It was an ordinary day for Indy, the cat, who was enjoying a serene nap on the living room floor. Little did Indy know, a surprising turn of events was about to make him an internet sensation. This unexpected incident not only startled the laid-back feline but also captivated the attention of nearly 400,000 viewers... The post Robot vacuum pushes startled cat underneath the couch appeared first on Animal Channel.

In the past few days, CNN has demonstrated just how blatant their prejudice has become. From Kasie Hunt’s outrage over the network’s bias being called out to Thursday morning's display of censorship, President of Students for Life of America Kristan Hawkins being silenced on CNN Newsroom by host Jim Acosta. Following the breaking news of the Supreme Court case Moyle v. United States, which kicked the case back down to the lower court, but allowed for “emergency” abortions to take place during the litigation process, Acosta welcomed Director of the NAACP Center for Health Equity, Dr. Chris Pernell, and asked her, “Your reaction to this abortion decision in Idaho, is this a kick the can kind of moment for the Court?” Pernell mourned that the Court did not go further:  So what that means is that women's health continues to be imperiled. It means that the federal law is in peril. And as long as that is true, the stats that we know that one in four Native American babies are born under these types of conditions where there is a lack of appropriate care. One in six black babies are born under these conditions where there is a lack of appropriate care. The Supreme Court missed an opportunity. I agree with Justice Jackson. This was a moment for the Supreme Court to decide clearly and compellingly in the favor of the universal rights of all people, especially women. And that didn't happen.     Acosta let Pernell speak uninterrupted, a noted contrast to how he treated Hawkins as the decorum surrounding CNN’s normally boasted beliefs of free press and expression was thrown to the wayside.  Hawkins claimed, “We also see a silver lining in this decision today. If Idaho, while this is tragic, saying Idaho must allow for abortions to prevent infertility, future infertility, the FDA must now change its policy too, to do the same, given their no test online distribution scheme of chemical abortion pills, which we know harm women's future fertility as 15 percent of women of our population are Rh negative and there is no testing now because of the Biden Administration and their FDA, on these dangerous chemical abortion pills, she's having these pill abortions—“ Acosta then cut her off, leading to the following exchange: ACOSTA: Is it mifepristone? HAWKINS: She’s not being tested for Rh negativity— ACOSTA: Haven’t the experts said that mifepristone is safe for women to use— HAWKINS: — and she’ll no longer be able to carry to term. ACOSTA: But, haven’t the experts said— HAWKINS: Ask any woman who's Rh negative, ask any woman, excuse me, as someone who's been pregnant, sir, when you're pregnant, one of the first things they do is, they test for Rh negative status because if you have a miscarriage, if you give birth, if you get an accident, if you get an abortion— ACOSTA: No, Miss Hawkins— HAWKINS: — You have to be treated immediately. ACOSTA: I have to, I’m sorry, mifepristone has been proven to be safe. It's been that way for years, but thank you for coming on. We appreciate it. HAWKINS: It actually hasn’t. We know [microphone cut] Hawkins was speaking about an earlier SCOTUS case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, one which the left claimed as another victory. It was this criticism that prompted Acosta to literally silence this opposing opinion as Hawkins had her mic cut as Acosta ended the segment. The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 6/26/2024 10:41 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: I do want to take a quick moment to go out to Dr. Chris Pernell, director of the NAACP Center for Health Equity. Dr. Pernell, your reaction to this abortion decision in Idaho, is this a kick the can kind of moment for the Court? CHRIS PERNELL: It most certainly is a kick the can, kind of, moment while a technical win. This is not a victory for reproductive justice. And it's not a victory for health equity. Why? Because it does not change, it doesn't change the fact that there are maternity care deserts in Idaho and 36 percent of counties across the United States. So what that means is that women's health continues to be imperiled. It means that the federal law is in peril. And as long as that is true, the stats that we know that one in four Native American babies are born under these types of conditions where there is a lack of appropriate care. One in six black babies are born under these conditions where there is a lack of appropriate care. The Supreme Court missed an opportunity. I agree with Justice Jackson. This was a moment for the Supreme Court to decide clearly and compellingly in the favor of the universal rights of all people, especially women. And that didn't happen. ACOSTA: All right, Dr. Pernell, I also want to bring in Kristan Hawkins. She is the president of Students for Life of America. What's your reaction to this decision? KRISTAN HAWKINS: Sure well, I think President Trump and the GOP needs to take notes, the Biden Administration continues to make the case to weaponize federal agencies, to make abortion a federal issue. But we also see a silver lining in this decision today. If Idaho, while this is tragic, saying Idaho must allow for abortions to prevent infertility, future infertility, the FDA must now change its policy too, to do the same, given their no test online