President Donald Trump said on Friday that he won’t require Iran’s next leader to be committed to democratic rule, adding that he’s more concerned about the future ruler committing to peace and stability in the region. Trump, who said on Thursday that he wants to be involved in the process of choosing Iran’s next leader, told CNN host Dana Bash that he’s optimistic about the country’s future leadership. The president said he believes the leader should be “fair and just,” adding that he’s open to the Middle East country putting a “religious” leader in power. “I mean, it depends on who the person is. I don’t mind religious leaders. I deal with a lot of religious leaders and they are fantastic,” Trump told Bash. He then laid out what he would expect of Iran’s next leader. “I’m saying there has to be a leader that’s going to be fair and just, do a great job, treat the United States and Israel well, and treat the other countries in the Middle East — they’re all our partners,” he added. Trump touted his relationship with countries in the Middle East, saying that his relationship with most of them has flourished. “And I became very friendly with all those countries. That’s why they’re all fighting for us,” he said. “Before I got involved, we didn’t even speak to UAE and Saudi Arabia. You know, (President Joe) Biden shut [them] out. Biden and (President Barack) Obama shut Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, he shut them all out. They were all going to go to China, and I got involved in a very short period of time that became my friends.” The joint U.S.-Israeli military operation launched last weekend has taken out most of Iran’s top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. forces have also decimated the regime’s navy, military assets, and nuclear infrastructure. The Trump administration has been careful about how much information it releases on its plans for “Operation Epic Fury” and whether U.S. forces would be used to push for regime change. Trump’s comments on Thursday were the clearest hint yet that the United States could have a major role in setting up Iran’s next government. After the remaining Iranian leaders reportedly selected Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, to take over, Trump told Axios that the appointment was “unacceptable.” “We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran,” Trump said. “They are wasting their time. Khamenei’s son is a lightweight.” Trump added that any Iranian leader who would just continue the policies of the now crumbling regime would force the United States back into a war in “five years.” Radical Muslim leaders, including Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reportedly lobbied for Mojtaba to get the appointment. Trump has expressed support for the Iranians who took to the streets in recent months to protest the regime. After announcing “Operation Epic Fury” last Saturday, Trump urged Iranians to take control of their authoritarian government once the dust settles after America’s major military operation. “To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” he said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

The GOP supermajority in Oklahoma’s legislature passed a law in 2021 that now comes into play after President Donald Trump’s nomination of Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Trump announced Thursday that he will remove DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from her post effective March 31, and nominated […]

"It felt like political propaganda being pushed by Activision.'

Global oil prices are on the rise in response to Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. military’s large-scale operation against Iran. While the rising energy prices could harm the American economy, conservatives are trusting President Donald Trump’s energy record as the president claims he has a plan to bring costs back down to “record lows.” The Strait of Hormuz is all but shuttered, as the conflict massively disrupts the narrow stretch of water where most of the world’s oil passes through. Some 700 oil tankers are currently trapped near the straight. Crude oil prices saw the highest single-day spike since COVID-19 on Friday, jumping nearly 9%, capping off a week of increases. GasBuddy reported the national average was $2.94 per gallon on Wednesday. By Friday, it was $3.19 per gallon. However, Trump told CNN reporter Dana Bash Friday morning that he has a plan to lower prices and that gas prices will drop to “record lows” again. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also addressed the increasing gas prices this week, Politico reported. “The United States remains the largest crude oil and natural gas producer in the world,” Leavitt said. “President Trump’s entire energy team, from the White House to the National Energy Dominance Council to Secretaries Wright and Bessent, have a game plan to keep oil prices stable throughout Operation Epic Fury.”  