On Monday’s edition of the CNN International political interview program Amanpour, liberal host Christiane Amanpour treated new, significant Supreme Court decisions with fear and contempt, using the liberal media’s trick of emphasizing the liberal dissents from the bench, not the binding rulings issued by the actual conservative majority (note that the CNNI show usually also airs later in the day on taxpayer-supported PBS, but PBS ran a rerun Monday night instead). Host Christiane Amanpour opened the program with "Donald Trump is entitled to some presidential immunity" in his January 6th case. She then instantly blared out the minority opinion, an overwrought liberal dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote, "Orders the Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. With fear for our democracy, I dissent." Pretty strong. While Trump called the decision a big win for our Constitution, the January 6th trial now almost certainly won't be heard before November, and if Trump wins re-election, he could make the case disappear altogether. Neal Katyal argued many cases before the Supreme Court, including as the U.S. acting solicitor general, and he's joining me now. Welcome back to our program. Guest Neal Katyal, a frequent PBS and MSNBC guest, performed the above service under the Obama-Biden administration, a partisan affiliation that was worth mentioning. Amanpour didn’t. Previously, on the PBS News Hour, Katyal approved of the attempt (rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court) to remove Trump from Colorado's primary ballot. Amanpour: So, was this the verdict, the ruling, that you expected? Katyal: It was not. It was a big win for Trump and a big loss for the American Constitution and our democracy, as Justice Sotomayor said. I mean, Christiane, even before the decision was rendered today, the whole thing was a big win for Donald Trump because the Supreme Court took many months to decide this case, when normally, they would have acted much more quickly. And what that did is effectively make it impossible for Donald Trump to be tried for his alleged crimes on January 6th before our presidential election in November. But what the decision today did, which I think was pretty unexpected, was to make his prosecution even harder should he lose the election, because it's going to change the rules. In America, we've generally had a tradition that no person is above the law. That's why we fought our revolution. And as Justice Sotomayor says in dissent, that's not true anymore. Now, the president -- a former president, is going to have a massive amount of immunity for actions he undertook while as president. Katyal also used the hysterical Navy SEAL Team Six example. Katyal: Bottom line is, Donald Trump or any future president can do all sorts of nefarious stuff, including the example you gave before about maybe SEAL Team 6 assassinating political rival, and he can just proceed it with, this is my official act as president…. Amanpour eventually moved on to the court’s vital overruling of the 1984 Chevron decision, which had ordered lower courts to defer to how a federal agency interpreted a congressional statute, leading in some cases to regulatory overreach. Again, Amanpour led with the liberal minority dissent, this one from Obama-appointee Justice Elena Kagan. See a pattern? Amanpour: There's a so-called Chevron doctrine. I mean, it's kind of complicated and technical. But it basically says the whole -- it puts into question the regulatory system of an administration. Justice Elena Kagan delivered an angry dissent. She said -- accusing the majority of judicial hubris and saying the majority disdains restraint and grasp for power. So, again, that is -- like Sotomayor, these are very -- you know, very sharp dissents for these two rulings. What do you think the motive of the majority is to keep pushing back against the guardrails and far from anybody not being above the law, actually practically institutionalizing the fact that they might be above the law? A transcript is available, click Expand: CNN International 7/1/24 1:01:39 p.m. (ET) AMANPOUR: What the American election means for Ukraine. Insight from the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Julianne Smith. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Donald Trump is entitled to some presidential immunity. In the last opinion, on the last day of the term, the Supreme Court finally released its ruling in the hugely anticipated January 6th case against Trump. The six to three decision says the president has absolute immunity for official acts, but not unofficial ones. The question of what constitutes an official act or an unofficial one will be kicked down to the lower court again. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote, orders the Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. With fear for our democracy, I dissent. Pretty strong. While Trump called the decision a big win for our constitution, the January 6th trial now almost certainly won't be heard before November, and if Trump wins re-election, he could make the case disappear altogether. Neal Katyal argued many cases before the Supreme Court, including as the U.S. acting solicitor general, and he's joining me now. Welcome back to our program. NEAL KATYAL, FORMER U.S. ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL: Thank you for having me. AMANPOUR: So, was this the verdict, the ruling, that you expected? KATYAL: It was not. It was a big win for Trump and a big loss for the American constitution and our democracy, as Justice Sotomayor said. I mean, Christiane, even before the decision was rendered today, the whole thing was a big win for Donald Trump because the Supreme Court took many months to decide this case, when normally, they would have acted much more quickly. And what that did is effectively make it impossible for Donald Trump to be tried for his alleged crimes on January 6th before our presidential election in November. But what the decision today did, which I think was pretty unexpected, was to make his prosecution even harder should he lose the election, because it's going to change the rules. In America, we've generally had a tradition that no person is above the law. That's why we fought our revolution. And as Justice Sotomayor says in dissent, that's not true anymore. Now, the president -- a former president, is going to have a massive amount of immunity for actions he undertook while as president. AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just break this down. Again, Justice Sotomayor, as you say, I'll give you the actual quote, gives -- she says, gives former   President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Adding that it makes a mockery of the principle that no man is above the law. But, the chief justice for the majority writes, the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law. So, where are we? I mean, what does that actually mean? What does the majority actually mean? KATYAL: Yes. So, the majority draws a distinction, as you said at the outset of the program, between official acts of the president, to which there is immunity, and unofficial acts, as to which there's not. And so, the chief justice is technically correct in saying, if it's an unofficial act, no person is above the law. The problem is that that same opinion says, everything a president does is presumed to be an official act. And as they apply the official, unofficial act distinction to the allegations against Donald Trump in the criminal indictment, it's really scary, because the first set -- the first bucket of challenge -- of accusations against Donald Trump is that he pressured the Justice Department to throw out the election results and to impugn their integrity. And the Supreme Court says that is clearly an official act. That is not something that the lower court can examine anything about. And then, they go on to say, with respect to pressuring Vice President Pence to throw out and de certify the election results on January 6th or pressuring other people or the 180 minutes in which Trump did nothing on January 6th, they say, well, maybe, maybe those are unofficial acts. Maybe they're official. That's something for the trial court to determine, but, asterisk, they say the trial court can't examine any evidence about Donald Trump's motives for taking the actions he undertook at the time and deciding whether something is an official or unofficial act. Bottom line is, Donald Trump or any future president can do all sorts of nefarious stuff, including the example you gave before about maybe SEAL Team 6 assassinating political rival, and he can just proceed it with, this is my official act as president. I'm doing this to protect our democracy or whatever he says will be very hard for a court to look under that, you know, statement by a president. AMANPOUR: So, help me understand then, because Chief Justice Roberts, as I read out what he said, he -- in that sentence is, and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law. KATYAL: Yes. So, the question is -- I mean, certainly the court is saying, if there is an unofficial act, you're not immune. The question is, what is a practical matter will an unofficial act be? Even if, for example, the trial court concludes that pressuring Vice President Pence to throw out the vote on January 6th was an unofficial act, which they'd have to do against the presumption that everything's official and you couldn't introduce evidence of a president's motive and so on, let's say the trial court concluded that. That's then going to go up to the court of appeals on an appeal, and then possibly the United States Supreme Court delaying things for another year or two. The general way our constitutional system has worked is, you got to obey the law, you don't get to say something is an official act when it is, you know, like, undoubtedly, you know, has unofficial personal consequences, you got to face the music. But Trump has managed to both delay his criminal trial now for months and months and months and to adopt -- to force the Supreme Court to adopt a standard that makes it hard for him to be tried or any president to be tried because they'll claim everything, Christiane, to be an official act. AMANPOUR: So, let's just take a few recent rulings. There's a so-called Chevron doctrine. I mean, it's kind of complicated and technical. But it basically says, you know, basically the whole -- it puts into question the regulatory system of an administration. Justice Elena Kagan delivered an angry dissent. She said -- accusing the majority of judicial hubris and saying the majority disdains restraint and grasp for power. So, again, that is -- like Sotomayor, these are very -- you know, very sharp dissents for these two rulings. What do you think the motive of the majority is to keep pushing back against the guardrails and far from anybody not being above the law, actually practically institutionalizing the fact that they might be above the law? KATYAL: Yes, I don't want -- I don't do motives, but I do want to say that I think it's very important to look at today's