distribution scheme of chemical abortion pills, which we know harm women's future fertility as 15 percent of women of our population are Rh negative and there is no testing now because of the Biden Administration and their FDA, on these dangerous chemical abortion pills, she's having these pill abortions— ACOSTA: Is it mifepristone? HAWKINS: She’s not being tested for Rh negativity— ACOSTA: Haven’t the experts said that mifepristone is safe for women to use— HAWKINS: — and she’ll no longer be able to carry to term. ACOSTA: But, haven’t the experts said— HAWKINS: Ask any woman who's Rh negative, ask any woman, excuse me, as someone who's been pregnant, sir, when you're pregnant, one of the first things they do is, they test for Rh negative status because if you have a miscarriage, if you give birth, if you get an accident, if you get an abortion— ACOSTA: No, Miss Hawkins— HAWKINS: — You have to be treated immediately. ACOSTA: I have to, I’m sorry, mifepristone has been proven to be safe. It's been that way for years, but thank you for coming on. We appreciate it. HAWKINS: It actually hasn’t. We know [microphone cut]

New-ish CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell showed Thursday morning she’s so far to the left she doesn’t even believe basic biology as, in reacting to the released Supreme Court opinion on Idaho’s abortion law, Tirrell implicitly proclaimed men can get pregnant as she repeatedly told viewers the Court’s punt on the merits of the deal dealt with federal law protects “a pregnant person’s health” and “person who’s pregnant”. Tirrell first told Fake News Jim Acosta that the Court’s decision allows “medically necessary care” in the Potato State (i.e. kill your unborn child) “in the situations of abortion where that is the medically necessary care to stabilize a pregnant person’s health.”     Without a blink, CNN’s new top medical reporter made herself wholly qualified in the liberal media and advocacy scene, but unqualified in the real world. Tirrell immediately doubled down and went further with the “strict” qualifier: “So, Idaho has a very strict abortion ban that bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person and in rare, other circumstances.” Moments later, she reiterated her stance that men can grow babies in their wombs: “I’ve talked with law professors who looked at the decision — the sort of decision that came out yesterday and said this allows confusion to rein in other states with abortion bans, even in states that have exceptions for the health of the pregnant person.” She returned in the next hour with even more quackery. First, she told host Wolf Blitzer that “reactions” to the Court’s decision were pouring in “from people who are pro-abortion access and anti-abortion access and neither one is particularly satisfied by this Supreme Court decision in the Idaho abortion case.” Then proceeded to label the Guttmacher Institute as “a pro-reproductive rights group” while slapping the Charlotte Lozier Institute with the description as one of the “groups that are against abortion access, including the Charlotte Lozier Institute”.  Tirrell twice made sure Blitzer was told women aren’t the only ones who have give birth: “ So, essentially what the court did here is say that actually we shouldn’t have taken this case and we’re going to send it back down to the lower courts in Idaho, but while we do that, we are going to keep in place federal protections for providing abortions in emergency room settings or emergencies settings at hospitals to preserve the health of the person who’s pregnant. Idaho’s abortion law right now contains an exception just to save the life of the person who’s pregnant and rare other exceptions. After fretting the lack of an answer on the validity of Idaho’s (pro-life) law will create “a lot of confusion in other states,” Tirrell slipped up and said “women”: “So, right now, nobody seems to be particularly happy with the Supreme Court’s holding here that essentially they sort of kick the can down the road, but in Idaho at least, there we’ll be those protections for women who need abortions and these emergency settings, Wolf.” Blitzer closed by asking Tirrell to “elaborate a little bit more Meg, if you don’t mind, on the practical effect of this decision on women in Idaho”, which allowed her a shot at redemption for her transgender overlords [W]e’ve been to Idaho. We’ve talked with doctors there who are practicing family medicine. We’ve talked with patients who are pregnant and Idaho and what they told us is that they’re afraid to be pregnant in the state because they’re worried about not having these protections and they’ve had to travel out of state themselves in some cases to access this kind of care. To see the relevant transcript from June 27, click “expand.” CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta June 27, 2024 10:28 a.m. Eastern JIM ACOSTA: I want to go out to Meg Tirrell and Meg, a little weird in terms of how this ruling came out yesterday. But it sounds like it’s pretty much in line with what we saw yesterday. What do you think? What does this — gonna mean for women’s health? MEG TIRRELL: Yeah, Jim, reading through this, it does look the same as what we saw in an advertently posted yesterday and what it means for women’s health is that, in Idaho, this does put back into effect the protections of this federal law EMTALA, on hospitals providing emergency care in the situations of abortion where that is the medically necessary care to stabilize a pregnant person’s health. So, Idaho has a very strict abortion ban that bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person and in rare, other circumstances. So, the Biden