What do you think?

'The most disturbing series of allegations I’ve ever heard'

A concerned neighbor called police

No longer the largest group seeking asylum.

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 had more melodramas in the news about the relations between the Trump administration, the Pentagon, and interdicting drug transfers, smuggling by sea to the United States. We all know the story that President Donald Trump has ordered these drug boats, which leave, mostly, the coast of Venezuela on their way to, essentially, spread poison in the United States, to be destroyed. What is the point of contention now? One of the drug boats was not completely obliterated, but then a second hit was needed to finish the job. The Left immediately seized on that and said it was an execution of prisoners and that Donald Trump, via War Secretary Pete Hegseth, had ordered—or perhaps Pete Hegseth on his own had ordered—something like to “kill them all.” Even though The New York Times denied that very report from The Washington Post. So, what is going on? We had Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we had the admirals involved testify. And they said there was no “kill them all” order, but they did testify to what is logical. And what is logical is, if you’re trying to take out a hostile boat or a hostile asset, and you partially take it out, then you always follow up, unless the people that were in there raise their hands or they swim away. But when they’re grabbing on the boat, as the video’s revealed, and the boat is still somewhat viable, then you’re going to do what? Say, “We only get one chance to stop you, and maybe you can get in the boat and go back and try again”? I don’t think that’s how it works in war. If you’re in World War II and you’re in a Sherman tank and you see a Tiger, and you get a shot and you knock off the tracks, and all of a sudden you see people coming out of the tank and they don’t have their hands up and they’re clinging to the tank, you just say, “Well, we only had one chance to get them. I can’t shoot them now because they’re not as capable as they were before I first hit the … ” I don’t think that’s how it works. But more importantly is the Left’s attitude. Two or three senators were suggesting, once again, that the military and the officers at the Pentagon and the regional commanders should think very carefully about obeying an order from Donald Trump. And the implication is: You can disobey them if you feel, in your considered opinion, as legal or psychiatric scholars, that they are unconstitutional. This is very dangerous. We saw the “Seditious Six,” the congresspeople who ordered, basically, 1.3 million in the military to consider very carefully the lawfulness or the legality of every order they receive from every commander, which would create chaos and destroy the military if anybody were to take them up on their views. But now we’re getting senators that are telling individual high-ranking officers, “You can disobey an order coming out of the White House.” This is deja vu. Does anybody remember the first administration? Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley did precisely that. He appointed himself as a lawyer and a psychiatrist, and he said, “If I get an order from Donald Trump that I feel is dangerous—i.e., existential—I’m gonna call up my PLA, People’s Liberation Army, counterpart in China.” And that’s what he did, perhaps on two occasions. And he said, essentially, and he bragged about this, “If I get an order, I will tell you first.” So, basically, under pressure from the Left, he said, “Well, I told our communist enemies that if I ever get an order I disagree with and think is dangerous, I’m gonna tip off the communists that we may be attacking and therefore, I won’t attack.” That was high treason, if you think about it. We had two lieutenant colonels in the first Trump administration, retired lieutenant colonels, who actually wrote and said that the military should remove Donald Trump from office and that they felt that Trump’s “little green men” would not be able to withstand the 82nd Airborne Division. So, you can see what they were envisioning, some kind of armed conflict over the succession of the presidency. Then we had a number of high-ranking four-star generals and admirals who said things in the first administration that were absolutely contrary to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: “Donald Trump is a liar,” “Donald Trump is Mussolini,” “Donald Trump is Hitlerite,” “Donald Trump should be removed sooner than later.” That set the precedent, and now we’re seeing an exaggeration, an amplification, an increase in that very dangerous rhetoric. And the fact is that no one has ever shown that anybody in the military got a “kill prisoners” order from the secretary of defense or the presidency. On the other hand, as the admirals and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs have testified, if you are supposed to take out an enemy who is conducting offensive operations against your country—and that’s what smuggling dangerous drugs that have killed 70,000 people a year is—and you hit them and it blows a portion of the boat up, and then you see people still on the boat and trying to get away, what do you say then? “Marquess of Queensberry Rules apply”? “We only get one hit and therefore, because you escaped us, we can’t do it again”? No. We don’t do that. It wasn’t as if people swam off in the middle of the water and raised their hands up and said, “I surrender.” What is going on here? It’s a deliberate effort by the Left to undermine the chain of command and ultimately, the commander in chief itself. And the irony is, all of these senators and representatives and the media are talking about unconstitutionality. What they’re doing is unconstitutional. