Jimmy Kimmel couldn’t help but gloat about his post-suspension viewership spike, going so far as to publicly thank President Donald Trump for making it all possible. But after a very brief ratings boost, those numbers have come crashing back down to normal. The ABC late-night host was temporarily taken off the air after comments he made about assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After a suspension that lasted less than a week, Kimmel returned to the air with a tearful non-apology, whining about how his words must have been misconstrued. Kimmel’s return last Tuesday evening drew a record-breaking 6.3 million viewers, more than triple his regular audience. By Thursday, those numbers had dropped by 64%, leveling off at 2.3 million. In the coveted demographic of viewers aged 25-54, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” dropped from 1.7 million viewers on Tuesday to 465,000 on Thursday, according to The New York Post. The saga began earlier this month when Kimmel was accused of slandering conservatives when he suggested Kirk’s assassin was part of the “MAGA gang,” despite authorities saying otherwise. “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said at the time. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! While the host addressed the controversy during his return monologue, many viewers found his comments to be insincere, noting that he stopped short of apologizing for what he had said. “Kimmel is an unrepentant liar who tried to blame Charlie’s assassination on the part of the country that just spent the last 2 weeks praying and holding vigils,” Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said in response, as The Daily Wire previously reported. “What he’s really saying is that he still thinks it’s fair game to slander conservatives. He would rather advance his own political and cultural agenda than confront the truth.” Kolvet added, “It’s critical that liars admit they lied. There can be no restoration without that. Anything short of that is a fake and scripted cry line designed to endear him to his fans, not to make right the wrong he committed.” The Left is exploiting Kimmel’s suspension to push the narrative that free speech is under siege and to fault the Trump administration for silencing critics. But others have noted how ABC made a business decision to suspend Kimmel, which they were well within their rights to do.

With just hours to go before the looming government shutdown is expected to kick in, a poll by The New York Times suggests that most voters would actually prefer to see Democrats in Congress get to work and find a way to avoid it. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a screenshot of a single poll question asking 1,075 voters which of the following statements “came closest” to an accurate representation of their opinion on the matter. “New York Times Poll: 65% of Americans say, ‘the Democrats should not shut down the government, even if their demands are not met,’” Leavitt’s caption read. New York Times Poll: 65% of Americans say, “the Democrats should not shut down the government, even if their demands are not met.” pic.twitter.com/x3CFjzqgm6 — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) September 30, 2025 The first choice read, “The Democrats should shut down the government if their demands are not met” — and just over one-fourth (27%) of respondents selected that answer. The second, which was chosen by 65% of respondents, read, “The Democrats should not shut down the government, even if their demands are not met.” Just under one-tenth (7%) of respondents did not choose one of the two options. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!  Trump’s team shared the same data in graphic form: ? POLL: 65% of Americans say Democrats SHOULD NOT shut down the government pic.twitter.com/9schOzvYfV — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2025 House Democrats are all-in on the imminent shutdown, and even shared a group photo celebrating their refusal to come to the table. “House Democrats are in DC and ready to cancel the cuts, lower the costs, save health care,” the caption claimed. House Democrats are in DC and ready to cancel the cuts, lower the costs, save health care. pic.twitter.com/vnNRqGD3NS — House Democrats (@HouseDemocrats) September 30, 2025 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who proved to be the weak link in the last shutdown standoff, has made it clear that he does not intend to budge this time. Indeed, after he argued that it was more important to make sure that the government was funded and people were paid — a position that the NYT poll suggests voters share — Schumer took a wave of backlash from within his own party for giving Republicans a win. That experience, coupled with an increasingly likely primary from someone further to the left — possibly from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — has apparently galvanized Schumer to stand his ground in the current fight. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said as much on Tuesday, arguing that Schumer didn’t care if he was blamed for the shutdown because the optics were better for him if he was. .@LeaderJohnThune: “Politically speaking, Chuck Schumer needs a Schumer Shutdown… This is a made-up problem by the Democrats, who desperately need to satisfy a political base that is hostile to Donald Trump… This doesn’t have anything to do with health care.” pic.twitter.com/BwNdzwqJtn — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2025 “I’m going to tell you, just in the Senate at least, politically speaking, Chuck Schumer needs a Schumer Shutdown,” Thune said. “And I think that’s what we’re probably careening toward. But it’s up to the Democrats. This bill — this 24 pages is sitting at the desk in the Senate right now. It could be picked up and passed, the government stays open, and we complete our appropriations work.” “They have the same leverage on November the 21st that they have right now,” Thune said of the Democrats, adding, “… This is a made-up problem by the Democrats, who desperately need to satisfy a political base that is hostile to Donald Trump. That’s what this is about … This doesn’t have anything to do with health care.”