administration had argued that that federal law called EMTALA conflicted with Idaho’s strict abortion ban. And right now, what the Supreme Court is essentially saying is we shouldn’t have taken up this case. This should go back down to the lower courts in Idaho, but while that happens hospitals can provide this emergency care. But as we were hearing from Elie, you know, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson points out, this is essentially a delay in deciding the issues of this case. And I’ve talked with law professors who looked at the decision — the sort of decision that came out yesterday and said this allows confusion to rein in other states with abortion bans, even in states that have exceptions for the health of the pregnant person. Because in many instances I was talking with Elizabeth Sepper at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, and she was saying a lot of those states that have health exceptions, those exceptions are narrower than what the EMTALA federal law would state. And so, there’s still going to be a lot of confusion in other states, particularly in Texas where the Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to look at their abortion ban. And so, we are potentially going to see this come back. But what a lot of folks have been pointing out today is that on both of the abortion cases before the court, this term, mifepristone, the abortion pill, they dismissed that based on standing. They didn’t consider the merits of that case. Now, with this emergency abortion case, sending it back down to the lower courts. So, there is a thought that this pushes this off until after the election, potentially when depending on who wins, this could come back in myriad ways, either through the courts or through other — other methods. And so, this doesn’t really settle any of these cases about abortion through the courts. This just sort of says that the courts aren’t going to really issue decisions on the merits, right now, guys. ACOSTA: Very interesting, Meg. All right. Thank you very much. (.....) CNN Newsroom with Wolf Blitzer June 27, 2024 11:09 a.m. Eastern WOLF BLITZER: Joining us now for more on this, CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell. Meg, is this huge victory for those who support abortion rights for women? TIRRELL: Well, Wolf, it does — not sounding that way. We’re getting the reactions really pouring in this morning after we saw this inadvertent posting yesterday, there were sort of reactions to that, but now that we know it’s official, we are seeing both reactions from people who are pro-abortion access and anti-abortion access and neither one is particularly satisfied by this Supreme Court decision in the Idaho abortion case. We’re hearing from the Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-reproductive rights group, that says, “the Supreme Court is preserving the federal protections for emergency abortion care in Idaho for the time being”. They say, “the decision is the bare minimum and the court should have been clear and affirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) protects abortion in emergency situations in all states.” Now, we also have been hearing from groups that are against abortion access, including the Charlotte Lozier institute, who’s saying that they’re disappointed that the Supreme Court has not rejected the Biden administration’s what they call blatant attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies. So, essentially what the court did here is say that actually we shouldn’t have taken this case and we’re going to send it back down to the lower courts in Idaho, but while we do that, we are going to keep in place federal protections for providing abortions in emergency room settings or emergencies settings at hospitals to preserve the health of the person who’s pregnant. Idaho’s abortion law right now contains an exception just to save the life of the person who’s pregnant and rare other exceptions. And so there’s this argument that these two things are in conflict that has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. Legal experts also point out that this leaves a lot of confusion in other states. Legal experts also point out that this leaves a lot of confusion in other states with abortion bans. There are an additional seven states that have gestational limit bans between six and 18 weeks. And I was talking with legal scholar Elizabeth Sepper the University of Texas at Austin — she says, even in states that have health exceptions in their abortion bans, they are — still might be a lot of confusion here and we’re thinking about Texas in particular because the Biden administration has already asked the court to look at their abortion law as it pertains to these federal protections for emergency abortions. So, right now, nobody seems to be particularly happy with the Supreme Court’s holding here that essentially they sort of kick the can down the road, but in Idaho at least, there we’ll be those protections for women who need abortions and these emergency settings, Wolf. BLITZER: So, elaborate a little bit more Meg, if you don’t mind, on the practical effect of this decision on women in Idaho? TIRRELL: Yeah. Well, what we heard is that while this protection wasn’t in place, St. Luke’s Health Care system — which is one of the largest healthcare systems in Idaho — said that they had to airlift six patients out of Idaho to receive this kind of care. That compared with just one in the previous year when this kind of protection had been in place. And so, we’ve been to Idaho. We’ve talked with doctors there who are practicing family medicine. We’ve talked with patients who are pregnant and Idaho and what they told us is that they’re afraid to be pregnant in the state because they’re worried about not having these protections and they’ve had to travel out of state themselves in some cases to access this kind of care. BLITZER: Meg Tirrell reporting for us. Meg, thank you very much.