On Thursday, amid President Trump’s state visit to China, CNN This Morning panelist Ron Brownstein, also a senior political analyst for the network, harkened back to the unrest seen in Minneapolis earlier in the year over the presence of ICE as he compared the unrest to actions between the U.S. and China, along with the War in Iran.  He claimed the three situations were connected, as they were examples of President Trump’s “consistent pattern” to “underestimate the ability of their targets.” Brownstein started with his state visit analysis, calling Trump’s banquet speech “unremarkable.” Former Trump White House Communications Director Mike Dubke and former Biden White House Director of Message Planning Meghan Hays, focused on the economic positives that could come out of the trip, including possible Chinese imports of American soybeans, while they started a minimization of the summit.    After the US-China State Dinner, CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein compared US actions with China and Iran to the ICE unrest seen in Minneapolis earlier this year. He said the three were part of a consistent pattern to "underestimate the ability of their targets.” pic.twitter.com/VgU7o2Ewj8 — Nick (@nspin310) May 14, 2026   Dubke called the summit as “mundane,” and fill-in host Erica Hill continued to echo Dubke and called the summit “low key.” Hays then implied Trump was weak, even as China rolled the red carpet out for him: I mean, this pageantry, I don't think necessarily is low-key. I think that's trying to play to Trump's ego here.  But I also think this visit is not the visit of strength that Trump thought he would be going into China with. Like, he needs China to help him open the Strait of Hormuz. We are coming in with a negotiating power here that we didn't necessarily have when - or we had before we entered Iran. Hill returned to Brownstein, who decided his points about the summit would relate to Minneapolis ICE protests, many of which turned violent, to relations between China and the war in Iran. Brownstein started by saying Trump’s “initial challenge to any challenge is coercion,” but in a situation where a “target finds a way to push back. And it's not clear there's kind of a plan B.” He related that point to China and tariffs and Iran strikes, before, somehow, he related the summit to this year’s unrest in Minneapolis over ICE: It's just kind of - to me, it's a consistent pattern that they seem to underestimate the ability of their targets. We could say the same thing about the people of Minneapolis, by the way, with ICE, to find a way to push back and then to have a counter response to that.  Hill also gave Brownstein the “last word” of the segment, as he continued the minimization of the summit by the rest of the panel and continued to insinuate that for every issue, there is no “plan B.” The return to Minneapolis unrest by Brownstein continued a liberal obsession with ICE, as he even found an opportunity to relate the unrest to China and Iran amid the high-stakes summit between the U.S. and China, two of the biggest global competitors. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning May 14, 2026 6:51:50 AM Eastern (...) ERICA HILL: How much is riding on this visit for President Trump? RON BROWNSTEIN: Yeah, you know, the speech was kind of unremarkable, which was remarkable in itself from where he started. I mean, you got to remember, I mean, Trump, going back - President Trump, going back to his first term, talked about decoupling from China. He attacked Biden for four years, saying that he was weak on China. He said he would force China to transform its economy with these punishing tariffs.  And, you know, and here we are. When China punched back with threatening, you know, to withhold the rare earth minerals that are so critical to different elements of our economy and the world economy, his goals have shifted to kind of the conventional, go to a country and get them to announce a bunch of agreements to buy American stuff. So, I mean, to me this is - this event so far is just a measure of how much his goals on China have kind of contracted and that he is looking for something very different than what he set out in the campaign, or indeed even toward the end of his - parts of his first term. HILL: Mike, how much is this about, frankly, maintaining a relationship, as opposed to moving it forward in this moment? MIKE DUBKE: Well, what really struck me from both of the speeches was that President Trump focused on the US-Chinese relations, and President Xi is focused more on the US and China together and world relations. That's what really struck me as part of this. But I think to getting to your question and to address where Ron was going with this, in terms of trade agreements, I mean, they are going to talk about soybeans - you know, exciting things like soybeans and LNG. But also the import - potential import of Chinese cars into the United States, which I know frightens a lot of people in Detroit.  But, frankly, one of the things that has come out and is different than the first Trump Administration to this, in terms of relationships with China, is America has made some strides, especially on rare earths, in bringing the rest of the world together to find alternative minerals, in this case, to counter China.  