decision in light of the other decision from Friday that you mentioned about the Chevron rule -- deference ruling. And here's what that's basically about. In America, most of our law is actually written, not by the Congress, which is frankly incapable of even agreeing if the sky is blue, but it's written by administrative agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Federal Communications Commission, or the Environmental Protection Agency. They set the rules for greenhouse gas regulation, for food and drug regulation, for how much you pay on your telephone bill, all sorts of stuff. And what the Supreme Court on Friday did is say agencies lack a lot of the power and deference they've been given since 1984, when the Supreme Court, in a case called Chevron, gave them that power. This is one of the most important cited cases in of the Supreme Court ever. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited Chevron 70 times, lower courts 18,000 times. And yet, the court on Friday just blew past it all and overruled it. And today, they did something similar when it comes to presidential immunity. And the effect of this is that we have a Supreme Court in this country that is now out of step with the American mainstream and one that has – which looks to Americans, whether rightly or wrongly, looks very partisan. That decision was a six to three decision on Friday about Chevron. Today's decision about presidential immunity, a six to three decision with all the Republican appointed justices on one side and all the Democratic appointed justices on the other side. That is not the way our United States Supreme Court ordinarily works. If we look back to, for example, Nixon versus United States, the case in 1974, when President Nixon was discovered to have tapes that showed criminal wrongdoing by him in the Oval Office, that went to the United States Supreme Court. Almost every justice ruled against Nixon, including the justices that Nixon put on the Supreme Court. That's the way the Supreme Court has traditionally operated. We are now in gravely dangerous and different territory. AMANPOUR: So, then, as we look and try to assess the future of democracy, all of that was on display during the debate -- the CNN Debate on Thursday. The future of the institutions and the guardrails. Would you say, then, something as important as an independent system of justice like the Supreme Court of the United States, are some of these institutions weakening themselves? KATYAL: Yes. I'm very worried about it. I was just in Japan last week meeting with members of the -- their parliament who are -- were gravely worried even before this whole spate of decisions about what's going to happen in November and America's commitment to the rule of law. And I think when you have a Supreme Court decision, like today, what it says to the American people, indeed to the world, is that the law is not going to protect us against a nefarious president. A -- the Constitution's not going to protect us, the courts aren't going to protect us. We have to exercise our judgment to put a responsible person in that office, someone who takes the American tradition of adherence to the rule of law, respect for our constitution, as his or her most sacred duty. And, you know, that's what today's decision underscores. The courts aren't protecting us. It's got to be up to the American people. AMANPOUR: Neal Katyal, thank you so much indeed for joining us.

In case you didn’t see the litany of embarrassing clips on X earlier this week, Wednesday’s White House press briefing revealed more surprising message discipline from the beat reporters as they continued to rhetorically bludgeon the Biden administration and the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre with questions about the obvious mental decline of President Biden (which, for many, have only decided to acknowledge after Thursday’s debate). Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann and Daily Mail’s Emily Goodin were two of the last three reporters called on, but were perhaps the most biting. Wegmann called out Biden’s lies about servicemembers dying on his watch when 13 were lost in Afghanistan and three in Jordan: .@PhilipWegmann: “I wanted to ask you about some of the things the President said last week.” KJP: “Last week?” Wegmann: “Yes.” KJP: “Okay.” Wegmann: “Obviously, with — 13 service members died at Abbey Gate —” KJP: “Yeah.” Wegmann: “— during the Afghanistan withdrawal, and… pic.twitter.com/ASnhafJu0F — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 3, 2024 Following a question about what Biden meant when he said in the debate that he “beat Medicare”, he noted Jean-Pierre has “more interaction with the President than – than most folks”, so does she “believe that the President is as sharp today as he was when he took this job”. Jean-Pierre had a response for the ages, arguing Biden’s not only “strong and resolute”, but he’s “engage[d]”, “pushes” and “prods us” to do more and “is as sharp as ever.” Goodin followed up on something CNN’s M.J. Lee had brought up earlier about whether Biden had recently seen a doctor: Missed this from towards the end of the WH briefing..... Daily Mail’s @EmilyLGoodin : “I just wanted to ask how was the president's health today? Is — does he still have his cold? Or is he feeling better —” KJP: “I —” Goodin: “— and then —” KJP: “Yeah.” Goodin: “— to clarify… pic.twitter.com/JGqY311Tgn — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 4, 2024 Back to the beginning, AP’s Seung Min Kim really set the tone with a tone of incredulousness. Not