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration may coordinate with social media companies to censor viewpoints it deems dangerous. “We all know the Biden regime is not going to censor leftists,” Sara Gonzales says, frustrated by the ruling. This decision from Murthy v. Missouri saw state attorneys general who accused government officials of working with social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation and disinformation. The AGs argued that officials suppressed discussions on Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and vaccine efficacy. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the plaintiffs on the grounds of the First Amendment. The Justice Department then argued that the temporary ban of this “public private partnership” would cause irreparable harm because it may prevent the federal government from working with social media companies to prevent “grave harm” to the American people and the democratic process. SCOTUS indirectly agreed with the Justice Department by reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. Only Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. They claimed that a “review of extensive government social media communications is outside of the Court’s scope,” that “allegations of past censorship are not enough to prove future censorship,” and that “injuries claimed by plaintiffs are indirect and anticipatory.” The timing couldn’t be worse for conservatives. “This is not really the decision that you want, walking into an election as a conservative, where like all but one of the social media platforms very much want to censor your opinion,” Gonzales says. “The reasons that they argue that these plaintiffs lack standing just seem to be the most convoluted bogus reasons in my opinion. How can you say that past actions are not proof of future actions? Like the Biden regime has a very clear record of pressuring social media companies, Big Tech platforms to censor conservatives,” she adds. Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Here's what the American people want to hear from their leaders during the presidential debate on Thursday night. Let me start with what they don't want to hear. They don't want to hear about "Russia-gate." They don't want to hear about stolen elections, January 6, or frankly abortion in either direction. They don't need to go over the corrupt court cases of Donald Trump or the corruption of the Justice Department regarding Hunter Biden. They don't want to hear about “drag queen story hour” or about equity. They don't want to hear about global warming — that in particular is at the bottom of the list of American's concerns. People want answers. They want an actual plan that they can participate in, that they can understand. They want a leader. They don't want to hear about COVID-19, especially if it’s used as an excuse to explain away inflation and lack of jobs burdening the American people. Anyone who tries to argue that the border is secure or that our country is in good shape, that jobs are plentiful, the economy is growing like crazy, that fuel is cheap, and food is affordable will lose! Maybe not tonight, but in the fall. That message will lose. People no longer believe in the system. They don't believe any more that it’s geared for them. They don't believe in the politicians on either side of the aisle. And they certainly don't believe CNN’s Jake Tapper or the press generally. Full faith and trust in the American government is a thing of the distant past.People also don't believe in the fake fearmongering any more. Why? Because there's enough stuff out there to actually be afraid of. And Americans are afraid. A fair deal Here’s what Americans want to know: Who is going to keep my job secure? Who is going to make sure this insane inflation doesn't continue and actually goes down? They don't care about the Federal Reserve or what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen thinks. They care about having to choose between food and fuel! Americans don’t want to choose between making rent or having a car. They can't afford a new home. They can't afford a loan or the 30% interest rate on their credit cards, which are already maxed out. They care about the elites who are getting rich and the banks that are always bailed out without consequence. People want answers. They want an actual plan that they can participate in, that they can understand. They want a leader. It seems like the average American can’t get a fair deal. Average Americans are the people who create 70% of all jobs in recessions and tough times. They're the small business owners who have always been the backbone of job creation. Yet they see their leaders bail out big corporations while hanging them out to dry. Home Depot made money and was allowed to stay open during the pandemic, but the local hardware store was considered a danger to everyone's health. What's the game we're playing? Because the American people feel like we're on the losing end. The American people have seen what reimagining the police looks like. What they want to know in Thursday’s debate is who will restore safety to our streets. Crime is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime. People want safe and clean streets. Is that too much to ask of our leaders? For the first time in my lifetime, Americans are deeply concerned about their immediate future. The