In another embarrassing performance of Latinoface minstrelsy, CNN’s Ana Navarro went on CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip and righteously claimed that Latinos casually walk around with unprescribed tranquilizers on their person. This bizarre statement was uttered in opposition to broad deportations of illegal aliens. Navarro really thought she was cooking when she said this: WATCH: @ananavarro, in another epically embarrassing performance of Latinoface minstrelsy, claims that Latinos casually walk around with unprescribed Xanax. XANAX. ANA NAVARRO: Just this last week in Miami, in a place that voted massively for Donald Trump, I heard a Trump… pic.twitter.com/ntxkbzd8A1 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 11, 2026 ANA NAVARRO: Just this last week in Miami, in a place that voted massively for Donald Trump, I heard a Trump supporter crying on TV because his- his common-law wife of 25 years, a Cuban, was deported. And when she went to the immigration check-in, he said to her, “Don't worry about it. They don't deport Cubans.” Guess what. Some of these Cubans are being sent to Sudan and Eswatini. If you know where that is. The woman was… JOE BORELLI: I don’t. NAVARRO: Okay, well it's in Africa. The woman was detained initially. Her- what was on her record is that she had been in a traffic stop 20 years ago, and she had three Xanax pills in her purse without prescription. You start deporting every Latino with- without prescriptions, with tranquilizers, there’s going to be nobody left.  BORELLI: Well, it sounds like- It sounds like she had a drug conviction. That's a different story, right? NAVARRO: Oh- for three Xanax pills? BORELLI: Well, I'm just saying. It sounds like that particular person is not the best case. They had a drug conviction. NAVARRO: FOR THREE XANAX PILLS? For three Xanax pills? BORELLI: Yeah. NAVARRO: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ABBY PHILLIP: This is a clear turnaround.  She really said that. I watched in astonishment, over and over as I went over the transcript. Ana Navarro really did say that if you start deporting Latinos that walk around with unprescribed tranquilizers, you’ll have none left. Alprazolam, more commonly known as Xanax, is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Possession of such substances without a valid prescription in the state of Florida is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in state prison and/or a maximum fine of $5,000. Based on that alone, Joe Borelli was right. In all likelihood, we are probably looking at someone with a drug conviction that was in the country illegally. And it boggles the mind that this is who Navarro puts forth as an example of the noble immigrant that the Trump administration is needlessly deporting.  To be clear, I’m not shocked that Navarro actually uttered these things. As I’ve stated before, Navarro plays a character on TV: “Spicy Latina”, who offers up searing hot takes on whatever the given issue of the day is. Sometimes, these minstrelsies work out for the entities that book her. More often than not, as is the case today, they do not. To have someone with the profile of an Ana Navarro saying that the community she purports to represent walks around with unprescribed Xannies is an utter embarrassment.  

It's  the Great Fear that is just eating away at the poor folks at Politico. It was first expressed by that periodical in December when they suddenly realized that with so many Democrats (and none clearly in the lead) that in the open primary for governor of California that it was possible that with only  two Republicans in that race, that both of them could end up in first and second place due to the Democrats splitting up the rest of the votes among themselves. A couple of months later in February that fear not only did not go away but intensified with poor Politico going full delusional to the extent of pretending that if they only concentrated on the top two Democrat candidates while absurdly ignoring the two GOP candidates whom many polls are showing in the first and second spot, thus qualifying to run against each other in the general election, that maybe the problem would just go away. The result of completely ignoring the Republican candidates who could both qualify for the general election earned Politico some well deserved mockery. And now we are back with Round 3 of the California open gubernatorial primary Great Fear by Politico with this Monday entry by Jeremy White,"Eight Democrats and no front-runner: California’s governor race is a mess." Notice that Republicans are again ignored in the title but in what can best be described as a modified limited hangout (to avoid more mockery?) the Republican candidates who are currently leading in several polls are very briefly mentioned once and only once in a paragraph buried deep, deep near the end of the story: In the same remarks, Newsom also claimed to have not paid attention to the race or to the catastrophic scenario keeping Democrats awake at night, in which Democrats diffuse the primary vote so much that two leading Republicans, former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, slip into the top two, ensuring a GOP governor. And that was it. Both Republicans made their quick cameos never to be seen again in White's Kvetchfest over the Democrats splitting their precious votes every which way that could lead to a Republicans only general election contest in November. Top Democrats passing on their state’s preeminent job. New candidates streaming in late. And a Republican upset threat so serious that the state Democratic Party pleaded with a fractured field to consolidate — and was promptly told to go pound sand. Welcome to California’s most muddled gubernatorial race in a generation. And welcome to some of the most entertaining Politico angst in a long time over the possible outcome of this race.