surprisingly, Jean-Pierre gave a long answer rehashing almost word-for-word talking points from Tuesday: AP’s @SeungMinKim: “Last night at the fundraiser, the President blamed jet lag for his debate performance, but he was back stateside for well over a week. So, does he really need more than a week and a half to recover from — from — from traveling in Europe? And did he really — is… pic.twitter.com/k0t48fuGnq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 3, 2024 Kim snuffed out this as “excuses”, not an “explanation”, which Jean-Pierre unsurprisingly disagreed with and even claimed nearly two weeks after crossing an ocean and multiple time zones was indeed cause to falter in the debate of your life. Kim’s final question as she wondered why Biden wasn’t calling congressional allies last Friday and a day after the debate instead of four or five days later. CBS’s Weijia Jiang had questions about whether Biden would step down and the correct take that Biden “owe[s] it to the American public to reflect on whether he should step down”: CBS’s @WeijiaJiang: “Is President Biden considering stepping down from the race?” KJP: “Absolutely, absolutely not. And you heard, I think I believe directly from the campaign as well.” Jiang: “Given the groundswell of concern from fellow Democrats, from donors, from… pic.twitter.com/sVjvQOVa40 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 3, 2024   Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich grilled Jean-Pierre on the months-old story from Axios that Biden only truly functions in a work setting for six hours a day as well as the notion he takes daily naps. She also hammered home the idea that why was Biden going to a Waffle House and staging a fiery rally if he had such a horrendous cold. Needless to say, Jean-Pierre didn’t appreciate it: .@JacquiHeinrich: “Can you also clarify Seung Min’s question?” KJP: “Sure.” Heinrich: “I mean, how — how is it that the President was still tired 12 days after returning from Europe, had a cold but then went to the Waffle House, and then the following day, staged such a huge… pic.twitter.com/pRr1v4sy0B — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 3, 2024   Another notable moment of the briefing came when Newsmax’s James Rosen interjected to wonder if Biden’s currently “awake”. This triggered a scolding from NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell: .@Newsmax’s JamesRosenTV: “But he’s awake?” NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell: “That's inappropriate.” KJP: “As you heard from your colleague, the president of the WHCA. That's inappropriate. Thank you, Kelly.” pic.twitter.com/hy9g3c2goJ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 3, 2024   Skipping ahead a few minutes, ABC’s Selina Wang had the critical question her colleague and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce wouldn’t dare be caught asking: “If there are so many questions right now about whether President Biden can do this job, why are we not seeing the President out there every single day in an unscripted way without teleprompters?” Jean-Pierre wouldn’t answer the question, instead touting his Fourth of July gathering with servicemembers and their families, his trip to Wisconsin, and his record of “the strongest economic recovery in modern – in modern history.” Things got even worse when Wang asked why Biden won’t answer these questions himself (click “expand”): WANG: But again, we’re now almost a week after the debate. Why doesn’t the President just come here right now and answer for himself with this briefing room? All the questions that we have? JEAN-PIERRE: Well — well — you — you — you asked me a couple of things. You asked — uh — when — when is he going to be on? He has been — when he went to visit a — a diner in — uh — uh — uh — a couple of days ago at the Waffle House when he met with — um — met with some of the supporters in Atlanta, North Carolina, where hundreds of supporters showed up. He certainly had an opportunity to engage on Friday. He’s going to be taking some questions from one of your colleagues. I think that’s going to be important and we’re going to continue to engage with all of you. Ah — we’re going to certainly — uh — looking forward to doing that. He’ll have a press conference — uh — next week — uh — at NATO press conference, a big boy press conference as Justin from Bloomberg stated yesterday — uh — and so, we’ll — we’ll do that, and he’s looking forward to it. WANG: And Karine — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah? WANG: — President Biden has always promised to tell the American people the truth. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah? WANG: So, can you be straight with us — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah? WANG: — and the American people, is the President clear-eyed about what it takes to stay in the race and what it would take for him to drop out? JEAN-PIERRE: The President is clear eyed and he is staying in the race. I don’t have anything else beyond that. He is staying. He’s staying in the race. That is what the President is promised to do. That is what he wants to continue to work on the successes that he’s had. His record — his unprecedented record, and that is what the President is focused on, continuing to deliver for the American people, and he looks forward to doing that. In an exchange that has since been proven to have been a lie by the White House, Lee inquired as to when Biden was last examined by a doctor for his health: CNN’s @MJ_Lee: “I just wanted to clarify one thing. I