American people have seen what the reimagining of our schools has done to our children. They want schools that will help them, as parents, teach their children reading, math, science, writing, usable skills — not "March and Protest 101." Our children need a quality education, not an indoctrination camp that labels them as gay, not gay, nonbinary, or any of the numerous other gender identities. American parents primarily worry about their children's futures. If we continue down this path, I fear for my children's prospects. This situation is dire, and people know it. They are asking, "Who will stop the insanity?" For the love of country Remember that Biden won the 2020 election because he said, "Isn't this crazy?” People voted for him because he campaigned as an "old, safe guy." What was he going to do? Well, we've seen what he's done. Are our kids going to be able to afford an education? Is it worth even having an education? Will my children be able to own a house? Will my children be able to inherit my house? Will they be able to have food or even grow food? People worry that this is the end of a country that almost all of us love and want to save. We may disagree on the problems or the solutions. But I believe most of us love America! Americans want a solution on the border. They worry about war. Is my kid going to be sent off to fight some politician or global elite's war for something that I don't even believe in? The federal government is already spending all our children's money and can't seem to track any of it. Are we seriously talking tough when nuclear war is an option on the table for not just one country but several? When it comes to elections, Americans have historically cared about the distant future, their children and grandchildren's futures. For the first time in my lifetime, Americans are deeply concerned about their immediate future. Are my kids going to survive school? Is my wife going to make it after going to the gas station? Am I going to have any money left? Will I be able to keep my house or my apartment? No slogan is going to work this time to fix the ills that the American people are facing. Only leadership will do that. For the first time in my life, we are beginning to look at our Bill of Rights differently. Take the the right to keep and bear arms. That's always been a theoretical debate in many ways. But it's not theoretical any more. Here's how: We see on TV all the time people trapped in their cars surrounded by Antifa or Hamas lovers, and if you call 911, there's no help coming. But God forbid you should defend yourself. Our wives, our daughters, and our sons need to get gas at night occasionally. When did it become normal to check over your shoulder to make sure you're not being cased? The bad guys have guns, and the way they get them is not through any legitimate gun store that the government is trying to suffocate. The police are now no longer allowed to police any more, and if they do, the DA lets the criminals go! Have we already lost? If our government won't stop gangs and terrorists from different countries that are known to be coming over our southern border, if the government doesn't stop dismissing rioters, firebombings, and calling a "bigot" the hardworking taxpaying American who is struggling to buy a loaf of bread, then maybe we've already lost our country. People want to know why our veterans are on the streets and illegal aliens are in hotels. People want to know why our law enforcement officials and district attorneys won’t arrest and prosecute criminals or go after gangs and illegal guns. People want to know why they can't afford food, gas, rent, insurance, electricity, health care. No slogan is going to work this time to fix the ills that the American people are facing. Only leadership will do that. People need to see a leader on the dais Thursday who actually sees them. Americans don't care about their president’s personal life. They don't care about his past. They need a leader who sees what their lives are like for them. They don't need anyone to tell them how bad it is. They want to hear, "I get it. I see you. I know the problem, and I will fix it.” Whoever steps up to the plate and becomes a leader — a true leader — of the American people will win the debate Thursday night.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Tonight is the night! The CNN Presidential Debate will be the first time Biden and Trump have squared off face-to-face since 2020, and Blaze Media is here with wall-to-wall coverage!Start hanging out with us at 7:30 p.m. ET tonight as Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, Jason Whitlock, Sara Gonzales, Steve Deace, Dave Landau, and some surprise guests give the uncensored debate analysis you need. We ditch the tired, preapproved talking points the legacy media shoves in your face and engage in REAL discourse on issues that matter to REAL Americans. We’ll have two panels made up of diverse voices giving you their honest, forthright opinions. Plus our national correspondent Julio Rosas will be coming to you live on the ground in the middle of the protests outside CNN’s Atlanta studios. While other MSM outlets are muting comments on their livestreams of the CNN Presidential Debate, we won’t. You can chat all night long on BlazeTV’s YouTube livestream. But an even better place to watch and chat is over at BlazeTV’s livestream, where your favorite BlazeTV hosts will be joining in the conversation. Plus, there are some major BlazeTV announcements you won’t want to miss.Our CNN Presidential Debate coverage starts at 7:30 p.m. ET tonight. Watch, then join BlazeTV+ today and get $30 off your first year of BlazeTV+ with code DEBATE.