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that popular medications will be offered at massively discounted prices — known as “most-favored-nation” prices — as pharmaceutical behemoth Pfizer commits to a $70 billion investment to manufacture drugs in the U.S. President Trump: “All new medications introduced by Pfizer to the American market will be sold at the reduced, most favored nation cost.” pic.twitter.com/S2CQxh7PKC — CSPAN (@cspan) September 30, 2025 A new website, called TrumpRX, will allow Americans to purchase drugs directly from the government rather than going through insurance. Virtually all drugs will be discounted on TrumpRX, the White House said. Pfizer stepped up with a $70 billion investment, a shift toward making drugs in the U.S., which the Trump administration has addressed as a national security issue. The company is also offering all medications to Medicaid at most favored nations prices — which are prices comparable to or less than the cost of other nations’ drug prices. Additionally, all new medications will be offered at most-favored-nation prices. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout Dermatitis medication, for example, will be discounted by 80% — and that refers to the net price, which is what consumers are actually paying. Meds for post-menopausal osteoporosis, which is extremely common, will be discounted by 85%. Migraine medication and rheumatoid arthritis drugs will be discounted by 50% and 40%, respectively. PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT: President Trump Delivers LOWER DRUG PRICES for Americans pic.twitter.com/nA4tPrmcXt — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2025 Health officials, including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, emphasized that research and development will not stop, but instead, will no longer be funded by only American citizens while the rest of the world benefits. Makary, for instance, called the changes the “end of the great American ripoff.” He noted that drug price offsets will be directed to developed nations like France, Germany, and the U.K. “Today marks the end of the great American ripoff, and it also marks the beginning of the end of a great American tragedy, something I’ve seen as a physician at the bedside — patients getting spun up into a financial rage … to try to get enough money to pay for a drug … a drug that’s five or ten times more expensive than the same drug in France or Germany or the U.K.,” he said. .@DrMakaryFDA: “Today marks the the beginning of the end of the great American rip off, and it also marks the beginning of the end of a great American tragedy; something I’ve seen as a physician at the bedside — patients getting spun up into a financial rage… to try to get… pic.twitter.com/SD0iKsZR2B — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2025 Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), echoed the sentiment, noting that the administration is “protecting medical advances for the future, while at the same time securing the drug prices Americans want, today.” .@DrOzCMS: “In July, President Trump demanded that manufacturers make a firm commitment to lower their prices “or else.” Last week, we made a major breakthrough. Protecting medical advances for the future, while at the same time securing the drug prices Americans want today.” pic.twitter.com/56dvAt1OHi — HHS.gov (@HHSGov) September 30, 2025 Trump announced his “most favored nation” pricing plans at the end of July, promising to end “global freeloading” by other developed nations. The president suggested he would use tariffs and all other “tools” available to make sure all companies provide Americans with most-favored-nation prices. Related: Trump Signs Order To Reduce Drug Prices, Tells Rest Of World To Pay Up

In February 2020, two professors participated in a debate hosted by Harvard on the subject of hate speech and whether it constitutes “violence.” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychology professor at Northeastern University, argued that, yes, hate speech can be violence based on the stress responses in the brain when confronted with speech one finds offensive. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, called Barrett’s argument a “huge disservice to what we are trying to do at universities” and warned that opening up this concept to a room full of students will lead to them equating speech and ideas they don’t like to violence. And when violence is the perception, the only recourse is more violence. Little did these professors know that they were sitting on a powder keg with a short fuse. Who can forget the chaos that ensued in 2020 and beyond? And since then, with just a few exceptions, numerous violent outbreaks in the public square have been initiated by those rallying around left-wing causes. Given that the vast majority of college professors identify as “liberal” or “very liberal,” we now have a sizable petri dish in which young people learn that violence is an available tool at their disposal — a tool used to dispose of speech they want eliminated from the public square. We saw the culmination of this earlier this month with the cruel assassination of conservative icon Charlie Kirk. According to text messages sent by the young man in custody for shooting Kirk, he “had enough of his hatred,” saying that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.” And what “hate” deserved silencing in this twisted mind of the killer? Allegedly, he was romantically involved with his roommate, a male who identified as a female, and Kirk was an outspoken critic of gender identity ideology, as are many others around the world. Equating the widely held, scientific truth of biological sex to “hate” is absurd. But, regardless, “hate” speech should never be the subject of violence or censorship — especially not on college campuses. Once the bastion of the marketplace of ideas, universities are quickly becoming breeding grounds for uncritical thinking where uniformity of thought is encouraged and dissenters are silenced. Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Academic Freedom, where I serve as director, has intervened in numerous situations where conservative students and student groups — including TPUSA chapters — have been attacked simply for espousing ideas that go against the grain. Young people didn’t learn the idea of violence as a solution to discomfort in a vacuum. As previously mentioned, the left-wing bias that permeates academic faculty is eye-opening. Studies show that, in 1989, the liberal-to-conservative faculty ratio was 2:1; by 2017, it was 5:1. A 2022 report from the National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement found 69.5% of professors identified as “solidly liberal,” while only 13.2% were “conservative.” A 2023 Harvard study showed that its own faculty displayed a 26:1 liberal-to-conservative ratio. This lack of viewpoint diversity has played a significant role in fostering hostility toward free speech. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! The simple solution is for the adults in the room to acknowledge the consequences of faulty ideas and take steps to foster diversity of thought. This means hiring faculty who share different opinions. This means hosting respectful debates where students can witness civil discourse. This means that, if students disrupt respectful debate, campus leadership will take measures to hold unruly protestors accountable. And this means, most importantly, that we should move past the idea that speech protected by the Constitution is equivalent to “violence.” There are only two ways to enact change in society: speech or violence. In our current political and cultural environment, we’ve seen where both ends of the spectrum draw their lines. But a democratic society cannot long exist when one party believes that it is acceptable to kill those with whom it disagrees. Virtually every civilization throughout history has chosen violence; our founders, on the other hand, chose a better path. Now is the time to preserve that path. * * * Tyson Langhofer is senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal). The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A second illegal immigrant detainee died nearly a week after a shooter opened fire on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Dallas, Texas, according to the Associated Press. Miguel Ángel García-Hernández, 32, succumbed to his injuries after he was taken off life support, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) said in a statement. The illegal immigrant was shot, along with two others, on Wednesday by Joshua Jahn, 29, who intended to target ICE officers, according to the FBI. Jahn, who later turned the gun on himself, left chilling notes behind that revealed he hoped to inflict “terror” on the agents and that also read “yes, it was just me,” Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy E. Larson said during a press conference Thursday. Credit: Collin County, Texas, Sheriff’s Office The shooter also wrote that he “intended to maximize lethality against” them and “to maximize property damage at the facility,” while hoping “to minimize any collateral damage or injury to the detainees and