So, I think a lot of the moves that the president's already made is setting us up at this point to have this more mundane bilat and conversations today - or tomorrow in China. HILL: More mundane. I mean I will say that is sort of the reaction we've seen initially, is this all feels very low key. And not low key in the way the kids talk about things these days, but literally low key, Meghan. MEGHAN HAYS: I mean, this pageantry, I don't think necessarily is low key. I think that's trying to play to Trump's ego here.  But I also think this visit is not the visit of strength that Trump thought he would be going into China with. Like, he needs China to help him open the Strait of Hormuz. We are coming in with a negotiating power here that we didn't necessarily have when - or we had before we entered Iran. So, you know, and I also think, to Mike's point about the ag possibilities with soybeans and cars in Detroit, some of these negotiations have a lot of political implications for Trump and the Republican Party. So, he needs to make sure that this is sort of a nothing-burger meeting and that this is maintaining relationships. So, Trump just doesn't have the strength that he thought he was going to have, you know, going into this first meeting with China. HILL: Well, you know, I'm going to keep going back to this, but that's because it is so important, the Iran angle that is hanging over all of this and a desire for China to nudge, perhaps, Tehran a bit. That desire does not seem to exist in the same way on the part of the Chinese, Ron. BROWNSTEIN: Yeah. I think this is revealing of a kind of broader pattern that we see in - particularly in this second Trump term. I mean his initial response to any challenge is coercion, is the assertion of U.S. economic or military power. But he often seems surprised when the target finds a way to push back. And it's not clear there's kind of a plan B. I mean, what we're watching in the economic relationship with China, when the threat of tariffs did not have the desired effect, and China found an effective way to push back by threatening the rare earth minerals, is very similar to what we're watching in Iran when the bombing campaign did not have the initial effect. Certainly succeeded militarily, but did not change the behavior in the way that he expected. They found an asymmetric way to push back. And now the administration is kind of at sea, literally and, you know, pressuring China to try to help them.  It's just kind of - to me, it's a consistent pattern that they seem to underestimate the ability of their targets. We could say the same thing about the people of Minneapolis, by the way, with ICE, to find a way to push back and then to have a counter response to that. And I think that's one of the reasons why this is so low key, because he has lost a lot of his stomach for the kind of confrontation with China that he promised when he was out of office. (...) 6:59:09 AM Eastern HILL: Ron, I'll give you, real quickly, last word. What specifically are you looking for to come out of tomorrow? BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, I think, as I said, I think this has become kind of a - devolved into kind of the conventional presidential trip to a foreign country where you give a speech talking about your long, historic ties, working Ben Franklin, and try to negotiate a bunch of business deals, rather than the kind of fundamental reassessment of the relationship that he once promised or threatened, depending on your point of view.  And as I said, I think that's indicative of the challenge they are facing on many fronts. When the targets of their pressure or coercion find a way to push back, it's not clear they have a plan B. It may be better for the world in the long run, but it's very different than what he kind of suggested when he was out of office. (...)

After having actor Spencer Pratt (R) on the show earlier this year in which they praised his run to be the mayor of Los Angeles, his new momentum against incumbent Democrat Karen Bass had the liberal ladies of The View now attempting to coming to her rescue. ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg scoffed at him for running as a victim of Bass’s mismanagement during the wildfires. Despite Pratt losing his house, she suggested he didn’t actually know what people went through and that he shouldn’t be “passing judgment” on Bass. What sparked them to talk about Pratt was his recent viral A.I. generated campaign videos (one showing him as Batman fighting Democratic Party figures as his rogues gallery of villains and one showing him as a Jedi in a lightsaber duel against Bass as Darth Vader on the Hollywood sign). Treating it as though it was a video of him gunning down politicians, Goldberg performativity proclaimed: “I'm glad we're not showing it because it stunned me and especially when we're talking about, oh, we have to tone down the violence and -- I mean, I was kind of freaked out by what I saw because this was more.”   