to determine the number of House seats each state gets. The post Left-Wing Groups Fear for Democrats If Court Nixes Race-Based Redistricting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“I’m not the Woman of the Year because I had a perfect year. I’m standing here because I refuse to let pain silence my purpose.” On Thursday evening, Alex Clark—a top conservative podcast host and prominent contributor for Turning Point USA—was honored by the Network of Enlightened Women as their Empowered Woman of the Year. The award recognizes exemplary women for their conservative beliefs and their commitment to taking action.  As a close friend of Charlie Kirk’s, Clark is well acquainted with action. Like Kirk was, she is a leader for young people across this country. The Network of Enlightened Women is a nonprofit organization that’s mission is educating, equipping, and empowering the next generation of conservative women. After being presented the award, Clark spoke about the last year of her life, saying, “This has been one of the most excruciatingly hard years of my life. It has been painful and crushing. I lost my dad to glioblastoma brain cancer and heart failure. Then I went through the most excruciating breakup of my life. And then, of course, in the last couple weeks, my boss and friend, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated for his outspoken Christian and conservative beliefs, at a time when just speaking the truth is incredibly dangerous.” Clark got her start in conservative media in 2019. She left her #1 rated radio show in Indianapolis to join Turning Point USA and launch a new show. In a recent podcast episode where she recounted her memories of Kirk, she said, “I knew Turning Point USA had something undeniably special and powerful happening in the conservative movement.” Her influence has evolved since she first began. After success with “POPlitics”—a first-of-its-kind show at the intersection of pop culture and conservative politics—she launched “The Spillover,” which brought health and wellness into the conversation. As a leading advocate within the Make America Healthy Again movement, commonly known as MAHA, last year, she rebranded her podcast to further reflect her shift toward health and wellness. Her renamed podcast, “Culture Apothecary,” is now a top 10 podcast in health and wellness. She brings on guests to share their remedy to heal a sick culture—physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Her audience of young, conservative women has grown substantially over the years, and her growing presence on YouTube and social media highlights her impact. She encourages her audience the same way Kirk did. Her impact is a testament to Kirk’s legacy. He did not just build a platform for himself, but he uplifted, encouraged, and empowered others to do the same. In her memorial podcast episode, she said, “Charlie continuously bet on me, defended me, protected me, and encouraged me.” Kirk’s legacy does not just live on in those he has inspired since his death. His legacy appears to be living on in the lives of those who were already in the fight with him. He said he was not interested in being the sole leader of his movement but continually encouraged others to do what he was doing. Clark reflected on the award, saying, “God does not call the polished. He doesn’t only use the people who have it all together. He uses the broken. … This year, my faith was tested like never before. … Sometimes, God doesn’t rescue us from the fire. Sometimes, he walks through it with us.”   “So, no, I’m not the Woman of the Year because I had a perfect year. I’m standing here because I refuse to let pain silence my purpose,” she said. “I kept speaking, I kept showing up. I kept trusting that God will finish the work that he started in me.” The post How Turning Point USA Contributors Like Alex Clark Are Carrying on Charlie Kirk’s Legacy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. We’ve seen, since Oct. 7, 2023, a new overt antisemitism, a new candor about prejudice against those of the Jewish faith and Israel in particular. Recently, the CNN host and commentator Van Jones said something I found quite astounding. He was asked about the news, and he said that we are ignoring a mini genocide or maybe a regular genocide in Nigeria. And that is because we have emphasis on other areas. I mean, that’s a legitimate criticism to make. Over 120,000 Nigerians have been slaughtered by Islamic terrorism. But he says that’s not being covered because they’re not Jewish. In fact, he coined a phrase I found quite disturbing: “No Jews, no news.” Mr. Jones, let me correct you. There are a lot of wars around the world that we’re not covering. One hundred thirty thousand Armenians were just ethnically cleansed the last two years from Azerbaijan in disputed territory. But they had been there for hundreds of years. No one covered it. In the second and third Chechen wars, Russia went into Chechnya, and they leveled the city of Grozny. They wiped it out. No one really knew anything about it. It was not covered. As