At the start of MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow’s weekly Monday program, the host took the moment of remembrance after the 82nd anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy to connect World War II and D-Day veterans to protestors across the country who claim to be anti-fascist in their protests against the current Trump Administration. After she displayed images of some protests, Maddow went through a call-to-action of more protests against ICE detention centers and alleged supporters. The one-day-a-week host gave a pretty basic and quick explanation of D-Day in her remembrance, as she described US troops as those who “braved impossible odds” and “stormed the beaches at Normandy so they could liberate France and ultimately liberate all of Western Europe from the Nazis, turn the tide against the fascists in World War II. Then, of course, Maddow turned the anniversary into a political exercise as she introduced “how that anniversary looked this weekend” in some of America that had little to do with D-Day or a victory over Nazi Germany and instead dealt with domestic issues such as immigration. Of course, the insinuation was that the protests against fascism were about Trump and his administration in the current political realm.   On her weekly program, Rachel Maddow connected the anniversary of D-Day to some protests over the weekend that claimed Trump was a fascist, something similar to what is constantly said on the airwaves of MS NOW. She then turned to promote more protests, mainly against ICE. pic.twitter.com/GFRKY6MfAY — Nick (@nspin310) June 9, 2026   Maddow listed events such as ones in Alabama: “Decatur, Alabama: June 6th, D-Day vets fought fascism.” She continued to list seven events in total as part of her connection to the Allied invasion of Normandy: Here's how it looked in Dallas, Texas: Honor D-Day Vets, resist fascism.  Here's how it looked in Vancouver, Washington: Vets beat fascism, we can too.  Here's how it looked in Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, this is a good one: D-Day heroes, the OG Antifa.  Similar idea in Lake Mary, Florida: World War II vets, first anti-fascists.  Raleigh, North Carolina: D-Day Heroes Fought Fascism.  Here's Los Angeles: Honor D-Day, fight fascism at home. Maddow then ended her run-through and stated, “literally hundreds of communities across the country doing things like that. This weekend for the anniversary of D-Day.” After she just compared the Trump administration to the fascists and Nazis, she had some calls for action with protests aganist Immigration policies and alleged partners, like Citizens Bank: Also, we just saw another set of targeted protests - a whole day of targeted protests against Citizens Bank for funding Trump's Immigration prisons. (...) All over the Northeast, people targeting Citizens Bank for their financial support of Trump's prison camps, trying to get Citizens Bank to drop that support.  She then called for her viewers to attend a protest in Maryland against a potential new detention center: Tomorrow, we're expecting another big protest in Hagerstown, Maryland, against a possible Trump prison camp they've been trying to put in just outside Hagerstown in a big warehouse in Williamsport, Maryland. Another big protest scheduled around that tomorrow morning, 9 AM, Hagerstown, Maryland. Beyond her decision to make any mention of D-Day about Trump, her call-to-action exemplified a larger point of Maddow and other personalities personally driving the existence of older protestors, like the ones she displayed, who have a high chance of being MS NOW viewers, who also have been constantly told on the airwaves that Republicans are fascists. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s The Rachel Maddow Show June 9, 2026 9:04:39 PM Eastern (...) RACHEL MADDOW: This weekend was the anniversary of D-Day, when U.S. Troops braved impossible odds to launch the largest seaborne invasion in history. They stormed the beaches at Normandy so they could liberate France and ultimately liberate all of Western Europe from the Nazis, turning the tide against the fascists in World War Two. Here's how that anniversary looked this weekend in Decatur, Alabama: June 6th, D-Day vets fought fascism.  Here's how it looked in Dallas, Texas: Honor D-Day Vets, resist fascism.  Here's how it looked in Vancouver, Washington: Vets beat fascists, we can too.  Here's how it looked in Hampton falls, New Hampshire, this is a good one: D-day heroes, the OG Antifa.  Similar idea in Lake Mary, Florida: World War II vets, first anti-fascists.  Raleigh, North Carolina: D-Day heroes fought fascism.  Here's Los Angeles: Honor D-Day, fight fascism at home. Literally hundreds of communities across the country doing things like that. This weekend for the anniversary of D-Day.  Also, we just saw another set of targeted protests - a whole day of targeted protests against Citizens Bank for funding Trump's Immigration prisons. Citizens Bank, for its part, they say they follow the law and they apply their standards consistently to all their clients. But that bank, Citizens Bank, is based in Rhode Island. They have branches all over the northeast. And all over the northeast this weekend we saw protests in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts. All over the Northeast, people targeting Citizens Bank for their financial support of Trump's prison camps, trying to get Citizens Bank to drop that support.  In Los Angeles, people protested this weekend to mark one year since Trump's federal agents started attacking that city, and particularly attacking immigrants in that city. In Charlotte, North Carolina, and Bluffton, South Carolina. This weekend, we saw protests against ICE and against ICE prison camps.  Tomorrow, we're expecting another big protest in Hagerstown, Maryland, against a possible Trump prison camp they've been trying to put in just outside Hagerstown in a big warehouse in Williamsport, Maryland. Another big protest scheduled around that tomorrow morning, 9 AM, Hagerstown, Maryland. (...)