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Real Unconstitutionality? Undermining the Commander in Chief appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A Heritage Foundation expert is calling for the United States to respond to the European Union’s fine on the social media platform X and on owner Elon Musk, with sanctions on EU officials and restrictions of travel, including preventing them from attending next year’s World Cup festivities in the U.S. “We should sanction EU, European Commission officials who are responsible for fining Elon Musk and X,” Nile Gardiner, director of Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told The Daily Signal in an interview Monday. “They should not be welcome in the United States. They should be banned from attending the World Cup next summer.” The EU announced a $140 million fine on X Friday. The European Commission defended the fine as a response to X allegedly misleading users by allowing users to purchase a blue check mark, an identifier that previously symbolized verification. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the fine as an attack on Americans. “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on [X,] it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” he posted on the platform. “The days of censoring Americans online are over. The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.The days of censoring Americans online are over.— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) December 5, 2025 Musk called for the abolition of the EU in response. “The people of Europe should withdraw from the EU to regain their sovereignty,” he posted on X. The people of Europe should withdraw from the EU to regain their sovereignty https://t.co/QTbkSgePrh— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 6, 2025 Attack on Free Speech Gardiner framed the fine as an attack on free speech. “This is about power and control,” he said. “EU bureaucrats couldn’t care less about blue ticks and who buys them. What they care about is controlling content and the messaging.” “The European Union is an Orwellian nightmare and the European Commission thrives on controlling what people can and cannot say within the EU, which is why X is a huge threat to their whole modus operandi,” Gardiner added. “X is a very powerful force that undermines the Orwellian power of Brussels,” he argued. “They want to make it as expensive as possible for X to operate in Europe, in order to suppress freedom of speech.” The Twitter Files revealed European involvement in the massive pressure campaigns to force social media companies like Twitter to censor speech governments like the EU deemed to be “misinformation.” “We have seen a real revolution on thinking on U.S. policy towards Europe in the last year and Elon Musk is rightly advancing this revolution by standing up to the European Commission,” Gardiner noted. “Three cheers for Elon Musk for standing up for freedom, democracy, sovereignty, and self-determination!” Gardiner noted that X has allowed the British public to highlight many scandals, including the horrifying trend of men of Pakistani heritage forming “grooming gangs” to sexually abuse young women. “If we didn’t have X, we wouldn’t have seen this big spotlight on the grooming gangs scandal, we would not have seen the massive focus we have today on thousands of British citizens being arrested for their views and thoughts and free speech,” Gardiner noted. “If we didn’t have X in Europe, I would fear for the future of Europe—which is why the EU elites fear it so greatly.” Why Oppose the EU? Gardiner described the EU as a force against self-determination and sovereignty for European nations. “The European Union is not remotely democratic. It’s about power, it’s about the centralization of power in Brussels,” he said. “It is about trampling upon the sovereignty, the independence, the self-determination of European nation states.” “The EU behaves like a dictatorship,” he added. “It is a modern-day form of tyranny in Europe. Elon Musk is right, it’s time for the people of Europe to throw off the shackles of the EU and declare their freedom.” He compared the EU’s grand project to those of French Emperor Napoleon Buonaparte, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, and Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. “The EU follows in the ambitions of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin,” Gardiner said. “They all tried to create a centralized Europe and they all failed. The European