know you got a lot of questions about this issue yesterday.” KJP: “Sure, sure.” Lee: “Has the President had any medical exams since his last annual physical in February?” KJP: “And got — and I — we were able to talk to the… pic.twitter.com/W03u8Kk3sd — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 3, 2024 Lee expressed frustration that Jean-Pierre “feel[s] like the White House has been thorough in the medical records that you all have released”, but last Thursday showed they haven’t been at all. Lee also caught Jean-Pierre when she pointed out the jet lag excuse from Biden wasn’t one Jean-Pierre herself doled out on Tuesday. USA Today’s Joey Garrison hit the nail on the head with this question about Biden’s future if he were to win a second term: “If President Biden was fatigued during the debate because of overseas travel, that was 12 days beforehand, like he said he was last night, doesn’t that raise questions about his ability to effectively serve in others a second term until he’s 86?” Perhaps the biggest tool in the press corps except for Bruce, The Washington Post’s Matt Viser wanted to know if “you guys usually have accommodations for him after he does a trip that he’s gonna have jet lag for that long a period of time” and if they’re honestly going with the (preposterous) idea of jet lag taking a two-week toll on Biden as for why he did so poorly in the debate. Of course, Jean-Pierre, in so many words, said yes in addition to “the cold”. “But if this truly is an emergency situation. It’s taking almost a week for him to address it when there’s natural disasters, when there’s other things happening. He wants to get in front of the cameras and speak to it. In this case, there seems to be multiple days before that happens,” Viser said in a fruitless follow-up. Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence brought the heat on policy with questions about NATO and Biden’s delegitimizing of the Supreme Court (click “expand”): LAWRENCE: Polling this week shows the President losing more ground in the American eyes over immigration, over economy, and foreign policy. So, does that, with everything else, diminish the position of the president as these NATO leaders are coming in for those meetings? JEAN-PIERRE: No, I don’t think so. I don’t think so and I said this moments ago when I was answering a question of one of your colleagues. These foreign leaders have seen the President personally, up close for the past three years. They have talked about his leadership. They have commended his leadership. They have been proud to see him as the president of the United States after what they experienced in the last administration. They have — some of them have been even quoted about what the president has been able to do during his past three years. German Chancellor Scholz: “I think that the — that Joe Biden is someone who is very clear, who knows exactly what he is doing and who is one of the most experienced politicians in the world, especially when it comes to international politics.” The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu: “I have had more than a dozen phone conversation — extended phone conversations with President Biden.”  He has also came — he “also came on a visit to Israel during wartime, which is an historic first.”  “I found him very clear and very focused.” I mean, these are — these are leaders that he has had extensive engagement with over the past three years.  They have seen him up close and personal. The President looks very — very much looks forward to — to hosting — hosting NATO next week — the NATO Summit. LAWRENCE: If I could ask you about the Supreme Court quickly.  So, the comments that the President made on Monday. Does the President respect the authority of the Supreme Court? JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I will say: The President has spoken often, very powerfully about the events on — of January 6th — he has — and his views on what happened on that day And what you heard from the president Monday night — he wasn’t supposed to speak; he came back, he saw — he — he felt so strongly about the decision from the Supreme Court that he came back early and wanted to speak directly to the American people and that’s what he did. It was that significant.  He believed, as president of the United States, to speak directly to the American people, and he said this is a “dangerous precedent.” It is. It’s a dangerous precedent. He also said and laid out that the Supreme Court has continued to take away long-established freedoms and norms, including a woman’s right to choose, and now threatening the fundamental American principle that no one is above the law and so, this is why the President came back and that’s what he spoke out about and he fears for our democracy and he knows we must do everything that we can to fight. LAWRENCE: But he can disagree with a ruling. Does he respect the authority? JEAN-PIERRE: He respects the authority of the Supreme Court and like you just said in your question, he disagrees with the ruling. Absolutely. It is unprecedented. It is dangerous and that’s why the President wanted to make sure that the American people heard directly from him. Ater Goodin and Wegmann, ABC producer Molly Nagles closed with questions about Biden’s psyche and specifically whether he “recognizes how difficult his political predicament” is and if he’s “frustrat[ed]”. Like a loyal foot soldier, Jean-Pierre insisted Biden was putting it all behind him. To see the relevant briefing transcript from July 3 (including even more questions), click here.