any other innocent people,” Larson said. “It seems that he did not intend to kill the detainees or harm them. It’s clear from these notes that he was targeting ICE agents and ICE personnel. The tragic irony… is that it was a detainee who was killed and two other detainees that were injured when he fired,” Larson said. Garcia-Hernández’s wife, Stephany Gauffeny, called her husband’s death “a senseless tragedy.” “My husband Miguel was a good man, a loving father, and the provider for our family,” Gauffeny said in a statement shared by LULAC. “We had just bought our first home together, and he worked hard every single day to make sure our children had what they needed. His death is a senseless tragedy that has left our family shattered. I do not know how to explain to our children that their father is gone.” A bullet hole is seen in a window of the ICE facility in Dallas. The first victim, later identified by ICE as Salvadoran national Norlan Guzmán-Fuentes, 37, died the day of the attack. Guzmán-Fuentes snuck across the border illegally and later turned up in Palm Beach County, Florida, where he was arrested for battery, improper exhibit of a firearm or dangerous weapon, and criminal mischief, according to ICE. All of the charges were dropped except for the criminal mischief charge. He was later arrested in 2020 in Arlington, Texas, for a DWI, according to ICE. He later bonded out of custody before ICE could get their hands on him. His latest arrest was on Aug. 25, when Dallas police arrested him for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and an outstanding DWI warrant, ICE said. The assault charge was dismissed on Sept. 10. On Sept. 24, ICE arrested him at the local jail and “upon arrival to the ERO Dallas Field Office, ICE officers encountered an active shooter at the facility, targeting immigration officials,” the agency said. “Regretfully, Guzman was one the victims of this tragic incident which resulted in his death,” ICE said. Dramatic surveillance video taken during the shooting showed ICE officers under fire offloading detainees from a van through a hallway to safety. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!  “The evidence is clear that this was an intended assault on ICE personnel who come to work every day to do their job,” Marcos Charles, acting executive associate director for ICE’s enforcement and removal operations, said during Thursday’s presser detailing the officers’ heroic conduct. “Those ICE officers just showed the world who they really are: law enforcement officers who want the best for our country, that’s ICE integrity, courage, excellence. They were willing to put their lives on the line to pull detainees out of the transport van to get them to safety. They are heroes, and I hope the media has the integrity to shine a light on this story. Enough is enough with the harmful lies and rhetoric, and it has to stop,” he added. The Dallas shooting was the latest attack against ICE agents and facilities. A group of leftist anarchists threw fireworks at an ICE facility just outside of Dallas in July to lure officers outside before opening fire, and shooting a police officer in the neck. Bratton Dean Wilkinson, a 36-year-old American citizen, showed up at the ICE facility in Dallas last month and announced that he was carrying a bomb in his backpack and flashed a “detonator” on his wrist, the agency said. Attacks on ICE agents have increased 1,000% as they carry out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

WASHINGTON—There is a Republican push for President Donald Trump’s administration to put an end to tax code provisions that make it more cost-effective for Americans to obtain transgender medical procedures and surgeries, The Daily Wire has learned. The IRS currently designates so-called gender procedures as a “qualifying medical expense,” meaning patients can pay for these procedures with tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts and subsidized Affordable Care Act insurance plans. In a letter first obtained by The Daily Wire, Missouri congressman Bob Onder is asking Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to take a look at changing what qualifies. “Hardworking American taxpayers across the country are unknowingly made complicit in underwriting these costly, dangerous, and deadly medical procedures,” Onder writes, urging Bessent to “remove sex-trait altering drug regimens, procedures, and related providers from tax-advantaged qualified medical expenses.” Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!  “The tacit tolerance of a radical movement that has subjected thousands of American children to baseless medical treatments with grave consequences should be of serious concern to all of us,” Onder said. “We must ensure that this misguided acceptance does not result in Americans unknowingly and indirectly subsidizing the cost of these procedures.” Bessent, who serves as acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, is able to define which procedures as qualified medical expenses, the letter notes. Gender-affirming care is now broadly considered a qualified expense, meaning patients can pay for everything from chest binders and hormone therapy to surgeries using tax-advantaged HSA and FSA accounts, or taxpayer-subsidized Obamacare insurance plans. The push to change this comes as the Trump administration redoubles its efforts to combat radical gender ideology in the wake of a string of deadly attacks perpetrated by transgender-identifying assailants. Last week, the president told The Daily Wire that his administration is “very strongly” examining the pattern of transgender violence, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt similarly told The Daily Wire that transgender violence is “definitely something worth looking into.” “Anyone who denies that at this point is being willfully ignorant,” Leavitt said. In his letter, Onder lays out five major mass shootings that have been “conducted by transgender individuals with proven political motivations” since 2018. That would include Robin Westman, a trans-identifying 23-year-old man who opened fire last month on Catholic schoolchildren while they were praying in Minneapolis. It also follows the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, whose accused killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was living with a 22-year-old trans-identifying male named Lance Twiggs. “As Congress and the Trump Administration consider advancing policy proposals aimed at addressing the underlying conditions that led to Mr. Kirk’s assassination, it would be a grave mistake not to acknowledge the role transgender ideology has played in inflicting harm on our nation’s children,” Onder wrote. Onder further notes that advocates of transgender procedures are taking advantage of vulnerable young people, coaxing them into experimental medical procedures that often cause irreparable harm, and indoctrinating them into a radical ideology. Citing a May report from the Department of Health and Human Services that found there is “minimal evidence to support the benefits of sex-trait altering procedures,” Onder argues that these procedures often lead to “severe health consequences” that “have sparked equally devastating societal consequences.” “We are witnessing a disturbing rise in left-wing political violence with increasing rates of mental illness and political radicalization, which is incredibly concerning and warrants concerted examination,” he tells Bessent. “These ‘activists’ are systematically exploiting the confusion of these vulnerable individuals, weaponizing their distress to target anyone they perceive as a political or ideological opponent.” Onder is a member of the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in Congress, which has led the charge against both transgender ideology and political violence. In 2022, then-RSC Chairman Jim Banks introduced legislation that would protect minors from transgender procedures. The RSC — which counts among its members prominent lawmakers, including Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Steve Scalise (R-LA), and Kat Cammack (R-FL) — has seen its efforts to fight gender ideology pay off under President Donald Trump. Shortly after taking office in January, Trump signed an executive order declaring “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” The Trump Justice Department is considering a ban on firearm purchases for individuals who identify as transgender, as The Daily Wire previously reported. And in June, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on transgender procedures for minors, a decision RSC Chairman August Pfulger (R-Texas) hailed as “a huge win for parental rights and defeating the woke ideology of the Left.” Other RSC members are expected to sign on to Onder’s letter in the coming days, sources with knowledge of the matter tell The Daily Wire. “Children are the most vulnerable members of our country, and they deserve leaders who will protect them,” Onder writes. “This action alone will make a marked impact on the well-being of children nationwide, and will end this country’s moral retreat into the acceptance of a radical ideology that defies biological reality and puts our citizens at risk.”