She also suggested “newfound oil markets in Venezuela” could be utilized to lower energy costs. In January, a U.S. military operation seized former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and America is now forcing the new government, led by Maduro’s former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, to cooperate with American policymakers. Trusting Trump Conservatives, however, believe the increase in gas prices is a short-term disruption and that the Trump administration will work to lower gas prices once again. “While it is true that many Americans may have noticed a recent rise in gas prices, what we are seeing is a short-term market reaction to the conflict overseas,” Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, told the Daily Signal. “Anytime there is a disruption in global markets, prices can move quickly before supply adjusts.” “No one should be surprised that prices have risen,” Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Jack Spencer told the Daily Signal. “However, the United States, thanks to President Trump’s pro-energy polices, is far better off than it would have otherwise been in this situation,” he continued.  .@PressSec : The goals of Operation Epic Fury will be a very good thing for the energy, and oil markets, and oil prices in the long-term, when you no longer have a terrorist regime that is restricting the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. pic.twitter.com/fR4kScfYzy— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 6, 2026 Pfluger claimed that, “President Trump has been clear about his objectives in the Middle East.” The president, according to Pfluger, is “focused on restoring stability and ensuring the United States leads the world in energy production so prices come back down.” “I am confident that as those policies take effect, Americans will see relief at the pump,” he concluded. Not All States Feel an Impact Some states that encourage American energy dominance, however, have been shielded from increasing prices at the pump. “North Dakota’s average gas price today is $2.96 a gallon—nearly 30 cents lower than the national average. That’s no accident,” Rep. Julie Fedorchak, R-N.D., told the Daily Signal.   “North Dakota is an energy-dominant state producing the oil and natural gas America needs. Moments like this highlight why domestic production matters,” continued Fedorchak.   “President Trump has been clear: the path to lower prices is American energy dominance. The more we produce here at home, in places like North Dakota, the less American families are exposed to geopolitical shocks abroad,” concluded Fedorchak.   We have implemented short term measures to help keep oil prices down. We are allowing our friends in India to take oil that is already on ships, refine it, and move those barrels into the market quickly. A practical way to get supply flowing and ease pressure. pic.twitter.com/Y0i5wpxkcb— Secretary Chris Wright (@SecretaryWright) March 6, 2026 Spencer said the energy dominance ushered in by Trump has been critical “because the American gas and oil industry is in a much better position to respond to market shocks, which may not stop prices from rising but will allow prices to stabilize more quickly over time.”  Fedorchak also emphasized the importance of “having the right legal, tax, and regulatory climate for energy producers to produce and a stable and predictable permitting process for the infrastructure needed to produce energy and generate power.” The post Iran War Increases Oil Prices, But Conservatives Trust Trump’s Plan for ‘Record Lows’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Indiana Judge Rules That Abortion Is a Religious Sacrament...Seriously, She Did

On Thursday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough and Mike Brzezinski’s former MSNBC colleague Chris Matthews was on the show to discuss the military operations in Iran, as Mika read Matthews' Substack article, “State of War,” which called Trump a ‘monarch’ because of his launch of strikes on Iran. The article also dismissed the veterans commemorated at the State of the Union, and suggested Trump had “passed out a monarch’s gifs.” Matthews' article first took issue with the honorary military medals presented by Trump to certain service members at the State of the Union and then derived into talk on the Iran strike process. Here’s how Mika read it: The State of the Union in which Iran was barely mentioned served, nevertheless, as this war's perfect predictor. He offered himself as this country's king and not a constitutional one. He passed out a monarch's gifts - Medals of Honor, Medals of Freedom, and other awards of the state as if they came from his honors list.  (...) Everything he did on Tuesday night, ceremonially, was a preview of what he did on Saturday. He took our country to war as if he were doing it as a king. Joe Scarborough then asked Matthews his full opinion on the Iran strikes due to his participation in the Jimmy Carter administration, which faced the disaster of the Iran hostage crisis.   During Thursday's Morning Joe, Chris Matthews, along with Joe and Mika, promoted the idea that Trump is a King, citing Iran and "monarch's gifts" at the SOTU. pic.twitter.com/mw6pcPnF0r — Nick (@nspin310) March 5, 2026   Matthews started the conversation with mention of the Texas Senate primaries, asking “who wants to be a senator today” before he headed into a tangent on Congress the Article I of the Constitution.  