The organization running the Independence Day parade in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, recently introduced a policy prohibiting the display of "symbols associated with specific political movements, religions, or ideologies." That ban was understood to extend to the kind of Christian crosses that Americans carried through the city's streets on the Fourth of July. The board of directors of the Coeur d'Alene Regional Chamber of Commerce noted in an op-ed, "Our intention with this policy was simple: to create an environment where everyone feels welcome and respected." The chamber's new signage policy noted, "We admire that you are passionate about what you believe in, but this parade is NOT the platform for promoting individual beliefs," reported the Coeur d'Alene Press. 'Christians should be free to respectfully proclaim the Gospel, the cross of Christ, and the Christian flag.' Religious symbols were lumped in with other "individual beliefs" deemed unacceptable for a Fourth of July parade, such as political displays that might incite division or unrest. Those found in violation were to be targeted for immediate removal. The backlash was fierce and swift. The Idaho Family Policy Center, a Christian organization linked to the Family Policy Alliance, campaigned against the policy, suggesting that "it's impossible to celebrate America without fully embracing our nation's — and our state's — Christian heritage." "Christians should be free to respectfully proclaim the Gospel, the cross of Christ, and the Christian flag. This is especially true at celebrations of the United States of America," said the organization. "It's time to push back against this censorship of our founding values — and stand with conviction for religious expression at local Independence Day celebrations." "Any and all religious symbols should be allowed," Paul Van Noy, president of the Kootenai County Ministerial Association and pastor of Candlelight Christian Fellowship church, told the local paper. "Everybody should have their right to be represented faithfully and properly." On July 2, the board of directors for the Coeur d'Alene Regional Chamber of Commerce acknowledged that its new guidelines "unfortunately led to misunderstandings and accusations." "The backlash we have received is distressing and disappointing, especially for our president/CEO, Linda Coppess, a person of deep faith," added the board. Coppess said in a separate statement, "This year, we introduced guidelines to ensure we honor America's military and not open the door to offensive displays. While we understand the significance of various symbols, we intend to keep the parade welcoming for everyone. After consideration and consultation, the executive board of directors has made an exception for the religious symbols." Coppess further stressed that the policy implicating religious imagery as offensive was "not meant to isolate individuals or be considered an anti-religious policy." It appears that local residents leaned into their Christian expression following the controversy. Footage from the event shows multiple parade-goers carrying crosses of various sizes or wearing clothing with Christian symbols. The Idaho Family Policy Center also shared photos of crosses both big and small appearing in the city's downtown, emphasizing on X, "Christians should be free to express their faith at celebrations of this country." See on Instagram Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vice President Kamala Harris is going to face scrutiny over her long defense of President Joe Biden's failing health as his prospects to remain the Democrats' presidential nominee are far from certain after his horrendous debate performance.Axios national political correspondent Alex Thompson told CNN that Harris' biggest hurdle is having to defend her past comments about Biden's fitness to be president, even as public appearances over the years have shown how his mental capacity has diminished. "She has been one of the main public validators of [Biden's] health. You remember after the Hur report, she went out there and said he is with it, he is commanding everything in the room. She is going to have to sit down and answer tough questions. ... Kamala Harris ... she hasn't really been out there answering questions," Thompson said.'Of course, if necessary, but there's no need for that.'While it would be difficult for any other national Democrat to jump into the race at this stage in the election should Biden bow out, if Harris' role in covering up Biden's health becomes too much of a liability, Thompson noted there are Democrats who are ready to pounce on it. — (@) Harris said in February that the Hur report's assertion that Biden had a poor memory on significant subjects and would be viewed by a jury as a sympathetic old man was "gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate." She added that the comments in the report were "politically motivated."When Harris was asked last November if she would be forthright with the American public if there was something wrong with the president, she said she would say something."Of course, if necessary, but there's no need for that," she said at the time.Biden has declared he is staying in the race, saying he is the best person to beat former President Donald Trump. Whether he truly will stay is another question. Days after the undeniable showcasing of his ailing health, sources within the Democratic Party and the White House continue to leak to reporters with different examples of Biden performing poorly.When Biden met with Democratic governors this week, in person and on video call, he made it clear to them that he is not dropping out of the election. This reportedly upset a few of those in attendance who wanted to at least discuss the possibility before collectively agreeing on a course of action. A weird moment during the meeting included Biden telling the group he was fine, “It’s just my brain." Jen O’Malley Dillon, Biden’s campaign chair, insisted that the remark was a joke.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It's Time to Play What's That Stain! Biden Pic Shows Sorta Gross and OBVIOUS Jacket Stain and OMG-LOL