The hosts of ABC’s “The View” appeared baffled as to why the leaders of the United States military might need to be in peak physical condition, and spent much of Tuesday’s broadcast complaining that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was demanding physical fitness from his troops. The cohosts were responding to the unprecedented meeting held in Quantico on Tuesday morning, during which Hegseth spoke directly to hundreds of the military’s top brass — all of whom had been directed to attend that meeting in person. Complaining that Hegseth’s remarks described a “very retro vision for our armed forces,” cohost Joy Behar demanded to know why Hegseth was “obsessed with fat?” “And fitness?” cohost Sunny Hostin added. WATCH: Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin is confused why Hegseth and Republicans want the US military be physically fit and ready to go to war if the need was required: “I’m very lost on the fact that it seems like it’s become a Republican Party position out of nowhere that the… pic.twitter.com/Rx4WlJY5zB — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 30, 2025 Cohost Alyssa Farah Griffin suggested that the changes weren’t needed because the military was already in great shape — despite data indicating that more than two-thirds of current active military members are considered overweight, and 22% are considered “obese.” “I’m very lost on the fact that it seems like it’s become a Republican Party position out of nowhere that the U.S. Military is weak. We’re the greatest fighting force in the history of mankind,” she claimed. Griffin later suggested that Hegseth was critical of generals like former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley because he wanted to make himself feel better about his own service. WATCH: Behar delves into conspiracy theories by suggesting there’s an “ulterior motive for all their crazy stuff.” Sara Haines answers by falsely suggesting recruitment numbers are down for the military. She also claims the meeting is putting the United States in jeopardy. She whines… pic.twitter.com/kVP1alGITg — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 30, 2025 Cohost Sara Haines claimed there was a “recruiting lull” despite record-breaking recruitment numbers coming from every branch of service, and then complained that the security of the military was at risk because the meeting was held in person. She also whined about the cost of bringing them in for the meeting, and then complained that they’d done it just to tell the generals to shave and go back to “hazing” trainees. Hostin was “befuddled” by the move to “toughen physical standards” and complained about Hegseth’s plan to reinstate higher standards. “I don’t understand how that was supposed to be an uplifting message for our military,” she said. WATCH: Joy Behar spew inciting rhetoric by claiming America will not survive Trump: “If you guys think we can survive another 3 1/2 years of this, I think you’re delusional. Every day there’s some nihilist thing… very day this guy is undoing something in this country that we value.… pic.twitter.com/S0PtNHFPjh — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 30, 2025 Behar pivoted back to Trump, adding, “If you guys think we can survive another 3 1/2 years of this, I think you’re delusional … every day this guy is undoing something in this country that we value.” During his remarks, Hegseth declared that all military members — from new privates to four-star generals – would be expected to meet the prescribed height and weight standards and pass physical training (PT) tests on a regular basis. He also stated that “fat troops” in formations and “fat generals at the Pentagon” were a thing of the past and would no longer be tolerated: “It’s a bad look.”

A potential plea agreement looms over the trial of the alleged assassin of conservative figure Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson. Robinson’s Court Appearance Tyler Robinson, accused of attempting to assassinate prominent conservative advocate Charlie Kirk, appeared in court recently. The hearing could lead to a plea agreement, potentially altering the trajectory of legal proceedings. Robinson, 24, accompanied by his new legal counsel, faced the decision of pursuing a preliminary hearing. This step would determine if sufficient evidence exists for the trial to proceed, a pivotal moment in this high-profile case. The case has garnered significant attention due to its political implications, with many conservatives closely watching the developments. The legal system’s handling of this case is crucial for those concerned about political violence and its impact on free speech and public safety. Plea Agreement Possibilities A plea agreement in this context could mean several outcomes, including reduced charges or sentencing in exchange for a guilty plea. The decision to accept such an agreement hinges on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution. This case highlights the delicate balance between ensuring justice and navigating the complexities of legal strategy in politically charged cases. Conservatives view the prosecution’s ability to present a compelling case as essential, not just for ensuring justice for Kirk but also for sending a strong message against political violence. The potential plea deal raises questions about accountability and the consequences of actions that threaten public figures and, by extension, democratic discourse. Implications for Political Discourse This case has broader implications for political discourse in the United States, particularly in how threats and acts of violence against public figures are addressed. For many, it underscores the need for a robust legal framework that protects individuals’ rights while deterring politically motivated violence. The outcome could influence future cases and be seen as a barometer for how seriously such threats are taken. As the legal process unfolds, conservatives are reminded of the importance of a fair and decisive judiciary that upholds the rule of law and safeguards the foundational principles of free speech and security for all citizens.

'health insurance scam'

'Manipulative self-dealing'