His tangent then connected back to Trump’s medal-giving, before he insinuated the only person that wanted war was radio host Mark Levin, and seemingly hinted that Trump did it on his request: The president was giving out medals and acting like they were just sitting there to applaud him. They had no role in war making or decisions about war. Don't Republicans think that Congress is Article I the constitution, that they have a role in making war? The only person I know pushing the war was Mark Levin on Friday night before we attacked. He was pushing for a big war. He wanted what he wanted and he got it. But I never heard a big debate in the United States Congress about this war. And I think it's incredible what we've gotten ourselves into. And it really comes back to the role of congress and the Article I of the constitution. I've been over in Vietnam teaching the American Revolution and “We the People.” Well, we the people didn't start this war. Unsurprisingly, Matthews ignored the clear worries of leaks from Congress regarding classified military information. In his close, Matthew defended the Carter administration when it came to Iran, and said Americans used to stand for monarchies as he started give a historical lesson: We put in a monarchy. What is that what America stands for, Monarchies? Yes, that's what we did. So to talk about democratizing. I'm not even sure anybody's talking about that yet. Are we going to democratize Iran after what we did in ‘52, sent them in the other direction? It's a tough one. All Chris Matthews had to do to find people who wanted the U.S. military action was speak to one of Iranian-Americans that have been seen in rallies across America in support of Trump’s actions, let alone the Iranian citizens who have bravely protested in their country, with many being killed in the process. They’re the ones who want to democratize Iran. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe March 5, 2026 7:09:10 AM MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And Chris Matthews, your latest piece on Substack is entitled “State of War.” And in it you write this:  “The State of the Union in which Iran was barely mentioned served, nevertheless, as this war's perfect predictor. He offered himself as this country's king and not a constitutional one. He passed out a monarch's gifts - Medals of Honor, Medals of Freedom, and other awards of the state as if they came from his honors list.  Trump spoke little, if at all, of the constitutional connection between the legislative branch and himself. Instead, he treated Republican senators and members of Congress as a studio audience, Democratic legislators simply as targets for personal abuse. Everything he did on Tuesday night, ceremonially, was a preview of what he did on Saturday. He took our country to war as if he were doing it as a king.” And Joe, questions about predicate and planning certainly emerge because there was nothing mentioned there about immediate threat. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well and I think the administration would probably say nothing mentioned there because they wanted the element of surprise. And of course, when Israel gave them the intel that Khamenei and the leaders were all meeting together again above ground, they certainly moved things up.  Chris, you're a great person to talk to here for a couple of reasons. First of all, obviously you and many other people have great concerns about how we went to war. But secondly, you have a sense of history about Iran. You were in Jimmy Carter's White House when the Iranians stormed our embassy. When the Iranians, you know, were burning flags and shouting, “death to America”, as they have for years.  When the Iranians in ‘82, you were out of the White House, but you were then a columnist when the Iranians killed 240 Marines in Beirut and through all the other attacks. I'm curious how you're weighing all of this. Obviously, seeing the damage Iran has done to the world since 1979 and balancing that with your concerns about how this war was launched. CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah. Well, I think we have a couple of stories today. We've got the war in Iraq - in Iran, which is a real war. Obviously, we just - Mika went over just the amount of activity going on in this war. It's a war, a Department of War, appropriately named apparently right now.  But, you know, I keep thinking about the vote down in Texas and whether it's Paxton or it's Cornyn or it's Talarico: who wants to be a senator today, to what effect? That the United States Senate and the US Congress sat in that chamber of the House the other night on the State of the Union night, and, my God, they had no role. They were like a studio audience with an applause sign on. That's all they did.  The president was giving out medals and acting like they were just sitting there to applaud him. They had no role in war making or decisions about war. Don't Republicans think that Congress is Article I in the constitution, that they have a role in making war? The only person I know pushing the war was Mark Levin on Friday night before we attacked. He was pushing for a big war. He wanted what he wanted and he got it.  