Union also is failing and it will collapse.” He said the United States should adopt a formal policy of calling “for every European Union member state to hold a referendum” like the 2016 Brexit referendum in which British citizens voted to leave the EU. “The United States must always stand for freedom, democracy, and self-determination,” Gardiner declared. He praised President Donald Trump for fighting back against the EU and predicted that the union would collapse “in the next 2-3 decades.” Gardiner said his proposal to sanction EU officials and to ban their travel to the U.S. “will have a real impact in Europe” due to the popularity of soccer across the Atlantic. Neither the European Commission nor the U.S. State Department responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time. The post US Should Sanction EU Over Elon Musk Fine, Block World Cup Attendance, Heritage Expert Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dog injuries happen when you least expect them. Minor cuts, scrapes, and wounds require immediate attention to prevent infection and promote healing. We at DogingtonPost know that selecting the right dog wound care products can feel overwhelming with countless options available. The wrong choice could delay healing or worsen your pet’s condition. What Products Heal Dog Wounds Best Dog wound care products fall into three essential categories that every pet owner should understand. Antiseptic solutions like chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine serve as your first line of defense against bacterial contamination. Chlorhexidine provides superior residual antimicrobial activity, while saline solution offers the gentlest option for sensitive wounds. Pet-safe wound sprays that contain benzalkonium chloride effectively flush debris without tissue damage. Antiseptic Solutions That Fight Infection Chlorhexidine stands out as the most effective antiseptic for dog wounds due to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties. This solution maintains its effectiveness for hours after application, unlike alcohol-based products that evaporate quickly. Povidone-iodine works well for initial wound cleansing but requires dilution to prevent tissue irritation. Saline solution (made with one teaspoon of salt per two cups of water) provides the safest option for daily wound irrigation without harsh chemicals. Bandages That Protect Without Harm Gauze pads remain the gold standard for wound protection, with 2×2 inch squares ideal for minor cuts and 4×4 inch options better suited for larger injuries. Non-adherent pads prevent tissue trauma during dressing changes, which improves healing outcomes compared to standard gauze. Self-adhesive bandages like Vetrap provide secure coverage without tape requirements, while medical tape should only contact fur, never skin directly. Healing Ointments That Speed Recovery Medical-grade honey ointments demonstrate remarkable antibacterial properties, with manuka honey showing effectiveness against antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains. Silver sulfadiazine cream accelerates healing in contaminated wounds, though veterinary approval is mandatory before application. Avoid triple antibiotic ointments that contain neomycin, as dogs frequently develop allergic reactions to this ingredient. Advanced Dressings for Complex Wounds Hydrocolloid dressings create optimal moisture balance for superficial wounds while alginate dressings excel at managing heavy exudate from deeper injuries. These specialized materials cost more than basic gauze but significantly improve healing outcomes for challenging wounds. Enzymatic creams that contain trypsin help remove dead tissue naturally, which promotes faster granulation tissue formation. Understanding these product categories helps you make informed decisions, but selecting the right combination depends on several key factors specific to your dog’s injury and temperament. What Factors Determine the Right Product Choice Wound assessment drives every product decision you make for your dog’s injury care. Superficial scrapes that measure less than one inch require only basic antiseptic and non-adherent gauze, while puncture wounds or other trauma can force bacteria deep into the tissues and should never be closed if contaminated and more than a few hours old. Fresh wounds with active blood loss need immediate pressure application with absorbent gauze pads, whereas older wounds that show signs of infection require antimicrobial solutions like chlorhexidine rather than gentle saline irrigation. Dog Size Changes Everything About Bandage Selection Small dogs under 20 pounds need lightweight 1-inch self-adhesive bandages that won’t restrict movement, while large breeds over 60 pounds require 3-inch wide wraps for adequate coverage and security. Yorkshire Terriers and Chihuahuas often develop skin irritation from adhesive products, which makes paper tape the safer choice for dressing security. German Shepherds and Labrador Retrievers possess thick double coats that trap moisture under bandages, which creates infection risks that demand daily dressing changes rather than the standard 48-hour