UPDATE: In an order issued on Monday, June 15 Florida’s First District Court of Appeal said they were not going to ignore the new case law provided by the Florida Supreme Court and would strike the Associated Press's request for them to ignore it. Read more below. A highly anticipated ruling by the Florida Supreme Court late last week all but ensured the defamation suit filed by Navy veteran Zachary Young against the Associated Press would get revived on appeal. And just days after telling Florida’s First District Court of Appeal to ignore the AP’s own stylebook in the case, the newswire’s lawyer wanted the court to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling as well. Those who have kept up with NewsBusters’ coverage of Young’s successful defamation suit against CNN, may recall that the news outlet attempted to get Florida’s 14th Circuit Court to put off progressing the case until the Supreme Court finally issued a ruling on Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company. Simply known as Perlmutter, the ruling provided new case law on, among other things, how trial-level courts were not to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to punitive damages claims in the pleading stage of a proceeding: The trial court does not act as a fact-finder in a proceeding under section 768.72(1). It must not weigh the claimant’s evidence, meaning that its role is not to decide the truth of the matter. In conducting its review, the trial court must “consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Of course, the allegations contained in the claimant’s proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence—the whole point of a proceeding under section 768.72(1) is to determine whether the claimant can show reasonable evidentiary support for those allegations. How did apply to Young’s case? Cutting through the legalese, when Judge William Scott Henry threw out Young’s case against the AP (and his case against Puck News) he argued against the quality of the evidence presented in the early pleading stage, and directly compared it to what was presented in the CNN case, writing: As discussed above, these decisions are not defamatory, but rather protected editorial choices.’ As such, Plaintiffs cannot rely on the choices made by Defendant to substantiate a claim for punitive damages. Since none of the statements in the Articles were defamatory and Plaintiffs have not proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, or ill will, hostility or evil intention on the part of Defendant in publishing the Articles, Plaintiffs have not met their threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence as would support a punitive damage claim in this case.  As part of his appeal, Young argued that was one of the reasons the ruling was improper.  A flurry of filings in the defamation case against the AP followed the Supreme Court’s Perlmutter decision. After Young’s counsel filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority on Thursday to bring the ruling to the attention of the three appellate judges who heard oral arguments, AP’s counsel Charles D. Tobin shot back the next day with a two-paragraph request for them to ignore the ruling: Appellee The Associated Press (“The AP”) submits this brief response to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, No. SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026) (“Perlmutter Op.”). Since the trial court did not apply the clear and convincing standard in its ruling related to punitive damages nor did it rely on anything submitted by The AP, the Perlmutter Op. does not apply to Section II of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Initial Brief or Reply Brief, as their Notice of Supplemental Authority asserts. On Saturday, Young’s counsel requested the court strike the AP’s response, alleging it was an improper motion: “The Response is unauthorized by Rule 9.225, which governs the provision of supplemental authority to the Court following the conclusion of briefing. Further, the Response impermissibly contains argument regarding the authority cited in Appellants’ Notice.” While the Supreme Court ruling in Perlmutter didn’t address the key points of Young’s defamation case (AP’s stylebook, the use of “smuggling,” etc.), it directly pertained to how and why the case was thrown out in the early pleading stage of the proceedings. It was through discovery that Young was able to obtain the evidence for actual and express malice. The dismissal of Young’s case could turn out to be a short term victory that only dragged out the case for nearly a year. On Monday, June 15 Florida’s First District Court of Appeal issued a one-sentence order saying they were not going to ignore the new case law provided by the Florida Supreme Court and would strike the Associated Press's request for them to ignore it. "The Court grants the motion to strike docketed June 13, 2026 and strikes the response docketed June 12, 2026," the order read.