Accusations of a cover-up have surfaced after an illegal alien allegedly kidnapped and raped a 15-year-old girl in upstate New York and was allowed to wander about freely for more than a month before he was arrested by police, who did not notify the public that a violent rapist had been taken off their streets.The horrific incident occurred shortly after midnight on May 14. A 15-year-old girl had run away from a group home in Albany, New York, and was walking along New Scotland Avenue when a man in a Toyota Prius pulled over and forced the girl into the car, brandishing a metal pipe and threatening to brutalize her with it if she refused to cooperate.'If an asylum-seeker snatching a kid (off a public street) and raping them and remaining on the loose is not a threat to public safety, then what is a threat to public safety?'Once the girl was in the passenger seat, the car drove away and parked in an isolated area near South Pearl Street. The driver of the vehicle then forced the girl into the backseat, removed her clothes, and forcibly raped her. Scratches on the girl's legs, noted in the police report, indicated that the girl had fought back against the vicious assault.The man then let the girl go, and she ran to a nearby residence for help. The girl gave consistent statements to police during at least two different interviews, both of which occurred weeks apart, and surveillance footage appeared to corroborate at least some of the girl's story, the Albany Times Union reported.The girl was also able to pick her attacker out of a photo line-up, pointing to Sakir Akkan, a 21-year-old Turkish national who illegally entered the U.S. in San Diego late last November. At the time, he was arrested by Border Patrol and charged with "alien removal," but he was later released into the U.S., reportedly because of lack of bed space, and ordered to appear at an immigration hearing in February 2025. He has since attempted to be granted asylum.Exactly when Akkan was first identified as a possible suspect in the rape of the 15-year-old New York girl is unclear. However, he was not arrested until June 18, more than a month later. Even then, Albany police did not announce the arrest to the public as they have about the arrests of other violent alleged rapists, including one who was arrested earlier this month.When news outlets pressed about the department's apparent lack of communication, Officer Megan Craft, a spokeswoman for the Albany Police Department, indicated that police didn't see any need to spread the news widely."It was determined that there was no immediate threat to public safety during that time," Craft said. "Had there been a perceived threat to the public, appropriate information would have been released."Craft also indicated that, so long as alleged sexual assaults "do not pose a threat to the public," the department has a "general" policy not to issue press releases about rape arrests "to prevent retraumatization of the victim."However, someone familiar with the investigation who spoke with the Times Union on condition of anonymity countered: "If an asylum-seeker snatching a kid (off a public street) and raping them and remaining on the loose is not a threat to public safety, then what is a threat to public safety?"Craft also made references to "inconsistencies" in the investigation into the rape, though the Times Union could not find any inconsistencies in the police reports or the available evidence. The outlet also expressed confusion about why such alleged inconsistences would have "had any bearing on the department’s decision not to notify the public about the abduction and sexual assault."Albany County legislator Steve McLaughlin was likewise dumbfounded by the apparent secrecy surrounding the rape. "We are suppose [sic] to believe this wasn't covered up by the city administration?" he posted to his personal X account. "Bulls**t. This is a national story. What the hell went on here?"Republicans in the state Senate likewise claimed the secrecy was "disgraceful" and accused city leadership of showing "a shocking lack of concern for New Yorker's [sic] safety." Albany Police Chief Eric Hawkins slammed the accusations and claimed the department had been "grossly mischaracterized" regarding this investigation. He also insisted that Akkan's immigration status "was simply not a factor in the media release decision."A spokesperson for Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan denied any knowledge of the rape or the immigration status of the suspect. "We were not aware of the individual’s immigration status prior to your inquiry," the spokesperson told the Times Union.WRGB rose to the defense of "police and Democratic lawmakers in Albany," claiming that allegations of a cover-up have been made "without evidence."Akkan remains in custody at the Albany County Correctional Facility on a charge of first-degree rape. ICE issued an immigration detainer against him two days after his arrest.The New York Post reported that illegal immigrants from Turkey have been known to cross the southern border in the San Diego area. According to the outlet, approximately 15,000 Turkish natives were apprehended by Border Patrol in that region in both 2022 and 2023.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Court struck another blow for the right to a jury and exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the liberal dissenters.

CNN Moderators Won't Place the Responsibility of Calling Out Trump's Lies Entirely on Biden

WATCH: Democrat Activist Gives Insane Response When Asked to Define What a Woman Is