I am speaking, India and Pakistan exchanged missiles with each other. They’re both nuclear powers. Nobody’s talked about it. It was prompted by a mass terrorist attack against India. So, there’s all sorts of conflicts all over the world that are not being reported on besides the Nigerian genocide. Second: The Middle East is a special place. It is the nexus, the historical nexus of three continents: Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is the home for the three major religions of the world—or at least three of the most important—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It has been a historical cauldron of great empires: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman Empire, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the British Empire. This is a crossroads where power and war intersect. We almost had a nuclear confrontation in 1973 between the Soviet Union and the United States during the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. So, there are a lot of reasons why we privilege the Middle East news, especially the worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon or Middle East terrorism. Where have ISIS been from? Where did al-Qaeda come from? Where did Hezbollah come from? Where did Hamas come from? Where did the Palestinian Liberation Organization—where do they all come from? They came from the Middle East. Every time there is any development in the Middle East, Europe is terrified because of their large 10% to 15%, 16% Islamic populations that are not assimilated fully or integrated. And they’re afraid if anybody sneezes in the Middle East, then they get a major terrorist attack. So, Mr. Jones, the Middle East is a special place, not because of Jews alone, and that’s not why we cover the Middle East in a way we don’t Africa, or we don’t Chechnya, or we don’t the Indian-Pakistan border. It is true that constituencies in the United States can influence the emphasis on events abroad. We don’t talk about the Turkish invasion and illegal occupation of Cyprus in a way that we should because the Greek lobby has been assimilated, integrated, and intermarried, and it does not have the clout that it used to. We are talking about the Middle East, more about Gaza, than we are Oct. 7. And that is because the population from people from the Middle East in the United States has soared. And we have hundreds of thousands of students from the Middle East—illiberal regimes—that are either Arab or Islamic, or both. And they put a high premium on coverage of that area. If we want to give the Nigerian genocide its proper emphasis—and I think we should—then we need to inform black Americans, a natural constituency, and say, “Why don’t you lobby and influence the Left and the mainstream media to cover this disaster?” The only time we’ve covered major problems in Africa were during the apartheid regime, when it was white-on-black violence. Now that there’s more black-on-white violence in South Africa and it’s one of the most dangerous places in the world in the post-Mandela era, we don’t talk about it. But why don’t we talk about Nigeria? And why doesn’t the black community get energized in a way that you would like them to? I don’t know. I think there’s something to the fact that it doesn’t have a sensationalism. For example, there are 12,000 black Americans tragically killed every year. We don’t talk about them. But we do talk about Trayvon Martin and George Floyd and Michael Brown because it was white on black. And that creates a new sensationalism that I guess, in our callousness, we don’t talk about on a Saturday night in Chicago when 20 people are killed. There’s another final thing to remember, Mr. Jones. The people who are killing innocent Nigerian Christians, perhaps 130 over the last 15 years, are black Islamic terrorists, Boko Haram. And in the hierarchy of DEI, the Left does not criticize groups that they feel are on the oppressed or victimized side of this Marxist binary. So, in their way of thinking, you do not criticize black Islamicists, even when they kill black Christians, to the same degree you would if they were other Christians or they were white settler colonialists, as the Left calls them. So, getting back to the original problem. It’s not: “No Jews, no news.” It’s the fact that the Middle East is a special place, historically. Currently, it’s full of global dangers, whether the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, the Bosphorus. It’s a unique place. And the reason that we do not talk about the Nigerian Holocaust is not the color of someone’s skin. We learned that from Chechnya, as I pointed out. And we’ve learned that from India and Pakistan. We’ve learned that from the current violence with Kosovo and Serbia. It’s because it does not have the same geostrategic resonance that the Middle East does. If we want to reboot interest in that terrible catastrophe, then let’s get the African American community energized, as other ethnic communities like the Arab Islamic community, who put such emphasis on Gaza. Let’s do this with Africa. And let’s not care about who the people are who are killing innocent black Christians in the sense that we give them a pass. They are black Islamic terrorists and they’re not part of any non-white coalition. They’re horrific people and they’re doing horrific things. And it’s past time the United States should draw all of our attention to these poor victims in Africa that are being slaughtered by a radical, religious creed. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ’No Jews, No News’? Victor Davis Hanson Debunks Van Jones’ Comments appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Democrats and their allies in the corporate media have been lying through their teeth about the government shutdown and their ridiculous demands to reopen the government. This week, Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., joins “The Signal Sitdown” to debunk the Left’s chosen narratives about the government shutdown. ”They’re big mad about Donald Trump,” Johnson tells The Daily Signal. “That’s the ‘A’ answer. The ‘B’ answer is that [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer has a base problem, and this is a base management exercise for him.” Johnson went on to explain why Schumer’s base pressured him into shutting down the government when the measures that the Senate is currently considering to end the shutdown are essentially appropriations levels set during the Biden administration, levels Congress voted to continue in March. “Chuck Schumer got rolled,” in that March funding battle, Johnson says. “Republicans remain unified and we got just enough Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, to overcome the filibuster in the Senate,” Johnson tells The Daily Signal. “His base lost their d–n minds. His much younger, much more progressive, much angrier base wanted him to fight, fight, fight.” “He lost more capital on that vote than anything else he’s ever done,” Johnson later adds. The polling data bears out Johnson’s point, as well. When Schumer went against his base and many in his own Senate Democrat conference by keeping the government open in March 2025, he took a 20-point hit in his net favorability. But petty partisan politics alone does not explain the absurdity of the current shutdown. Democrats are demanding $1.5 trillion to keep the government open simply for a matter of weeks and want to scrap crucial elements of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans are now calling the Working Families Tax Cut Act. “That’s the absurdity of it,” Johnson says, becoming noticeably exercised about Democrat demands. “You’re telling me that you think Republicans are going to give you $1.5 trillion of entitlement for a six-week, a seven-week [continuing resolution]? There’s never been that kind of shakedown before, and it simply will not work.” While Democrats claim the shakedown is about providing health care to working Americans, their demands would provide American taxpayer dollars to fund illegal immigrants’ health care. Johnson debunks Democrats’ denials about tax dollars funding illegal immigrants’ health care in two different ways. “Number one, we know from the CBO there were 1.4 million illegals that were covered, not through the ACA [commonly known as ‘Obamacare’], but through Medicaid, because we just weren’t checking citizenship,” Johnson explains. “So the Working Families Tax Cut Act, the reconciliation package, meant that we were now going to go check the citizenship, so we’re going to reduce the number of people who are covered accidentally who should not be covered.”  “The other [part] is that you’ve got states like California that are covering illegal immigrants with Medicaid,” Johnson adds. “They don’t deny it. That is a part of their program, that is designed, that is in the rules of their program.”  “Now, they don’t use federal funds,” Johnson added, “but all of the infrastructure that runs Medi-Cal, their Medicaid program, of course… those are federal dollars in the mix. And so it is the infrastructure that is covering illegals.” “To sum up in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we said you are no longer able to cover illegal immigrants with your state Medicaid program,” Johnson continued. “The Democrats were incensed by that and they want to roll that back. And so there is absolutely an illegal immigrants getting government funded health care part of this debate.” To prove Johnson’s point, look no further than the Democrat version of the continuing resolution in the Senate, which would strip away all of these provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.  