But I never heard a big debate in the United States Congress about this war. And I think it's incredible what we've gotten ourselves into. And it really comes back to the role of congress and the Article I of the constitution. I've been over in Vietnam teaching the American Revolution and “We the People.” Well, we the people didn't start this war. Listen to the polling right now about this war. Trump's getting about the same number on the war as he's getting on himself, which is in the 30s. It's not a popular war right now because the American people didn't get into it. They weren't even talked into it. So, it's an extraordinary situation in terms of the Constitution, our constitution. By the way, you asked about how this big fight with Iran began. Well, it didn't begin in ‘79. I was there as a speechwriter to the president. I know how it felt, it was terrible.  But it didn't begin in ‘79, it began in ‘52 when Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA went over there and knocked off their legitimately elected government with Mosaddegh and put in the Shah. We put in a monarchy. What is that what America stands for, Monarchies? Yes, that's what we did. So to talk about democratizing. I'm not even sure anybody's talking about that yet. Are we going to democratize Iran after what we did in ‘52, sent them in the other direction? It's a tough one.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s presidential campaign trial run masquerading as a book tour took him to Katie Couric’s Next Question podcast on Thursday, where she expressed concern over Newsom’s reputation as “slick.” During that portion of the episode, the former CBS and NBC anchor would ask such difficult questions as “Are you just ridiculously good-looking?” and wonder if that plays into concerns about his authenticity. Couric and Newsom talked over each other as Couric wondered, “So, what do you do about that? Do you, like, use less hair gel? What do you do? Do you have a Zoolander problem?” Simultaneously, Newsom declared, “I don’t do anything about it. I let it go. No, I—Jesus. Yeah. Zoolander.”   Former CBS and NBC anchor Katie Couric asks Gavin Newsom about the perception that he is "slick", "Are you just ridiculously good-looking as Vogue said? No, seriously. What do you do about that?" later lamenting "The reason why I brought it up because of—because you talked about… pic.twitter.com/XegXee2Ar0 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) March 6, 2026   Couric tried again, “Are you just ridiculously good-looking as Vogue said? No, seriously. What do you do about that?” Again, Newsom insisted, “You don't do anything about it ‘cause if you're going to do something about it, then you're bullshitting people. You know what? I am who I am. And I'm—it's fine. You don't have to like me. Or maybe you like a slick person. I don't know. Whatever. It's okay. Like, if I start showing up—” While Couric’s questions certainly appear to be the kind of ridiculous softballs that show why a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate would choose to show up on her show, she was adamant that it was a legitimate question, “The reason why I brought it up—because of—because you talked about being authentic, and I think it sometimes works against you.” While that question wasn’t much better, Newsom did respond by repeating himself before launching into his stump speech, “Yeah. It's just who I am. It's just who I am. And you know, I could go out and I can get one of these Hollywood producers to be a member of my campaign and pick out which taupe suit I'll wear or which, you know, which we've seen happen in the past when people literally are getting stylists to become someone they're not.” Like the late night comedy shows, the liberal podcast circuit is going to be a rite of passage for 2028 hopefuls. The fact that a former straight newswoman sounds like any other liberal commentator not only casts suspicion on her CBS and NBC days; it makes one pause and consider what the current cast of network hosts and reporters might be doing on today’s stories. Here is a transcript for the March 5 show: Next Question with Katie Couric 3/5/2026  KATIE COURIC: So, what do you do about that? GAVIN NEWSOM: I don’t do anything about it. COURIC: Do you, like, use less hair gel? What do you do? NEWSOM: I let it go. COURIC: Do you have a Zoolander problem? NEWSOM: No, I—Jesus. Yeah. Zoolander. COURIC: Are you just ridiculously good-looking as Vogue said? No, seriously. What do you do about that? NEWSOM: You don't do anything about it ‘cause if you're going to do something about it, then you're bullshitting people. You know what? I am who I am. And I'm—it's fine. You don't have to like me. Or maybe you like a slick person. I don't know. Whatever. It's okay. Like, if I start showing up— COURIC: The reason why I brought it up—because of—because you talked about being authentic— NEWSOM: Yeah. COURIC: —and I think it sometimes works against you. NEWSOM: Yeah. It's just who I am. It's just who I am. And you know, I could go out and I can get one of these Hollywood producers to be a member of my campaign and pick out which taupe suit I'll wear or which, you know, which we've seen happen in the past when people literally are getting stylists to become someone they're not.