Ahead of Vice President J.D. Vance’s appearance on ABC’s purported “bona fide news program” The View this week, the third conservative to appear on The View all year, NewsBusters wanted to take a jaunt down memory lane to look back at what they’ve said about him. They’ve claimed he teamed up with Elon Musk to assassinate President Trump, called him “sociopathic,” mocked his name, and suggest he and Trump were responsible for the assassination attempts; among many others. Here are some of the nasty things The View had spewed about him. A month after President Trump had won the 2024 presidential election, and a few months after back-to-back attempts on Trump’s life, moderator Whoopi Goldberg and co-host Joy Behar teamed up to suggest Vance and Musk were plotting to murder Trump in the White House by pushing him down the stairs: GOLDBERG: I’ve called [Elon Musk] vice president. I’ve called him president because I don't know what J.D. is doing. I hardly ever -- I don't remember the last time we even talked about J.D. HOSTIN: You’re right. BEHAR: He’s planning the presidency when they get rid of Trump. GOLDBERG: So, you think it's Musk/Vance? BEHAR: Possible. GOLDBERG: Hmm. Hey, you-know-who, stay away from the stairways. Because, you know, people put their leg out to trip you going down the stairs. Watch out.   ABC News moderators Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar claim Elon Musk and JD Vance are planning to kill Trump and usurp control of the government together as Musk/Vance. "[Trump] stay away from the stairways." - Whoopi pic.twitter.com/bMRmOSwdrk — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 19, 2024   Even before the election, they were trying to poison the American electorate against Vance. While downplaying Governor Tim Walz’s lie about being in Tiananmen Square for the massacre, Behar suggested Vance was the “sociopathic” liar, and even got backup from faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin: BEHAR: But they’re both pathological liars. FARAH GRIFFIN: That's true, but I just mean from the ability standpoint. BEHAR: That’s the problem. They are sociopathic liars, the two of them. I've never seen such straight faces, the mendacity. In the same episode, Goldberg, whose first name was a device that made fart noises, mocked Vance’s name by suggesting the “J.D.” stood for “juvenile delinquent.”     In September of 2024, Goldberg took particular issue with Vance accurately calling out the left’s rhetoric for inciting the attempts on Trump’s life. According to her, Trump and Vance were responsible to the assassins: J.D., clearly you’ve not been to one of your boss's rallies, because you believe this insanity. I mean, he has been inciting violence since 2016 telling them to beat up hecklers, threaten to shoot looters and migrants…YOU have to really take a look in a mirror to see the reflection…So, quit blaming folks until you decide to take a look at what's coming out of your mouth! (…) You know, let's stop this both sides stuff because it's not correct! It is not both sides! It is one clear side! And you can point to many, many reports, you can point to all kinds of stuff that's been reported! You guys have to -- you have to pull it back! This is not us or them! This is you got to stop doing what you're doing, J.D.!     Co-host Sunny Hostin once said Vance’s hope for a more conservative America was a “very dark vision,” while co-host Sara Haines called it “ominous” and said it “haunted” her. More recently, in May of this year, Hostin partially blamed Vance for California Democrat Katie Porter yelling at her staff: We know that there is a double standard. And I have got to tell you, the bar is so very low when you look at J.D. Vance, the way he behaves, you look at Pete Hegseth, you look at Donald Trump. It trickles down from the top. We have seen the worst -- the worst behavior in the Republican Party. Hopefully, Vance will return the favor and press The View cast on these lies and question them about how they’re purportedly a “bona fide news program.”