interval that works for short-haired breeds. Temperament Affects Treatment Success Rates Anxious dogs that struggle during wound care need quick-application products like spray antiseptics instead of time-intensive wound irrigation procedures. Aggressive dogs require muzzles during treatment, which makes pre-applied antimicrobial pads more practical than liquid solutions that require extended contact time. Calm, cooperative dogs tolerate complex systems like hydrocolloid patches that should be used for up to two weeks if bacterial contamination is suspected of slowing wound healing. Active dogs that won’t rest need stronger adhesive systems and protective barriers, while sedentary older dogs benefit from gentle, breathable materials that prevent skin maceration. Wound Location Dictates Product Selection Wounds on high-motion areas like joints and paws require flexible, waterproof dressings that maintain adhesion during movement. Facial injuries near the eyes or mouth need non-toxic, gentle products that won’t cause additional irritation if accidentally ingested. Chest and abdomen wounds benefit from larger coverage areas with secure edges that prevent contamination from ground contact. These assessment factors work together to guide your product choices, but health conditions can influence healing rates and knowing which specific brands and formulations deliver the best results makes the difference between adequate care and optimal healing outcomes. Which Products Actually Work Best Vetericyn Plus All-In Wound and Skin Care leads the antiseptic category with its hypochlorous acid formula that provides effective antimicrobial action against a broad range of microorganisms while dogs can safely lick the treated area. This solution beats traditional iodine products because it won’t stain fur or need dilution before application. Chlorhexidine gluconate 2% solution from brands like Nolvasan delivers the longest antimicrobial protection, with effectiveness that lasts up to 6 hours after application (compared to alcohol-based products that evaporate within minutes). Professional-Grade Bandage Materials 3M Vetrap Bandage Tape serves as the most reliable self-adhesive wrap because it sticks only to itself, never to fur or skin, and maintains consistent compression without loosening during activity. Telfa non-adherent pads prevent tissue trauma during dressing changes, which reduces healing time by an average of 2-3 days compared to standard gauze according to veterinary wound studies. Curad Sterile Gauze Pads in 4×4 inch size provide optimal absorption for most dog wounds, while smaller 2×2 inch options work better for paw injuries where bulk creates mobility issues. Antimicrobial Treatments That Speed Recovery Medihoney Wound and Burn Dressing contains medical-grade manuka honey with proven effectiveness against MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains that commonly infect dog wounds. Silver sulfadiazine cream like Silvadene offers anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, and anti-oxidative properties for wound treatment, though veterinary approval remains mandatory before application. Skip Neosporin and similar triple antibiotic ointments because neomycin causes allergic contact dermatitis in approximately 15% of dogs (which actually delays healing rather than helps it). Specialized Wound Care Solutions Carrington Antifungal Wound Gel works exceptionally well for hot spots and moisture-damaged skin because it contains both antimicrobial agents and skin barrier protection ingredients that prevent further irritation. Hydrocolloid dressings like DuoDERM create optimal moisture balance for superficial wounds while alginate dressings excel at managing heavy discharge from deeper injuries. These specialized materials cost more than basic gauze but significantly improve healing outcomes for challenging wounds. Final Thoughts Every dog owner needs five essential dog wound care products in their emergency kit: chlorhexidine antiseptic solution, non-adherent gauze pads, self-adhesive bandages like Vetrap, medical-grade honey ointment, and saline solution for gentle irrigation. These basics handle 90% of minor injuries that occur at home. Quick access to the right supplies makes the difference between effective treatment and panic during emergencies. Professional veterinary care becomes necessary when wounds penetrate deeper than the skin surface, show signs of infection like thick discharge or foul odor, or involve areas near the eyes, mouth, or genitals. Uncontrolled bleeding that doesn’t stop after 10 minutes of direct pressure requires immediate emergency treatment. Store your supplies in a waterproof container with clear labels and expiration dates (including disposable gloves, blunt-tip scissors, and a recovery cone to prevent licking). We at DogingtonPost know that proper preparation saves precious time during pet emergencies. Replace expired items every six months and practice basic wound cleaning techniques before emergencies arise. Quick action with the right dog wound care products prevents minor injuries from becoming serious complications that require expensive veterinary procedures.