After having Spencer Pratt on earlier in the year and praising his candidacy for LA mayor, The View has turned on him. They refuse to show Pratt's A.I. campaign ads, claiming the "violence" "stunned" them and they were "freaked out." They're not showing it because one ad show… pic.twitter.com/Mgiv0Ik1NL — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2026   Despite The View chastising celebrities for not speaking out on politics earlier in the week, Goldberg didn’t want Pratt speaking: But I mean, people are asking, are we going to see more celebrities and reality TV stars like Pratt getting into politics? If they know what they're doing, I welcome anybody who knows how to do this, but if you're going to be like the guy who's already in charge, thank you, no. Thank you, no. I'm not happy with what's going on, and I think it's -- just because somebody is famous or is famous for something doesn't mean they know what's going on and how you are thinking and how you're feeling. Goldberg saved her more insulting commentary for closer to the end of the segment. She dismissed Pratt’s perspective as someone who was a victim of Bass’s mismanagement during the wildfires last year. She argued that people “have bitched about these wildfires as long as I've lived in California” as if his loss didn’t matter. In more words than were needed to get her message across, Goldberg told Pratt to shut up with his criticisms of Bass and the Democratic leadership of the state. She suggested he had no solutions and was “throwing shade” and that he should not be “passing judgment” on the Democrats: But what I don't like is if you don't have any solutions that have not been already tried or if you're throwing shade on people saying she diverted water from this place -I mean, you have to -- you have to have some idea of what needs to be done. (…) So this is not, you know, a ha, ha, let's do an A.I. video. This is real stuff. People -- this is people's lives. And so, before you're passing judgment, you need to be able to tell people what you have to offer, Spencer.   Whoopi Goldberg dismisses Pratt losing his house in the wildfires and says he needs to know what he's talking about and offer "solutions" before "passing judgment" on Karen Bass. She claims he doesn't "understand what people are going through": GOLDBERG: No, he's not the answer… pic.twitter.com/UfcJVM8Xk0 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2026   Additionally, Goldberg accused Pratt of not knowing what people had been through: You know, and, you know, I don't know what qualifies as the right way to be a politician, but what I do know is they have to be the people who understand what people are going through. And if you don't understand what people are going through, in the way they're going through it, when you're talking about communities, whole communities that have been burned out, whole groups, legacies that are gone. Goldberg wasn’t the only one to deliver a braindead take. Completely ignoring Bass’s mismanagement of the wildfires and the city writ large, and reading from a talking points card someone gave her, co-host Behar boasted that she was better because she had a JFK award: “So, I just wanted to make this point. So, Karen Bass has a JFK Profile in Courage award. She navigated California through the worst economic crisis since the depression. Spencer Pratt was snapchatter of the year at the 2018 shorty awards.”   Joy Behar praises Karen Bass's leadership and 'qualifications,' but ignores the disastrous wildfires. She's read off a talking points card someone gave her: BEHAR: Karen bass will be running against Spencer Pratt. HOSTIN: She is. GOLDBERG: She is. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: So, I… pic.twitter.com/k7wt2BA0Ba — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2026   When Pratt was on the January 28 episode, co-host Sunny Hostin praised his candidacy. “You are going to do so much, I think, for your community because a few weeks ago you announced that you're running to be the next mayor of Los Angeles,” she touted. But now that his campaign was a serious threat and not a novelty, she had a pretty sever change of heart about how good he would be for the city. Her only point was that he didn’t have the right pedigree, like a Harvard Law School degree:   And the problem that I have with someone like Spencer Pratt throwing his hat into this particular ring as L.A. Mayor, we're talking about a $14.9 billion budget for the city. It's the second largest city budget in the country, and he is not qualified for it. And we see what happens when people are not qualified for their jobs. (…) And Spencer Pratt, sir, you don't have the same experience. You don't have a law degree from Harvard Law School.   When Pratt was on The View earlier this year, Hostin touted him saying: "You are going to do so much, I think, for your community because a few weeks ago you announced that you're running to be the next mayor of Los Angeles." Now, Hostin tells him to step aside and run for city… pic.twitter.com/BJPQRul50a — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2026   Accusing him of “jumping” ahead of the line, Hostin spoke to him like a child through the camera and told him to try running for city council first. “And there are baby steps you can take like why not run for city council and learn about the city budget and then maybe become president of the city council and then maybe become the mayor. You're just jumping,” she scolded. Co-hosts Sara Haines and Alyssa Farah Griffin had similar thoughts in that the people who watched the videos were too stupid to understand that they were fake: HAINES: But what's the scariest part of the A.I. video we saw and you're not seeing right now was the A.I. part for me, because you're seeing Hugh Jackman in there and our brains aren't designed to say, oh, that's not really Hugh Jackman saying these things. (…) FARAH GRIFFIN: I think introducing A.I. into campaigns in general is super dangerous. I think it can be incredibly misleading. It makes people think, to Sara's point, there's endorsements that aren't taking place.   