The Washington Post is still a leftist rag. On Monday, the Style section front page carried an enormous photo with text over it: “Social media star Ms. Rachel visits Capitol Hill, armed with letters and drawings from children in ICE custody.” Below the fold was the headline: “A woman in pink. A plea for the children.” Feature writer Caitlin Gibson's copy on the Style front-page was all propaganda against family detention of illegal aliens at a processing center in south Texas. She began:  Rachel Griffin Accurso — Ms. Rachel, to her millions of followers — made her first visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon, wearing a bubblegum-pink linen suit and wheeling a black suitcase filled with stapled packets of handwritten letters and drawings. They were the words and artwork of children, all of whom have been — or remain — in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the nation’s only family immigration detention center. “I cry a lot,” read one letter from a 7-year-old boy held at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in South Texas. “I want to get out of here.” Among the illustrations were portraits of crying faces, families standing together behind bars and a red house that a 9-year-old child longed to return to. Accurso clutched one packet in her hand, ready to offer it to the first lawmaker she encountered. Griffin was greeted by ICE-crushing Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), but the reporter tried to claim this was a “new foray,” and then acknowledged there’s been activism before: It was a new foray into the political realm for the early-childhood educator, who became the reigning star of children’s media with her wildly popular educational videos on YouTube and Netflix. Through her adult-facing social media platforms, Accurso has also emerged as a powerful advocate for vulnerable young people around the world, making headlines — and sometimes drawing backlash — for speaking out on behalf of children in Gaza, Sudan and other humanitarian crisis zones. Last summer, CNN/PBS host Christiane Amanpour was hailing Ms. Rachel as she accused Israel of "genocide" in Gaza. In fact, Caitlin Gibson and The Post published a previous puff piece on the Activist Kid-Vid Star as an activist last July.  Now, Gibson touted how Ms. Rachel just visited the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey, and "sang a song written by the Peace Poets along with children detained at Dilley: “I’ll sing from here and you sing from there, together we’ll sing down the walls everywhere.” The Post piece did include three perfunctory paragraphs of rebuttal from DHS and Core Civic, the firm running the Dilley facility. But everything else was pushing leftist activists and their Evil Trump Empire line:  This underscores the value of Accurso’s work and platform, said Elora Mukherjee, an attorney who represents numerous families detained at Dilley and serves as director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. With her vast audience, Accurso represents a different way to inform people, beyond the reach of mainstream media: “Overwhelmingly, the American public still does not realize that, as a nation, we are imprisoning babies, toddlers and children who have done nothing wrong,” she said. “Sustained attention on cruelty against children is critically important.” The Post touted activist Faisal Al-Jaburi: Culture often shifts before the law does, he said: “We will not see policy change until the public demands it. And that is what gives me hope when people like Ms. Rachel turn their spotlight onto a cause like this.” That spotlight is turned on by The Washington Post and PBS and other publicity organs that don't want any deportations at any time, for any reason. 

A new report details the work of the U.S. Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office, which was closed by the Biden Administration, but reopened by Pres. Donald Trump when he reentered office last year. The VOICE Office serves as a comprehensive system to support victims and families who have been affected by crimes committed by individuals with a nexus to immigration violations. It provides callers with victim assistance support and referrals to local, state, and national resources and services. VOICE also helps submit victim impact statements. In the first year since its relaunch, the VOICE Office received 897 calls from people seeking help or information, according to the annual U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report covering January 23, 2025 to January 23, 2026. Although it is hotline for victims seeking support and not a hotline for reporting crime, the VOICE office collects information about the types of immigration-related crimes alleged and discussed during the calls. Four of the five most common crimes linked to immigration were violent: Assault: 35% Rape or Sexual Assault: 17% Homicide/Manslaughter: 10% Family/Intimate Partner Violence: 8% Stalking/Intimidation: 7% The report’s analysis of the location that calls come from shows the prevalence of immigration-linked crime across the country. By region, the most calls come from the South (37%), followed by the West (30%), Northeast (20%) and Midwest (12%). Florida was the state with the highest volume of calls, followed by California and Texas. The top five states accounted for slightly more than half of all reported cases: Florida: 14% California: 13% Texas: 10% Arizona: 7% New York: 7%