The Kamala Harris Delusion

Smart Money Says Kamala Harris Is Already Thinking About Her VP Picks

Federal Judge Blocks Major HHS Rule Equating Sex to Gender Identity

Having ChatGPT integrated into iOS 18 will be a big deal for iPhone users. Apple's language models can't currently offer chatbot functionality on par with OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and others. If they could, Apple would simply send those complex Siri prompts to its own "AppleGPT" rather than partnering with other AI service providers. The partnership is also a big deal for OpenAI. The company has a unique chance to score a big victory against Google and other rivals by getting prime placement on the iPhone. But I just realized that it's not just iPhone users or OpenAI that will benefit from the deal. Thanks to Apple's partnership with OpenAI, every ChatGPT user will get a better ChatGPT experience, even if they don't own a single Apple product. Apple will have a non-voting observer seat on the OpenAI board, which could be just as powerful as a voting seat. Phil Schiller sitting in on OpenAI board meetings might force the company to be even more careful about what it does with ChatGPT and how it handles security and transparency. Considering what happened recently at OpenAI, we might need Apple's oversight on ChatGPT development now more than ever. Continue reading... The post How ChatGPT users will benefit from the Apple AI deal even if they don’t have iPhones appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Best Apple deals for July 2024 Today’s deals: Early Prime Day sales, $50 Ring Doorbell, $80 Keurig coffee maker, $470 Dyson V11, more Today’s deals: $120 off Ryzen 9 mini PC, $89 Apple AirPods, $25 portable neck fan, $79 23andMe DNA test, more Today’s deals: Rare Meta Quest 3 discount, $8 mosquito bite relief, $300 off Narwal Freo X Ultra, more

With the iPhone 16 announcement just around the corner, more reports help us get a clearer view of Apple's upcoming smartphone. This time, DigiTimes corroborates a recurring rumor that the iPhone 16 Pro will feature the iPhone 15 Pro Max's best feature, a 5x telephoto optical zoom camera. According to the report, Taiwanese manufacturers Largan Precision and Genius Electronic Optical are said to be the main suppliers for the iPhone 16 Pro's tetraprism camera components. Largan was already the supplier of the iPhone 15 Pro Max periscope lenses, and GSEO could help boost iPhone 16 Pro lens availability if it gets Apple's approval. At this moment, the manufacturer is undergoing validation, and production is expected to begin in mid-July. If that turns out to be accurate, iPhone 16 Pro buyers will be able to take advantage of 5x optical zoom and up to 25x digital zoom, which was previously exclusive to the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Rumors about this change aren't new, as by the beginning of 2023, the Korean version of The Elec said that Apple plans to add a periscope lens for both iPhone 16 Pro models. This has been corroborated several times over the past months. Image source: Joe Wituschek for BGR For example, display analyst Ross Young says this will be possible thanks to the larger display size, which could help house more components on the smaller Pro model. Rumors suggest Apple is increasing the iPhone 16 Pro's display to 6.3-inch and 6.9-inch versions while reducing the bezels. Besides that, Apple is expected to use Sony’s newest 2-layer system for the main lens of the Pro models, which can capture more light and reduce noise. The sensor would improve low-light photography while also improving dynamic range. This new sensor could also feature a coating technology to enhance photo quality and minimize flare. In addition, the company is expected to add a 48MP resolution sensor to the ultra-wide lens. Rumors believe the wide and ultrawide lenses will be arranged vertically on the regular iPhone 16 models. It will also be closer to the iPhone X, as new schematics show Apple wants to make the camera bump slimmer. Below, you can learn more about all the latest iPhone 16 rumors. Don't Miss: iPhone 16: Rumors, release date, A18, AI, Capture button, and more The post Smaller iPhone 16 Pro will get a feature that was exclusive to the Pro Max until now appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Best Apple deals for July 2024 Today’s deals: July 4th sales, $19.50 AirTags, best-selling laptops, $300 Shark AI robot vacuum, more Today’s deals: Early Prime Day sales, $50 Ring Doorbell, $80 Keurig coffee maker, $470 Dyson V11, more Today’s deals: $53 HP Chromebook, $850 M3 MacBook Air, 20% off LG C4 OLED TV, $28 Echo Dot, more