Sara Haines whines about the use of A.I. in the videos and claims people who see the ad are too stupid to realize that it's fake, she also seems to think Pratt is running for Congress, not LA mayor: SARA HAINES: What I liked about Spencer Pratt throwing his hat in there is he… pic.twitter.com/1rvQRZupUh — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2026   “The nature of it, I was shocked to see so many people applauding it. There is the lowest hanging fruit, we're throwing tomatoes at like Democratic politicians we don't like. Like, do a little better,” Farah Griffin chided through her artificial lips.   Alyssa Farah Griffin whines about Pratt's use of A.I. calling it "super dangerous" and "incredibly misleading" as if people were too stupid to know he's not actually Batman or a Jedi: FARAH GRIFFIN: The A.I. of it does bother me. Listen, I like Spencer Pratt. We had him here. I… pic.twitter.com/2dXGQzz4rF — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 14, 2026   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2026 11:03:30 a.m. Eastern (…) MAYOR KAREN BASS (D-CA): When you do that and when your messages are so hateful are when you demonize people, then you do provoke people who are unstable, and you can jeopardize people's safety. [Cuts back to live] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Now - I'm glad we're not showing it because it stunned me and especially when we're talking about, oh, we have to tone down the violence and -- I mean, I was kind of freaked out by what I saw because this was more. But I mean, people are asking, are we going to see more celebrities and reality TV stars like Pratt getting into politics? If they know what they're doing, I welcome anybody who knows how to do this, but if you're going to be like the guy who's already in charge, thank you, no. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah, yeah. GOLDBERG: Thank you, no. I'm not happy with what's going on, and I think it's -- just because somebody is famous or is famous for something doesn't mean they know what's going on and how you are thinking and how you're feeling, so -- [Applause] SARA HAINES: What I liked about Spencer Pratt throwing his hat in there is he was affected by the California wildfires and he decided 'I'm going to do something about it.' So, anybody who wants to civically get involved, I welcome them. Because what I'm for offended by is a Congress that has its least popular rate - popularity are and approval ratings ever and yet we just keep putting the same people back there. So, I would much rather shake up the pot to make it fresh energy, fresh, new blood in there. But what's the scariest part of the A.I. video we saw and you're not seeing right now was the A.I. part for me, because you're seeing Hugh Jackman in there and our brains aren't designed to say, oh, that's not really Hugh Jackman saying these things. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And he hadn't agreed to it either. HAINES: He didn't agree to his likeness being used -- JOY BEHAR: Why is he in it? FARAH GRIFFIN: It's A.I. slop. HAINES: It's all A.I. - It was all this creative - BEHAR: But why him? HAINES: Well, I don't know. We'd have to ask - HOSTIN: Wolverine and he's -- HAINES: It was a Batman themed thing. The biggest part is our brains cannot separate and when the mayor bass talks about the dangers that can imply, I was not offended as much by the imagery because it was very much a pull from comic books, as it was that there were people that didn't agree to I that are all over it. FARAH GRIFFIN: The A.I. of it does bother me. Listen, I like Spencer Pratt. We had him here. I think he's compassionate, I think he has an interesting story to tell. Because I talked to my sister who lives in Los Angeles. People were devastated by the wildfires and frustrated with their leadership. And I applaud anyone getting their hat in the ring. There is a path for Spencer. I'd say it's still uphill just based on the voter registration of Los Angeles. GOLDBERG: Yeah. Yeah. FARAH GRIFFIN: But here's my thing, and he said this, I thought this was interesting. "I do not represent a party. I don't have a campaign manager. I don't have campaign consultants, there is no political party backing me." I'm all for the viral approach if it's pushing forward a message and solutions for the people. GOLDBERG: Yeah. Yeah. FARAH GRIFFIN: I think introducing A.I. into campaigns in general is super dangerous. I think it can be incredibly misleading. It makes people think, to Sara's point, there's endorsements that aren't taking place. The nature of it, I was shocked to see so many people applauding it. There is the lowest hanging fruit, we're throwing tomatoes at like Democratic politicians we don't like. Like, do a little better. Something we learned I believe there is a path he could get elected, but getting elected is the easy part of the job. Governing three million people in Los Angeles GOLDBERG: Yeah, you actually have to know what you're doing.[ Applause ] FARAH GRIFFIN: And fixing what is a broken system. Karen bass handled the fires disastrously. BEHAR: So, wait a minute. FARAH GRIFFIN: But actually being qualified to take on that role is what's hard. BEHAR: Karen bass will be running against Spencer Pratt. HOSTIN: She is. GOLDBERG: She is. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: So, I just wanted to make this point. So, Karen Bass has a JFK Profile in Courage award. She navigated California through the worst economic crisis since the depression. Spencer Pratt was snapchatter of the year. [Laughter] At the 2018 shorty awards. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: That's all. [Laughter] HOSTIN: Well, I mean, I think you're talking about qualifications, right? BEHAR: Yeah. HOSTIN: And the problem that I have with someone like Spencer Pratt throwing his hat into this particular ring as L.A. Mayor, we're talking about a $14.9 billion budget for the city. It's the second largest city budget in the country, and he is not qualified for it. And we see what happens when people are not qualified for their jobs. [Applause] And that's not to say that this hasn't happened before. We've had Ronald Reagan who was an actor, some people would say he was a great president. We've had -- BEHAR: But he was the president of SAG at one point. HOSTIN: Yes, he was. BEHAR: He was a union president. He had some - HOSTIN: He was a union president. FARAH GRIFFIN: He was a governor before he was president. BEHAR: He was a governor. HOSTIN: He was a governor. And then you had Arnold Schwarzenegger who was an actor and then governor and by many accounts he did well. But these are people i think that sometimes are, you know, anomalies that that may not necessarily be the case. Spencer Pratt is now comparing himself to President Obama, and he said - he said- GOLDBERG: [Laughter] HOSTIN: Yeah. He said - BEHAR: What, snapchatter of the year is not the same thing as the head of the law review at Harvard? HOSTIN: Well, he said 'I have two awards from my community. President Obama actually didn't even have any awards when he was a community organizer. He was able to become a senator and then a president for eight years. So I feel like him and I have the same experience.' BEHAR: Oh, please. HOSTIN: And Spencer Pratt, sir, you don't have the same experience. You don't have a law degree from Harvard Law School. You don't -- you were not a senator. And there are baby steps you can take like why not run for city council an learn about the city budget and then maybe become president of the city council and then maybe become the mayor. You're just jumping. (…) 11:10:23 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: No, he's not the answer but here's the thing, nobody -- You know, they have bitched about these wildfires as long as I've lived in California, it's always been -- it's always been a problem. But what I don't like is if you don't have any solutions that have not been already tried or if you're throwing shade on people saying she diverted water from this place -I mean, you have to -- you have to have some idea of what needs to be done. A lot of people were affected by those wildfires, a lot of my friends, a lot of people you know lost everything. HOSTIN: Right. GOLDBERG: So this is not, you know, a ha, ha, let's do an A.I. video. This is real stuff. People -- this is people's lives. And so, before you're passing judgment, you need to be able to tell people what you have to offer, Spencer. [Applause] You know, and, you know, I don't know what qualifies as the right way to be a politician, but what I do know is they have to be the people who understand what people are going through. And if you don't understand what people are going through, in the way they're going through it, when you're talking about communities, whole communities that have been burned out, whole groups, legacies that are gone. It's more than just this. It's all these things. You got to be prepared for a lot more stuff than I think you -- it is a really hard job and in California particularly. (…)

Don’t cure cancer because it would devastate the cancer industry! Don’t improve healthcare access because you’ll hurt the funeral industry! That’s the kind of brain hurt logic NPR employed to decry President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration as a devastating blow to the U.S. economy. “The economic chilling effect of Trump's immigration crackdown,” read NPR reporter Greg Rosalsky’s incoherent May 12 headline. Rosalsky flailed over Trump’s ICE raids in Little Village, Chicago: “Many in the community seemed to be scared to go about business as usual. There seemed to be a clear ‘chilling effect’ on their economic activity — like going to work, shopping, eating out, and so on.” To insulate his argument to make it seem like it wasn’t coming out of left field, Rosalsky relied on the musings of liberal University Colorado Boulder economist Chloe East, who snorted to him that “mass deportations in Trump 2.0 are not helping the labor market overall and not creating more job opportunities for U.S.-born workers.” As late economist Henry Hazlitt put it, “The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond.” Jeez-a-loo! The implication of course is that keeping illegal immigration via cheap labor unchecked is somehow a net positive for the economy. As Rosalsky blurted out in whipping out the tired old leftist hat trick of not treating “immigrant” and “illegal immigrant” as mutually exclusive: [East] and her co-author find evidence that, if anything, the clampdown has hurt the employment prospects of U.S.-born workers, particularly working-class men who work in industries that are heavily reliant on undocumented workers, like construction … [I]t adds to a large and growing body of evidence that, actually, immigration helps grow core industries and the overall economy, which creates jobs and has other benefits for native workers. This is stupid on so many levels. Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Research Director Steven A. Camarota testified to a U.S. House Oversight subcommittee hearing in 2024 that the “notion that illegal immigrants do only the jobs Americans don’t want is false.” Camerota analyzed, “Prior analysis shows that out of 474 civilian occupations as defined by [the] Department of Commerce, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce.” No need to explain further how this completely undercuts Rosalsky’s propaganda and East’s missing the forest for the trees comments.  In fact, Camerota stated unequivocally, “There are no occupations in the United States in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.” What Rosalsky (and East by extension) are doing is the equivalent of kvetching over the side effects of chemotherapy while bypassing the long term devastation of Stage Four cancer. Camerota explained the disastrous effects of unchecked illegal immigration, which ballooned heavily under Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden: The negative fiscal impact of illegal immigrants — taxes paid minus benefits received — is primarily due their modest average education level. Some 69 percent of adult illegal immigrants are estimated to have no education beyond high school, which is double the U.S.-born share. This results in relatively low average incomes and tax payments, along with significant use of welfare. In 2023, the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated based on a juxtaposition between national, state and local expenditures on illegal immigrants and federal/state tax revenues received from them that the total fiscal burden to U.S. taxpayers was a whopping $150.7 billion. Not exactly chump change. Another analysis by CIS author Eric Gordy in 2024 revealed that “the foreign-born population has increased by 6.6 million since 2021, with 58% of this increase coming from illegal immigration. This massive population influx has increased the demand for housing, worsening the existing shortage.”  To emphasize the ludicrousness of Rosalsky’s argument further, it’s worth considering U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s recently announced six-month moratorium on hospice care applications to address the widening fraud epidemic happening in that industry bilking the U.S. taxpayer. Using Rosalsky’s logic, addressing fraud risks devastating the fraudulent hospice industry in the same way immigration law enforcement risks “chilling” businesses hooked on illegal labor. See the problem yet? Frederic Bastiat called. He wants his Broken Window Fallacy back.  CNSNews Managing Editor Craig Bannister contributed to this report.

“So, when you make campaign statements, those aren’t true, you’re not being honest with your voters?” House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano, who testified that his promise to give preferential treatment to criminal illegal aliens isn’t his actual policy. Descano and Sheriff Stacey Kincaid appeared before the committee to answer questions regarding the deadly consequences of Descano’s refusal to prosecute, or even turn over to federal immigration officers, illegal aliens arrested for serious crimes. For example, Descano was questioned about the case of Marvin Morales-Ortez, an alleged MS-13 member from El Salvador, who was rearrested for murder the day after Descano ordered him released. At Wednesday’s hearing, Descano was asked about campaign promises that had remained on his website for years after his election, in which he pledged to go soft on criminal illegal aliens in order to protect them from being taken into federal custody and deported. “Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences,” Descano’s website said – until it was deleted shortly after he was called to testify before Congress and the Justice Department launched an investigation. “Sir, the website is not my policy,” Descano told Jordan when the congressman pointed out that “a week after we send you a letter saying we want you to come testify, you take it down.” “Well, if you’re proud of your policies, why did you change your website?” Jordan asked. “Because I could not believe that people were so obtuse that they could not realize what the difference between a campaign statement and an actual office policy is,” Descano answered. “So, when you make campaign statements, those aren’t true, you’re not being honest with your voters?” Chairman Jordan asked. “That’s not what I’m saying at all, sir,” Descano replied. “Sure sounded like it,” Jordan said. Jordan then summarized the sequence of events in the case of Morales-Ortez: “Your sheriff said you wouldn’t prosecute. “This guy gets released – kills someone the next day. “We start asking about it. “You change your website and take down the statements that say you’re going to take into account immigration consequences when you decide what you are going to charge.”   Chairman @Jim_Jordan asks why immigration status impacts sentencing, charging, and plea agreements for an illegal alien in Fairfax County. Americans face harsh punishments. Illegal aliens walk out with a sweetheart deal. https://t.co/9sztQ5vpHY — House Judiciary GOP

POLL: What was the worst media quote of the week? (Vote below)   Watch the Worst Quotes from @Bakari_Sellers, @TheView, and Pete Davidson