Monday's CNN This Morning seized on Lindsey Graham's description of JD Vance as the "architect" of the Iran deal — framing it as a potential political risk for the VP if the deal falters. A poisoned chalice? Graham, a close Trump ally and longtime Iran hawk, posted on X Sunday following President Trump's announcement of a memorandum of understanding to reopen the Strait of Hormuz: "I look forward to reviewing the final product and I believe it is imperative that the architect of the deal, Vice President Vance and his negotiating partners, be part of the process in presenting the final deal to Congress." USA Today White House reporter and CNN commentator Francesca Chambers said that Graham's comment put the deal "at the vice president's feet" and is "putting the onus on him if this doesn't work out." Host Audie Cornish hammered home Chambers' point: "Lindsey Graham, the hawk, who's been cheering this on the whole time, is trying to put the actual deal at the feet of JD Vance, who's not been cheering this on the whole time. So that if it goes sideways, everyone can say somehow Vance was behind a bad deal." Classic CNN: Suggest division and downside risk within the Trump orbit. CNN Sees Poisoned Chalice for JD in Iran Deal —- Gives Obama Pass for Undermining Trump Negotiations pic.twitter.com/tN0smzuoXb — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 15, 2026 Later, Cornish aired a clip of Barack Obama casting doubt on the Trump administration's efforts. Obama, in that pompous cadence that makes Scott Pelley sound positively self-deprecating, suggested any new agreement would likely be no better than his 2015 JCPOA, which he "had worked for a long stretch of time" before Trump withdrew it in 2018. "It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place," boasted Obama. So Obama decided to trumpet his own supposed success while publicly undermining President Trump during sensitive ongoing talks. The mullahs are surely digging Barack's rap. CNN media analyst Sara Fischer, instead of calling Obama out for his vainglorious, ill-timed intervention, offered a sympathetic gloss: Obama was on a "media tour" for his foundation and library: "I think he wants to remind the American people that what they did in 2015 was, in some ways, a more permanent solution than to what we have now." No mention of the JCPOA's documented flaws — sunset clauses, inadequate verification, billions in sanctions relief that flowed to Iranian proxies, or the regime's continued march toward nuclear breakout. No pushback on the unusual step of a former president publicly second-guessing a successor's diplomacy in real time. Just a friendly reminder of Obama's superior wisdom. Perhaps Barack should lay off the attacks on Trump and focus on ways to make the Obamalisk look less like a Klingon prison. Grow ivy on the walls, maybe? Par for the course at CNN. Highlight potential traps for Vance and the Trump administration. Treat Obama's snide self-indulgence with kid gloves.  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 6/15/26 6:17 am EDT FRANCESCA CHAMBERS: But I did want to just touch on one other thing that you were saying about the vice president for a minute, because he was called by Lindsey Graham the architect of this agreement, and that was really —- AUDIE CORNISH: That must have been surprising. CHAMBERS: Well, that was—but it was a very interesting comment, because it really put, Lindsey Graham, close ally of the administration, really putting this at the vice president's feet at this point. And so it's not just the comments that he's making publicly, the vice president, it's these other comments for coming from allies of the Trump administration, putting this, if it doesn't work out, at the vice president's feet. Last week I actually talked to the vice president about the Iran war, and he told me that he doesn't think it's gonna become a quagmire, that we're not even gonna be talking about this a year from now. So the one, the, the statement that you laid out isn't the only mile marker that he's putting forward here. CORNISH: But can I translate your statement? Lindsey Graham, the hawk, who's been cheering this on the whole time, is trying to put the actual deal at the feet of JD Vance, who's not been cheering this on the whole time, so that if it goes sideways, everyone can say somehow Vance was behind a bad deal. CHAMBERS: Well, I'm saying that, that Lindsey Graham is, in calling him the architect of this negotiation, this deal that's coming forward, and the vice president was very, very involved, is putting the onus on him if this doesn't work out. I'm not -—  CORNISH: So yes. So if it goes bad, everyone could be like, "It was him."  CHAMBERS: And he's saying that, and that time will tell. I'm saying that politically, it becomes a risk for the vice president at that point, when you have allies of the administration saying he was the architect. . . .  CORNISH: Former President Barack Obama says that when he negotiated a deal with Iran more than a decade ago, he did it without military intervention. Now we know that Trump withdrew the US from that agreement in his first term, this was in 2018.  But now Obama is saying that he's skeptical that a better deal has been produced under the current administration. BARACK OBAMA: It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different. Or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place, and had worked for, for a long stretch of time, before we, the United States, pulled out of it. CORNISH: Group chat is back. There's a lot of differences. We can go down the rabbit hole on that deal and how it dealt with inspections and verification. Why do you think Obama is speaking up now? We don't usually see him comment on policy in real time. SARA FISCHER: Well, one, I think he, he has broader communication goals around things that he's doing with his foundation and his library, so it's part of the media tour.  But then two, I think he wants to remind the American people that what they did in 2015 was, in some ways, a, a more permanent solution than to what we have now.