In the opening hour of Tuesday’s Morning Joe, the MS NOW morning program’s co-host Joe Scarborough called the military operations in Iran a “remarkable military success” and then added anyone who said the strikes were not successful had an “agenda.” Immediately after his military praise, the two following guest panelists dissented with his comments, as one panelist said it might just be a “short-term setback” for Iran. Meanwhile the other panelist, Ret. Gen. Mark Hertling, called out Secretary of State Rubio for calling the U.S. military the “greatest military in the world.”   Today on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough praised the US Military's "remarkable military success" and said those who say the military hasn't done a good job have an "agenda." pic.twitter.com/UNHvgsTvuY — Nick (@nspin310) March 10, 2026   Scarborough gave a somewhat surprising praise of the military aspect of the war, along with the actions and statement of Secretary Rubio: Militarily, it's been a remarkable military success. We have degraded their nuclear capabilities. We have degraded their ability to launch missiles across the region, possibly at the United States one day. We have degraded their Navy in an extraordinary way. We have degraded their air defenses in an extraordinary way. We have decapitated their leadership. We'll see who replaces the leadership. Militarily, every military person that's looked at what has happened will tell you that this has been extraordinarily successful.  He then added, “Anybody that tells you, first of all, that the military hasn't done an extraordinary job, they've got an agenda.” It’s unclear what got Joe in a good mood about the Iran operations, but good for him in actually sharing his true opinion. But, in the following guest segments, others clearly did not agree with parts of Joe’s assessments. Kim Ghattas, a contributing editor at the Financial Times, was the first to offer pushback:   Financial Times contributing editor Kim Ghattas said it was too soon to call it a success, calling it just a "short-term setback." pic.twitter.com/uITcGCy2US — Nick (@nspin310) March 10, 2026   I want to push back just a little bit first on the idea of a resounding military success on Iran. I actually - I'm not a military expert, and I will defer to military experts. I think it's actually still a little bit too soon to make that assessment. I know a lot has been degraded, a lot has been destroyed. But it's for, I think, still a short term setback for Iran.” Then, Ret. Gen. Hertling was asked his opinion on assessments saying the operation was a military success. He basically ignored the question and decided to show disdain for Rubio calling the US military the greatest in the world:   Retired General Mark Hertling was asked for his opinion on military success. Instead of answering a question posed to him, he took the moment to criticize Rubio for calling the US military the "greatest military in the world." pic.twitter.com/IiE85dgZtN — Nick (@nspin310) March 10, 2026   And what I will say is I'll make a recommendation to all politicians: Quit starting your sentences with, “we've got the greatest military in the world”. The military knows what they can and can't do, and what they can't do is end a war. That's up to the politicians and to continue to open your sentences like Secretary Rubio just did with how great the military is, is a waste of time.  You know, the military, for the most part, is pretty humble. There's not hubris involved. We don't need other people telling folks how good we are. We know what we can do, but we also know what we can't do. (...) Scarborough's rare moment was immediately overtaken by the guest’s panelist denial of military success. And he’s right, those who still feel the Iran operations haven’t been a success clearly have an agenda. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe March 10, 2026 6:23:48 AM Eastern (...) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, again, Marco - Secretary of State Marco Rubio was actually the first to spell things out fairly clearly several days ago. And that's positive. It's just important as anybody looks at this conflict, looks at this war, looks at what's going on, there are two sides of this.  Militarily, it's been a remarkable military success. We have degraded their nuclear capabilities. We have degraded their ability to launch missiles across the region, possibly at the United States one day. We have degraded their Navy in an extraordinary way. We have degraded their air defenses in an extraordinary way. We have decapitated their leadership. We'll see who replaces the leadership. Militarily, every military person that's looked at what has happened will tell you that this has been extraordinarily successful.  