Honduran Elections All Hung Up After Taking a Right Turn

After the case was thrown out in August, on Monday, Navy veteran Zachary Young filed an appeal of his defamation suit against Puck News. In addition to wanting Florida’s First District Court of Appeals to allow the case to proceed, Young also requested they order a new judge be assigned to preside over the case; pointing to Judge William Scott Henry’s comments about the merits of the case. Just as he did with his appeal for his defamation case against the Associated Press. The appeal filed by Young’s counsel Jason Greaves, didn’t hold back as it repeatedly accused Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit of coming to “erroneous” conclusions in Puck’s favor on multiple fronts and upending the order of operations for how defamation cases were supposed to proceed: The circuit court erroneously dismissed Appellants’ Amended Complaint with prejudice, ignoring reasonable defamatory interpretations, and denied them leave to seek punitive damages, improperly preventing Appellants from “protect[ing their] own good name.” (…) As an initial matter, the circuit court erroneously held that Puck’s articles were protected under the fair report privilege. (…) Here, it was erroneous for the circuit court to have determined as a matter of law that Puck’s articles gave a reasonably fair and accurate report on the CNN case. Specifically, the circuit court found that Puck’s statements were merely “correct accounts of what was transpiring in the CNN Case at the time.” And that just because certain things were omitted or presented with bias is of no consequence. This, however, ignores the reality of the articles. (…) The court erroneously concluded, as a matter of law, that Puck’s September Article was not capable of defamatory meaning, because of the presumed “context” of Puck’s affirmative defense of fair report privilege. At this pleading stage, however, where the defamatory statement, on its face and without innuendo, accused Mr. Young of preying on vulnerable Afghans and charging them exorbitant rates, the circuit court cannot rewrite the statement for Puck. As in his initial complaint, Young’s filing argued that Puck News (a media industry-focus publication), via coverage from “entertainment law expert” Eriq Gardner, took CNN’s side and presented slanted reporting that aimed to clean some of the egg of their face: Gardner described the CNN report, writing, “reporter Alex Marquardt detailed how, following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the collapse of the government, panicked locals turned to private contractors to help them flee the country.” Gardner followed this sentence immediately with the following: “One such contractor was Zachary Young, a Navy Veteran whose firm was charging people hefty fees—sometimes tens of thousands of dollars—to escape the Taliban.” Through this framing, Gardner unequivocally adopted CNN’s false characterization of events, embracing them as his own, and claimed that Mr. Young preyed on “panicked locals” by charging them “tens of thousands of dollars.” Greaves also drew the appellate court’s attention to how Gardner tried to dismiss the merits of Young case, trial, and victory over CNN by suggesting it was only political: Gardner went on to express doubt about the verdict, writing, “CNN’s loss isn’t a stunner, although many may find it questionable whether the network’s reporters truly branded Young a criminal war profiteer, as he alleged.” Rather, “CNN’s real problem was geographical: the trial was set in Panama City, one of Florida’s deepest-red outposts.” (…) Separately, the articles repeatedly imply—through juxtaposition, selective omissions, and snide commentary about geography and politics—that Mr. Young actually did what CNN accused him of and only won because of partisan courts. In a statement to NewsBusters, Greaves said: “Puck didn’t just report on the CNN case, it revived CNN’s false accusation after a court had already ruled it was untrue. When a media outlet repeats a lie knowing the truth, that’s not journalism. It’s defamation, plain and simple.” As he did with the AP case, Young also wanted a new judge to oversee the case on remand: Because of the flippant way that the court below composed the Order, Appellants reasonably fear that, on remand, their claims would not receive the detached and neutral attention to which they are entitled, and thus respectfully request this Court order that this case be reassigned to a new judge. Throughout the Order, the court below demonstrated bias toward Appellants by inappropriately invoking the analogy that this case was a bad sequel to the CNN case that never should have been made. As NewsBusters reported back in August, Judge William Scott Henry dismissed the case with language that cast doubt on the merits of the case: Because of the flippant way that the court below composed the Order, Appellants reasonably fear that, on remand, their claims would not receive the detached and neutral attention to which they are entitled, and thus respectfully request this Court order that this case be reassigned to a new judge. Throughout the Order, the court below demonstrated bias toward Appellants by inappropriately invoking the analogy that this case was a bad sequel to the CNN case that never should have been made. During the CNN defamation trial, Judge Henry did occasionally admonish both sides, but in particular CNN's lead counsel David Axelrod for spreading lies about Young in the courtroom. He forced Axelrod to apologize to the Navy veteran, which Young understandably did not accept. Henry also looked out for the media reporting on the trial. He looked to confirm with the press pool that Axelrod had obtained our consensus to not sure images of their star witness (they apparently didn’t inform him that the trial was televised online). When NewsBusters spoke out and informed Judge Henry that we were not consulted, he sided with us and instructed the witness would be shown.