Nevertheless, Democrats are maintaining their ransom demands, which is a nonstarter for Johnson and company: If we teach you and the rest of the political marketplace that shutdowns work—even a six-week [continuing resolution] is a leverage point to secure $1.5 trillion—we will have 10 times as many shutdowns in the next 20 years than we’ve had in the last 20 years. “We simply cannot have a government that does business that way,” Johnson says. The post Congressman Completely Debunks Democrats’ Government Shutdown Narrative appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Much has already been written regarding the case of Jay Jones, the Democratic Party candidate for Virginia’s next attorney general. This addition to the volumes already written concerns the job he wants: a position inartfully referred to as the commonwealth’s “top cop.” Spearheading investigations and acting on behalf of the Virginia taxpayers. The job can wield enormous power for good or ill. But first, a short tangent to explain Mr. Jones’ interest in relieving himself on the graves of Republican leaders like Todd Gilbert and choosing to shoot Gilbert if faced with the choice between Hitler, Pol Pot, or this former Virginia speaker of the House. >>> Sign up for our Virginia email newsletter Several years ago, the group Government Accountability and Oversight published a report titled “Law Enforcement for Rent” that detailed what they discovered in their investigation into private attorneys  who were offering their services to various state attorneys general to “investigate groups that fund climate deniers.” You can read the report here, but in general, it shows that the Office of Attorney General has the very real power to target “enemies.” Jones’ offending texts to Republican state Del. Carrie Coyner that she gave to National Review detail a man who could be driven to such hatred simply because he felt that GOP leaders’ condolences on the passing of moderate Democrat Del. Joe Johnson were disingenuous. According to the National Review piece, Jones called Coyner and explained that “public policy only changes when policymakers feel pain themselves, such as that felt by parents when their children die from gun violence.” This should be one of the even more concerning parts, given the potential punitive power of the Attorney Generals’ Office. Take what current Democrat Speaker of the House Don Scott, after condemning the text via a statement, said while campaigning for the Democrats for governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general in Hopewell about the texts: “We have to be mature in our thinking and how we vote.” “We can’t get distracted,” he continued, “because they want us to get distracted by the text message here or something else. Stay focused.” Democrat Senate leaders Louise Lucas and Mamie Locke issued an eerily similar joint statement: “Jay must take accountability for his actions. But we will not allow this moment to distract from the urgent fight we are in for Virginia’s future.” The word of the day must be “distracted.” What of this future? Is it a stretch to harken back to what the Government Accountability and Oversight report found was attempted during former Attorney General Mark Herring’s two terms (and why)? Is it a stretch to imagine an “enemies list” written by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Greenpeace, or the Soros’ groups like Open Society—a list filled with organizations like the Family Foundation, the Virginia Education Opportunity Alliance, and Moms for Liberty to be targeted by an attorney general who imagines about them what he imagined about Gilbert just because he disagreed with their positions? Faster than you could say “Crossfire Hurricane,” people’s homes could be subject to raids at the crack of dawn or cell tower pings would be used to build RICO cases against his political opposition. Yes, I know both of those things have happened already. That’s the point: The real authoritarians already know how to do it. Many people, even some Democrat writers like Chris Graham of the Augusta Free Press, are insisting that Jones is disqualified because of what he said. Though what he thinks about people he disagrees with politically coupled to the potentially punitive power of the Attorney Generals’ Office is what should disqualify him to Virginians. The post Horrific Texts Are Merely ‘Distractions’ to Virginia Democrats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—Outgoing New York Mayor Eric Adams is moving to protect a pair of Christopher Columbus statues amid threats from mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani, who has called for them to be toppled.  Adams, who steps down at the end of the year after choosing not to run for reelection, told the New York Post that his administration plans to seek a historic designation for the Italian explorer’s monuments at Columbus Circle and Astoria’s Columbus Square to prevent them from being removed.  “The beauty of New York City is that we celebrate and respect all our diverse communities and cultural heritage,” Adams told the newspaper Tuesday. “As mayor of the city with one of the largest Italian populations in the world, I am proud that we celebrate Italian American heritage, today and every day.”  First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who described himself as a “proud Italian American” said the city’s request for historical status will be presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission for action before Adams leaves office. He said the statues are a testimony to the numerous contributions of Italian Americans in America’s largest city.  “There’s a historical legacy with the statues that is undeniable,” Mastro said. “They are important statues to Italian heritage.” Mamdani hasn’t vowed on the campaign trail to bring down the statues, but in 2020 he posted a photo of himself giving a Columbus statue in Astoria the middle finger. He posted a caption above the photo: “Take it down.”  The Columbus Statue in Columbus Circle, built in 1896, was designated federal and state historic landmark status in 2018, following support from then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who lost the Democratic mayoral primary to Mamdani and is now running as an independent in the general election. But the Columbus statue in Astoria Square, unveiled in 1941, doesn’t have landmark protection, the Post reported.  Critics have condemned the 15th-century Italian explorer as a white supremacist who touched off centuries of European oppression and the subjugation of Indigenous peoples. Columbus supporters, meanwhile, say the statues are an important symbol of Italian-American heritage.  The debate over removing the statues from public parks and buildings U.S. cities and towns is reminiscent of the “culture wars” wrangling over taking down Southern Civil War generals over their support for slavery.   The Adams administration told the Post it will also create a $750,000 fund to “promote cultural and artistic endeavors in the Indigenous community. The city observes both Columbus Day and Indigenous People’s Day on Oct. 13. “We’re not going to show the same callous disregard for any community,” Mastro told the newspaper. “We celebrate the great diversity of our city.” Originally published by The Center Square. The post NYC Mayor Seeks Protections for Columbus Statues appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Leadership 101: Our DHS Barbie

During Attorney General Pam Bondi’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Senator Josh Hawley bewailed the newly unearthed fact of President Biden’s FBI investigating himself and eight other Republican members of Congress. MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports took the opportunity to fact-check and downplay the importance of the Arctic Frost operation, almost making it out to be routine. Hawley repeatedly called the investigation as phone “tapping,” which Ana Cabrera pooh-poohed: It wasn't listening in to any content of conversations that they had. In fact, this is according to Senator Ron Johnson, also a Republican, as he was among those revealing what they had learned. He said that the information was who was called, date, time, length of call. So again, it was not a phone tap. That, according to what’s publicly known thus far, was true. But Cabrera didn’t think it enough to purely set the record straight, and pushed MSNBC legal analyst Catherine Christian into characterizing Republicans’ rightful concern as mere partisanship: CABRERA: Catherine, is this revelation something to be concerned about? Or do you see this strictly as political posturing from Josh Hawley, this line of questioning? CHRISTIAN: It's probably political posturing. It makes sense that the Special Counsel would want to know who these particular Senators called and who called them during January 4th to January 7th, 2021. But it was concerning. The fact that the investigation wasn’t opened until over a year afterwards (by a former agent who may have had a hand in covering up Hunter’s laptop from Hell) proved Biden’s FBI wasn’t singularly interested in apolitical justice. If Cabrera was actually interested in the usefulness of Congressional hearings, she should have offered a solution. The hearings had largely been reduced to partisan virtue-signaling. Perhaps they should’ve been kept behind closed-doors, or at the very least not broadcasted. Cabrera then tried to normalize the Arctic Frost investigation: And a reminder, too, as he frames this as political weaponization of the DOJ under the Biden administration. Jack Smith was a Special Counsel appointed by Merrick Garland to create separation with the Biden Justice Department at the time. And is that an appropriate way for these types of investigations to be handled? And do you see it differently than what we are seeing under the current administration? The Arctic Frost investigation was both illegitimately opened and expanded into targeting numerous right-wing politicians and organizations, even before it was handed over to Jack Smith.     The probe wasn’t simply looking into any potential wrongdoing surrounding the 2020 presidential election. It was an excuse to surveil all political opposition in hopes of launching lawfare campaigns. Christian continued to portray the revelation as standard procedure: It's actually — it's very normal to, as a investigation that this was, to subpoena, it's usually a subpoena, to get phone records of who called who as part of the investigation, particularly for a timeline […] So it was very — it's not out of the ordinary, and particularly during that time period. If Senator Graham said it was going on for months and months and months, then you could be concerned. But since it was limited to that period of the indictment, it makes sense. The recent uncovering was a small piece of a larger and much more damning puzzle, one many have suspected existed but was now coming to light. But MSNBC wanted you to believe that Republicans were overreacting. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports October 7, 2025 11:17:00 a.m. EDT ANA CABRERA: Okay, we're just going to pull out for a quick second to do a fact check, because Senator Hawley keeps on bringing up this idea that the FBI tapped their phones related to the Jack Smith investigation into January 6th and 2020 election interference. What we have learned, and the facts of the matter are, that the FBI did request phone logs or data related to a number of senators, GOP Senators who had communications on that day in January 6th. And what they asked for was not any information related to a phone tap. It wasn't listening in to any content of conversations that they had. In fact, this is according to Senator Ron Johnson, also a Republican, as he was among those revealing what they had learned. He said that the information was who was called, date, time, length of call. So again, it was not a phone tap. Catherine, is this revelation something to be concerned about? Or do you see this strictly as political posturing from Josh Hawley, this line of questioning? CATHERINE CHRISTIAN: It's probably political posturing. It makes sense that the Special Counsel would want to know who these particular Senators called and who called them during January 4th to January 7th, 2021. And Senator Graham used those dates because that was part of the now-dismissed indictment of obstructing that Congressional proceeding, the certification of the election. So they were investigating who did President — then-President Trump speak to? Who, all the other people who — again, the indictments now dismissed — that's related to that. So that's a very particular time period. And there was an indictment. It's now dismissed. But I'm glad you clarified. Tap means listening to phone conversations. That's not what happened here. It was, who did the senator call? Who called the senator? For how long and what date? CABRERA: And a reminder, too, as he frames this as political weaponization of the DOJ under the Biden administration. Jack Smith was a Special Counsel appointed by Merrick Garland to create separation with the Biden Justice Department at the time. And is that an appropriate way for these types of investigations to be handled? And do you see it differently than what we are seeing under the current administration? CHRISTIAN: It's actually — it's very normal to, as a investigation that this was, to subpoena, it's usually a subpoena, to get phone records of who called who as part of the investigation, particularly for a timeline. Particularly if you have a confidential source saying, “I was in the room when this person called that one.” Well, let's find out if Ana Cabrera actually made a phone call at that time, and to the person that this confidential source said he did. So it was very — it's not out of the ordinary, and particularly during that time period. If Senator Graham said it was going on for months and months and months, then you could be concerned. But since it was limited to that period of the indictment, it makes sense.

After the pope’s controversial comments on abortion — where he aimed his ire at pro-lifers and pointed out what he seemed to believe was hypocrisy surrounding their stance on the death penalty — those on the left are feeling emboldened.Especially the women on “The View.”“You know, I think he’s right. If you are pro-choice and pro-death penalty, you’re at least consistent,” Joy Behar said in response to Pope Leo XIV’s statement.“As a lifelong Catholic, I am against abortion. I’m also against the death penalty. I’m also against guns. I’m also against the starvation of children. I’m a humanitarian above all because I believe that all life is precious,” Sunny Hostin replied.“That’s why I find there is a hypocrisy with certain Christians who are pro-life, but they will pull that electric chair switch. They are pro-life, but they have their AR-15s in their cabinet. They are pro-life, but they don’t mind immigrant families being torn from each other. They are pro-life, but they don’t care about little children’s subsidies being taken away from them. That is not pro-life,” she added.“Let’s just take a quick survey,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray says on “Pat Gray Unleashed.” “For or against the starvation of children?”“I’ve got to be for that, okay. Because we’re evil Republicans,” he says.“I just can’t take this line of reasoning that has no reason involved with it,” Gray continues, noting that the death penalty and abortion aren’t even close to the same.“It boggles my mind how you can draw that equivalency,” he adds.Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.