Now, I would have said the same thing about Iraq in March and April of 2003. But, thus far, militarily, we're doing great. Our challenge right now, as the general said, is on the political side.  Anybody that tells you, first of all, that the military hasn't done an extraordinary job, they've got an agenda. I mean, they're obviously - there have been tragedies - but militarily, the operations have hit what they've wanted to hit and degraded what they wanted to degrade.  The problem comes on the political side where you have a war that's unpopular at home, you've got gas prices rising. That's going to be unpopular at home. You have in Iran, you have a leader now that's a successor to his father, who seems to be even more extreme. This is a regional conflict. Needs to be kind of put back in there and right now there's no one to negotiate with.  So, we have two different things happening right now. Militarily a success. Politically there are things that need to be developed and things that need to be thought through and things that need to be brought to a resolution. Because right now they're two different realities in this war. One extremely successful, the other not successful yet.  Let's bring in contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim Ghattas. She's in Lebanon this morning just outside of Beirut. And the Washington Post, David Ignatius has the first question. David? (...) 6:27:17 AM KIM GHATTAS (Contributing Editor, Financial Times): David, great to speak to you, and thanks for having me, Mika and Joe. I want to push back just a little bit first on the idea of a resounding military success on Iran. I actually - I'm not a military expert, and I will defer to military experts. I think it's actually still a little bit too soon to make that assessment. I know a lot has been degraded, a lot has been destroyed. But it's for, I think, still a short term setback for Iran. And they still have the capacity to do a lot of damage in the region, including through some of their proxy militias, like Hezbollah in Iran the Shia militias in Iraq. And they will now work to try to live to fight another day.  So, the concern in the region is also that this is just the first of many such fights unless we find a way forward that delivers more positive results, more constructive results. And this requires diplomacy, but also positive results for the Iranian people.  (...) 6:30:17 AM SCARBOROUGH: You know, Willie, what's so fascinating is we listen to Kim and talking about, well, maybe the military operations not as successful as Americans are saying it is, because this is still a very, very dangerous region, a very dangerous neighborhood, which parallels with what David heard earlier in his reporting that he reported earlier this morning from a leader in the region saying, “don't leave us with with a battered, bruised and angry Iran.”  And of course, that leader was talking about more military strikes. Kim's talking about the importance of diplomacy, but there's no doubt we have a lot of allies in the region concerned about America just cutting and running and leaving them with an angry and wounded Iran. WILLIE GEIST: Including Israel. Yeah, all of our allies in the region, for sure. And I guess, General Hertling. It just depends, again, on what your definition of success is. Does it mean taking out missile capabilities, as Marco Rubio said? Does it mean obliterating, as President Trump has said, the nuclear program? Does it mean regime change? We're certainly not on a path to regime change at the moment.  So just tactically, strategically, from your point of view as a general, the military campaign, just to add to this conversation that Joe and Kim are having, how is it going from the U.S. perspective? LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.): Well, from the standpoint of the military, and I think unlike Kim, I can speak to this. And what I will say is I'll make a recommendation to all politicians: Quit starting your sentences with, “we've got the greatest military in the world”. The military knows what they can and can't do, and what they can't do is end a war. That's up to the politicians and to continue to open your sentences like Secretary Rubio just did with how great the military is, is a waste of time.  You know, the military, for the most part, is pretty humble. There's not hubris involved. We don't need other people telling folks how good we are. We know what we can do, but we also know what we can't do. And that's the ground we're in right now. So I can say that. I make that recommendation to all politicians, knock it off. - MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.  HERTLING: - Worry about what you've got to do to end wars.