Sunday’s 60 Minutes kicked off with Lesley Stahl’s 13-minute interview with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who’s quitting in January. CBS played up the anti-Trump angle, as expected: Marjorie Taylor Greene says Republicans "terrified to step out of line" when it comes to Trump Naturally, Stahl was eager to know what nasty things Republican members of Congress say about Trump behind his back. But the most amusing part came when Stahl attacked Greene over her lack of civility, an interesting take coming from nasty CBS. It's disorienting to hear Greene mocking other Republicans who started "kissing his ass" when Trump secured the GOP nomination in 2024. Stahl proclaimed: “Greene has built her reputation on feisty combat and inflammatory insults, like calling President Joe Biden a "liar" during the 2023 State of the Union.  It's been five years of almost constant drama, with her adding fuel to the nation's loss of civility.” Wait. So from 2016 forward, the media elites convinced themselves that they all just must call Trump a “liar” on the front pages and the network newscasts. But when a Republican yells it at Biden, it’s “inflammatory”?   Stahl noted that Greene apologized for contributing to toxic talk in an interview on CNN, but "it became clear to us that she hasn't entirely lost her appetite for combat." So Stahl launched at her:  GREENE: It’s the most toxic political culture and it’s not helping the American people. STAHL: But, you contributed to that! You! You were out there pounding, insulting people. GREENE: Lesley, you’ve contributed to it as well with your — STAHL: Me? GREENE: Yes, you’re accusatory, just like you did just then. STAHL: I know you’re accusing me, but I’m smiling — GREENE: You’re accusing me! STAHL: I am accusing you! GREENE: But we don’t have to accuse one another. STAHL: I want you to respond to what you have done in terms of insulting people, yelling at people, and then saying — GREENE: I’d like for you to respond for that. No, you can respond for that. STAHL: I don’t insult people. GREENE: You do in the way you question. And you’re accusing me right now. For us, Stahl is most notorious for telling Donald Trump you can't confirm that Hunter Biden's laptop was real, which wasn't so much an insult as a preposterous assertion. In our files, we have more examples of Stahl gushing over Jimmy Carter or Nancy Pelosi or other Democrats. But her questions can be insulting, like asking the Israeli ex-hostage in April a Hamas-sympathetic question: “Do you think they starved you or they just didn’t have food?” We could cite this Stahl question to the Trump family on 60 Minutes just days after Trump won in 2016: “A lot of people are afraid. They’re really afraid. African Americans think there’s a target on their back. Muslims are terrified...Do any of you want to say anything about this fear that’s out there?” But Greene was probably thinking of when Stahl interviewed her in 2023, when she brought a litany of insults -- but from other people. “We looked up some words that have been said about you,” Stahl informed her. Among the list of words were apparently “crazy,” “Q-clown,” “looney tune,” “unhinged,” and “moron.” Later, Stahl pointed out how “people say” Greene was “Trump in high heels.” Stahl also insulted Greene when she gave a typical Republican answer on the budget, when she said Washington doesn't have a tax-revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Stahl shot back: "You know something, that's glib. That's glib. What does that mean? The two sides have to come together and hammer it out." (Translation: Raise taxes.) And Stahl lost her mind back then when Greene said the Democrats were the "party of pedophiles." So again, let's point out that these days, leftists constantly argue that President Trump is a pedophile (over the Epstein scandal), but Stahl hasn't freaked out over that at all. All the "fact checking" goes one way, just like all the "civility checking" does.  PS: Stahl had a slightly fraught conversation with former network correspondent Jeff Greenfield over the 2023 MTG interview here.