I watched the coverage of the joint American-Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities with a profound sense of relief and long-overdue justice.  Back in January 2006, I wrote “Iran: A Ticking Nuclear Bomb” to highlight then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and the regime’s explicit threats to wipe Israel off the map. I pointed to the chants of “Death to America” in their parliament and how their growing missile program threatened not only neighbors and American troops stationed in the Middle East but eventually the U.S. mainland itself.  Many experts debated when, not if, Iran would acquire nuclear weapons. The mullahs claimed peaceful intentions, but for them, lying and deceit are routine statecraft.  Through the 2010s, I consistently criticized the President Barack Obama-era Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) as dangerously naive. Iran was clearly cheating. The deal did not address the nuclear problem. It ignored the regime’s sponsorship of terror organizations attacking Israel and American interests in the region and worldwide. The decades-long list of Americans killed by Iran or its proxies, plus hundreds of U.S. soldiers killed or wounded by IEDs made with Iranian technology, provided a clear basis for military action against this radical regime.  Yet the Iran deal offered sunset clauses and limited inspections. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented persuasive evidence of Iran’s cheating. Still, much of the civilized world yawned.  In 2017, I argued that pulling out of this deeply flawed deal was necessary. In 2019, amid Iran’s tanker attacks and centrifuge advances, I again warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would be catastrophic. One post said: “Given Iran’s threats, attacks on shipping, and role as the world’s top terror exporter one can only imagine a world in which Iran possesses nuclear weapons. Iran must be stopped. And if America will not stop Iran, Israel will.”       Even when last June, President Donald Trump took out three nuclear sites — the deeply buried Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — and the mullahs immediately attempted to restart their program. They didn’t get the message: There’s a new sheriff in town, and his name is not Biden or Obama.  Fast-forward to the present: The U.S.-Israeli operation has launched massive strikes across Iran, killing the supreme leader and dozens of top officials. The regime itself may fall. Trump’s decisive action, in coordination with Israel, has finally addressed what weak diplomacy prolonged for far too long.  It’s about realism. The ayatollahs’ first loyalty is to an apocalyptic ideology that sees nuclear capability as a tool for global dominance against nonbelievers.  Had Iran been dealt with a long time ago, the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of hundreds more by Hamas — an Iranian terror client — might have been avoided. Some 40 Americans were kidnapped or killed, too. When is enough enough?  Critics on the left, with the notable exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) — and some critics on the right — are crying “unconstitutional!” They warn of “another endless war,” something Trump campaigned against. Where were those voices when Iran blatantly continued to advance its nuclear program under the Iran deal? Where were they as Iran’s proxies attacked U.S. forces and interests? What happened to the left’s purported concern about the oppression of women’s rights?  Even some of Trump’s harshest conservative critics now applaud the joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran. Washington Post columnist George Will, a longtime Trump detractor, praised the operation for restoring “the credibility of U.S. deterrence.” Will wrote, “At last, the credibility of U.S. deterrence is being restored.”  Similarly, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a rabid Republican never-Trumper, defended the strikes for “doing the free world a favor.” Stephens wrote that Trump and Netanyahu administered justice and supplied hope to Iranians longing for freedom, and that the U.S. is stronger when anti-American dictators have solid reasons to fear our wrath.  This is about strength over appeasement. Reagan understood this in dealing with the Soviets. Trump applied it here. Trump’s redlines are, in fact, redlines. The result? A regime that once wrote “Death to America” on its missiles faces collapse and, hopefully, an internal uprising to follow that gives the Iranian people a real future without fear or oppression.  The joint strike wasn’t the start of endless conflict; it was the end of dangerous inaction. For that, history will eventually say, “Well done.”  Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. 

Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing featured a heated confrontation between Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, over the ICE shootings in Minneapolis, and how Noem claimed Renee Good and Alex Pretty had committed "acts of domestic terrorism." As you might expect, many in the liberal media couldn't wait to carry Raskin's water in their analysis of what took place, and that was the case on CNN's The Situation Room. Hosts Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown played the repetitive back and forth, where Raskin's main goal appeared to be to humiliate Noem for having used the term domestic terrorist in the immediate aftermath of the shootings of both Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Neither of them were going to remind their liberal base of CNN viewers that Raskin and his Democrat colleagues on the House January 6 Committee repeatedly described a "domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol" in their announcement of the committee's mission. That would include non-violent protesters, and Ashli Babbitt, who was gunned down by the Capitol Police. Would Raskin apologize for that? No one's asking. RASKIN: ..And I want to give you a chance before the entire country to correct your false and defamatory claim. Based on what you know today, Madam Secretary, were Renee Good and Alex Pretti domestic terrorists? NOEM: Congressman, what happened in Minnesota in those two incidents was an absolute tragedy -- RASKIN: Were they domestic terrorists, as you said to the country? NOEM: -- My condolences to their families, because I know that their lives will never be the same after that happened -- RASKIN: Is that an apology for what you said? NOEM: We, in those instances, offer as much information as we can from officers and agents on the ground in a chaotic scene that gets really -- RASKIN: ...Madam Secretary, based on what you know today, were Renee Good and Alex Pretti domestic terrorists? NOEM: As you know, there's ongoing investigations that are being led by the FBI... And it continued. RASKIN: Oh, but you didn't wait for the investigation, did you? You didn't wait for the evidence. You proclaimed that they were domestic terrorists at the time. Why did you do that? NOEM: And you didn't wait to attack our law enforcement. RASKIN: ..Why did you call them domestic terrorists? NOEM: ... Our ICE officers and our HSI officers that day risked their lives to protect that scene, so evidence could be reclaimed, so it could be used in the investigation, because those violent rioters that were... RASKIN: So you're proud of the fact that you called them domestic terrorists? Is that what you're telling America? NOEM: HSI officers put their lives on the line to protect that scene, so evidence -- so we could have -- RASKIN: Yes, they do. Yes, they do. But you told a lie about them! You said that they were domestic terrorists. Do you regret that? NOEM: I offer my condolences to those family. RASKIN: Based on what you know today, were Renee Good and Alex Pretti domestic terrorists? NOEM: There's ongoing investigations. And so I can't -- RASKIN: So you still don't know? You think that's an open question? NOEM: I would think you would want there to still be investigations going into these situations. RASKIN: Well, you stated the conclusion two hours after they were killed that they were domestic terrorists. I wanted to give you an opportunity to correct the record, not just for their family, but for everybody in America who believes in the truth and fairness and honesty. When this dramatic scene ended, Blitzer and Brown went to work, praising Raskin, and picking up where he left off.  BLITZER: Pretty tough question from Jamie Raskin, the Democratic congressman from Maryland, who used to be a professor of constitutional law at the American University here in Washington. He was very tough with her. And she refused repeatedly under his questioning to apologize for saying these horrible things about these two individuals. BROWN: Right. And they're -- He points out the inconsistency, and now that she is falling back on, well, there's an investigation, so I'm not going to retract what I said about domestic terrorism, that they were domestic terrorists. But then he pressed her on, well, then why did you come out in those early hours -- BLITZER: Two hours, yes.  BROWN: Two hours after they were killed, and label them that without a thorough investigation?... But one thing is clear. She is not offering an apologies to those families who have made it very clear that it's hurtful to them that she called their loved ones who are now dead domestic terrorists. BLITZER: She could have easily said, I was getting information. I misspoke. I apologize to the families. They were not domestic terrorists. She could have said that. BROWN: Right. She is -- I think at this point, there's a lot of information out there, where that question about, what you know now, would you still label them as domestic terrorists, there's enough information out there where she could give an answer to that, but clearly didn't want to. It seems that neither Blitzer nor Brown heard Noem offer her condolences to the families and say, "My heart is with them." They also ignored Noem's claim that Raskin "didn't wait to attack our law enforcement." Especially after how the January 6 Committee so fervently defended law enforcement on January 6. Early on, Raskin had determined that Good was trying to get away from police, not attack them. And in his opening statement at the hearing, he called the two shootings homicides. In this Situation, none of it matters.