Many in the liberal elitist media, including on ABC’s The View, had made the ridiculous suggestion that President Trump intentionally started a war with Iran as a distraction to the Epstein files because they purportedly implicated him in sex crimes against children. But on Tuesday’s edition of The View, moderator Whoopi Goldberg took the accusations to a new insane level by suggesting the war was started to distract from the search for Nancy Guthrie. She also claimed Trump thought of America’s service members as nothing more than “cannon fodder.” Describing the conflict with Iran, Goldberg repeatedly called it “nutty as hell.” Without explain why Trump would need to distract people from the Guthrie case, she floated it was a reason for the war (along with the Epstein files): GOLDBERG: I was thinking about it yesterday, because I thought, well, okay, why haven't we been talking about Savannah Guthrie and what's going on there? HOSTIN: And her mother. GOLDBERG: Why haven't we not been -- why have we not been talking about the Epstein files? Because that's still there. This is meant to get us so worked up that we are unable to see anything else. “It's a very wag-the-dog feeling. Very wag-the-dog feeling,” co-host Sunny Hostin agreed.   Whoopi claims the conflict with Iran is a distraction from the search for Nancy Guthrie and the Epstein files: GOLDBERG: Well, I mean, it's just nutty as hell. It's nutty as hell and you're right, every day is something new. And it's -- you know, I was thinking about it… pic.twitter.com/Boyu2mYouH — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 10, 2026   As the cast was nearing the end of their second Block talking about the war, Goldberg gave herself the final word by claiming that Trump didn’t care at all for the lives of American service members and was just sending them to die: HAINES: And no matter who is on the other end of that you watch a bomb or siren or in one of these country, it is a trauma that you don't forget. So, no matter who it is, you should have a gut-wrenching feeling that that was really hard and that was awful. And that was, you know. GOLDBERG: Well, they don't have that feeling because to them we're cannon fodder. They don't care. You know? It's how they also treat our vets. It tells you a lot. You've heard him talk about vets. You've heard what he has said. It was a disgusting accusation given that a lot of America’s military development had been to increase our lethality and the preserving of American lives. Her comments were meant to conjure horrific images for the American public into believing the conflict would like WWI were soldiers would go over the top and just get mowed down by enemy fire.   Whoopi claims Trump doesn't care about the lives of America's service members and they're just "cannon fodder" to him. pic.twitter.com/lWXpJ9UzdP — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 10, 2026   Goldberg was on something of a roll with making asinine comments during Tuesday’s episode. Apparently ignorant of President Biden draining the strategic oil reserves and Congressional Democrats blocking Trump from refilling them, Goldberg demanded to know why Trump hadn’t tapped the reserves to bring down supposedly high prices: GOLDBERG: And there's a whole, you know, we have reserves for this. We have reserves. Where are they? BEHAR: Oil reserves? GOLDBERG: Where is our oil?! Yeah, for gas, when gas gets too much, they bust out the reserves and it brings the price down. So where are -- where are the reserves? Where is that? Where is anything that he said other than a lot of misery.   Ignorant of how Democrats refused to allow Trump to refill the national strategic oil reserves after Biden emptied them, Whoopi Goldberg demands to know why Trump isn't releasing oil to lower prices (of course, they also don't seem to know that the reserve is not actually for… pic.twitter.com/8ABqEjqznc — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 10, 2026   In addition to being ignorant of why the reserves were largely empty, Goldberg flaunted her profound ignorance for what the reserves were actually meant for. They were not, as she insisted, meant to be an aid when prices got high. The strategic oil reserve was meant for the military during emergencies. Of course, no one corrected her. Goldberg wasn’t the only one making terrible comments that day. Co-host Joy Behar toyed with more violent rhetoric when she was seemingly fantasizing about America going through the French Revolution, when they killed their king: BEHAR: He speak with forked tongue. GOLDBERG: Like snake. Does it seem like we're going to be getting -- so, what does this tell you? This is mixed messages. And we’re used to that. But what does your gut feel? BEHAR: I feel like we're live in the reign of terror. Am I the only one here to remember the French Revolution?!   Whoopi claims Trump doesn't care about the lives of America's service members and they're just "cannon fodder" to him. pic.twitter.com/lWXpJ9UzdP — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 10, 2026   Also making dumb comments, Hostin whined that Trump was spending money on eliminating one of America’s enemies instead of supposedly “eradicate[ing] homelessness.” She also blamed him for California having high gas prices: And they're estimating that if it goes on for say some of the other war, 40 days, 43 days, it could cost the American people more than $200 billion. To eradicate homelessness in this country, it would only cost $20 billion. So, while using this money to wage a war which is a regime change war which he said he wouldn't do it, the people that voted him wanted America first. Put America first, end homelessness. Why are gas prices in California $8 a gallon?" For someone named “sunny,” she was pretty dim. California was the only state in the union with gas prices anywhere close to that high, which meant it was California’s policies that were responsible for that. Additionally, California had spent billions trying to solve their own homelessness problem and it had only gotten worse, and it was already the worst in the country.   Sunny Hostin says Trump and the military have no plans for the conflict in Iran. She whines that Trump is taking out one of America's enemies instead of paying "$20 billion" to "eradicate homelessness." She also blames Trump for California having $8 gas: "And they're estimating… pic.twitter.com/VkztjigOhL — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 10, 2026   The View is an ABC News program. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 10, 2026 11:03:26 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: He speak with forked tongue. [Laughter] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Like snake. Does it seem like we're going to be getting -- so, what does this tell you? This is mixed messages. And we’re used to that. But what does your gut feel? BEHAR: I feel like we're live in the reign of terror. Am I the only one here to remember the French Revolution?! [Laughter] I really feel like - I feel like every day I wake up and he has created more chaos, more misery around the world. The economy is going down the toilet. Gas prices are going through the roof. World economies are suffering. And we're in the middle of this and I feel like we're pretty much helpless to do anything because [slams her had on the desk] the Republican Party will not stand up to fool! That’s all. [Applause] SUNNY HOSTIN: That's all. I mean, it's something to your point, Whoopi, you know, I've said it before, it's very easy to get into a war, very hard to get out of one. And we know that and I don't think he has a plan. I don't even think he has concepts of a plan at this point. And I -- GOLDBERG: Like healthcare. HOSTIN: Yeah, like healthcare. GOLDBERG: Yeah, so it’s like that. HOSTIN: Well, I mean the concept of a plan on how to get out of Iran. He's saying there is no leader. Actually the son of the person that used to be the leader is considered far-more right is now in charge. And I think these mixed messages really are going to ultimately effect the American people, because it is estimated that this war that we started is costing the American people between $1 billion and $2 billion a day. BEHAR: God. HOSTIN: And they're estimating that if it goes on for say some of the other war, 40 days, 43 days, it could cost the American people more than $200 billion. To eradicate homelessness in this country, it would only cost $20 billion. So, while using this money to wage a war which is a regime change war which he said he wouldn't do it, the people that voted him wanted America first. Put America first, end homelessness. Why are gas prices in California $8 a gallon?" (…) 11:06:36 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: And there's a whole, you know, we have reserves for this. We have reserves. Where are they? BEHAR: Oil reserves? GOLDBERG: Where is our oil?! Yeah, for gas, when gas gets too much, they bust out the reserves and it brings the price down. So where are -- where are the reserves? Where is that? Where is anything that he said other than a lot of misery. BEHAR: Right. GOLDBERG: A lot of pain for people. His people in particular. UNDERWOOD: That's right. HOSTIN: The people that voted for him. GOLDBERG: The people who voted for him feeling it. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: I think they're turning a little bit. (…) 11:08:59 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: Well, I mean, it's just nutty as hell. It's nutty as hell and you're right, every day is something new. And it's -- you know, I was thinking about it yesterday, because I thought, well, okay, why haven't we been talking about Savannah Guthrie and what's going on there? HOSTIN: And her mother. GOLDBERG: Why haven't we not been -- why have we not been talking about the Epstein files? Because that's still there. This is meant to get us so worked up that we are unable to see anything else. [Applause] HOSTIN: It's a very wag-the-dog feeling. Very wag-the-dog feeling. (…) 11:13:02 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: And no matter who is on the other end of that you watch a bomb or siren or in one of these country, it is a trauma that you don't forget. So, no matter who it is, you should have a gut-wrenching feeling that that was really hard and that was awful. And that was, you know. GOLDBERG: Well, they don't have that feeling because to them we're cannon fodder. They don't care. You know? It's how they also treat our vets. It tells you a lot. You've heard him talk about vets. You've heard what he has said. Already? All right. There you go. We'll be right back.

On Monday, President Donald Trump made it very clear that passing his very popular voter ID bill – the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act – is his “number one priority.” This comes on the heels of his Truth Social statement on Sunday that he will “not sign other Bills until this is passed.” NewsBusters previously reported on Friday that the broadcast networks have completely ignored the SAVE America Act legislation since it passed the House on February 11. There has also been a similar lack of interest from the Big Four News Apps. Since Friday, the President has doubled down on his pressure to get the bill passed. So did this finally prompt the networks to cover it?  No.  MRC analysts reviewed the ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning news shows from February 11 (when the SAVE America Act passed the House) to the morning of March 10 and found the broadcast networks have devoted ZERO seconds to the bill that enjoys over 70 percent approval in recent polling.  Are the networks deliberately refusing to cover the bill, hoping that this popular Trump agenda item will just die on the vine?  It should be noted that ABC, CBS and NBC are aware of the President’s push of the SAVE America Act, but they are just choosing to bury the news on their low-rated very early morning news programs or streaming services. On the March 9 edition of ABC’s GMA First Look, which airs in the 4am hour in most major markets, correspondent Hanna Battah offered a brief 18-second mention in her story on the partial government shutdown affecting travellers. On the March 9 edition of NBC’s Early Today, also a 4am show on most stations, correspondent Alice Barr offered 26 seconds on Trump insisting “he will not sign any bill” until the SAVE Act bill was passed.  On CBS’s 24/7 streaming outlet, correspondent Major Garrett spent 30 seconds on the bill on the March 5 edition of The Takeout.  For this study, MRC analysts looked at the broadcast evening (ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News), morning news shows (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS Mornings, NBC Today) from February 11 through the morning of March 10. President Trump’s voter ID bill isn’t just being suppressed just on the broadcast networks. It’s a very similar situation on the Big Four News Apps.    Big Four News Apps Hide SAVE America Act Despite Bipartisan Popularity The suppression of the SAVE America Act isn’t limited to broadcast networks. MRC Free Speech America’s review found that a similar pattern continued on the Big Four News Apps, where coverage was either completely absent or negative. Despite the bill’s growing bipartisan support, Apple News, Google News and Microsoft’s MSN chose silence.  Yahoo News did feature the legislation, but only twice in its top 20 morning stories across three days — and both stories came from left-leaning outlets that framed the bill negatively. This analysis focused on the top 20 stories promoted by Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN, and Yahoo News during the mornings of March 8–10.  Across these three days: Apple News, Google News and MSN promoted a combined 180 stories in their top 20 morning placements. Not a single one mentioned the SAVE America Act in their headlines. Yahoo News did include the SAVE America Act in its promoted coverage, but only twice out of the 60 stories featured in its top 20 morning listings during the March 8–10 review period. Notably, both stories came from left-leaning outlets, Yahoo News and NBC News, and both framed the legislation negatively. On March 9, Yahoo News featured an NBC News write-up about Trump vowing to block legislation until the SAVE America Act is passed. NBC News’s bias was evident from the start, warning readers in the second paragraph that “Noncitizen voting is illegal and uncommon.” Yahoo News took its bias one step further, directly accusing the bill in its headline of “potentially disenfranchising millions of voters.” [Emphasis added.] The first paragraph repeated the claim: “President Trump on Sunday said he would not sign any new legislation into law until Congress passes the SAVE Act, a Republican-led bill that would dramatically overhaul elections nationwide and potentially disenfranchise millions of voters.” [Emphasis added.]  When explaining what the bill does, Yahoo News even claimed that it “would create additional hurdles for women who take their partner’s name after getting married, who would need to provide extra documentation to explain why their current name doesn’t match what’s listed on their birth certificate or passport.” The coverage also echoed NBC News by emphasizing that “Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in most U.S. elections,” while undercutting Trump’s comments about illegal voting:  “Though Trump and many Republicans have claimed that noncitizen voting is rampant in American elections, researchers have found a ‘shockingly small number’ of actual documented incidents — far too few to impact the outcome of even small local elections.”