Despite being steeped in scandals, ranging from his Nazi tattoo to accusations by women, Democrat U.S. Senate hopeful Graham Platner remains more favorable than unfavorable among U.S. adults who are Democrats, results of a new poll by The Economist/YouGov show. Among all U.S. adults polled June 5-8, 25% said they had an unfavorable opinion of Platner, nearly twice as many as the 14% who voiced a positive opinion of the candidate. Only three percent reported a “very favorable” opinion, while 17% rated their view of Platner as being “very unfavorable.” In contrast, 25% of Democrat adults said their view of Platner was favorable, more than the 20% who rated it unfavorable. With the accusations publicly leveled at him by women in his past who have come forward to speak out, Platner was viewed more negatively (21%) than positively (12%) by U.S. adult females. Among men, he was viewed unfavorably by 31% and favorably by 17%. Notably, 60% of the U.S. adults polled admitted they “don’t know” what their opinion is of Graham Platner, including at least half of those in all demographic categories. Even 55% of Democrats have no idea what they think of Platner. One reason six in ten adults “don’t know” how they view Platner appears to be the liberal legacy media’s reluctance to report on the Democrat’s scandals. NewsBusters has published multiple recent articles documenting how media have delayed reporting or downplayed the news of Platner’s scandals. For example, Managing Editor Curtis Houck has detailed how NBC and ABC put off reporting the allegations by women about their past relationships with Platner that broke just days before his primary.

In a hearing for the defamation case of Zachary Young v. The Associate Press on Tuesday, the AP’s lawyer argued to a panel of three judges for Florida’s First District Court of Appeal that the news organization’s own stylebook didn’t matter when determining the definition of a key word in their allegedly defamatory reporting. However, the AP Stylebook was the go-to standard for many newsrooms and students around the world. As NewsBusters previously reported, the AP’s use of the term “smuggling” was a key part of Young’s case against the newswire, which saw many outlets parrot its allegedly defamatory words. The hearing was part of Young’s hope to get his defamation lawsuits against AP and Puck News back on track after they were tossed out in August 2025. In a Facebook post from February 6 2019, the AP Stylebook wrote this about human smuggling: “Human smuggling or people smuggling typically involves transporting people across an international border illegally, with their consent, in exchange for a fee.” “Well, smuggling can be used in a rhetorical sense where it doesn't imply illegality, but that's not the way it was used in this article,” argued Young’s counsel Lisa Glass to the panel. Glass pointed directly to the definition in the AP’s own stylebook to make her case: So the article says, "Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan," and then talks about the funding for that. So, those are the definitional elements of the crime of human smuggling as recognized by federal and international law and also as recognized in the AP Stylebook, which says, which talks about smuggling as being cross-border illegal transport -- illegal movement of people across the border in exchange for money. And that’s exactly what AP reported, so they didn't report it in a rhetorical sense. In their rebuttal, AP’s counsel Charles Tobin, who also was part of the team who defended CNN during Young’s successful defamation case, completely dismissed the AP’s own published work as an appropriate citation of how the newswire should be mindful of definitions. Judge L. Clayton Roberts pressed him on it: ROBERTS: The AP publishes something called the AP Style Manual, correct? TOBIN: Correct. ROBERTS: And it defines “smuggling,” and the definition that the AP publishes for their reporters to use, and lots of other people use it, it says “smuggling” is an illegal activity. TOBIN: It says, “human smuggling” is an illegal activity, or “people smuggling,” the whole point of defining a term, Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case moment-to-moment within it as you're walking through a brief.   In a defamation hearing today, AP's lawyer argues to a panel of judges that their style guide doesn't matter. He argues that it's okay the AP didn't follow their own guidelines when they used a word their book gives a negative meaning that implied illegality to describe the… pic.twitter.com/vmVbu0ijtk — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 9, 2026   “The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case,” Tobin argued. Tobin’s argument was eyebrow raising given that he prefaced his comments with how important it was for legal professionals to have common definitions for words, but then rhetorically tossed away a stylebook for journalists and newsrooms, which provided the same function. “We just heard the attorney for the Associated Press get up here and say that its stylebook, which is a handbook for journalists, for students worldwide, does not apply to this case, that its reporter should not be held to what it says,” Glass proclaimed when it was time for her rebuttal. “Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that.”   Young's counsel Lisa Glass calls out the AP's lawyer for dismissing the AP Stylebook: (...) GLASS: We just heard the attorney for the Associated Press get up here and say that its style book, which is a handbook for journalists, for students worldwide, does not apply to this… pic.twitter.com/Ha8jhU9oxe — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 9, 2026   To provide a fuller context for how the AP used the phrase “human smuggling,” Glass noted Young provided the court with “40 examples of recent reporting by the AP, which were reported both before and after the article at issue that used ‘human smuggling,’ ‘people smuggling’ in exactly the way that its stylebook was intended; to describe criminal conduct.” No timeframe for a ruling was given for either of Young’s appeals before the proceeded were adjourned. NewsBusters will continue to track both cases closely. The full recording of both hearings is below.     The transcript of the relevant portions of the hearing are below. Click "expand" to read: Oral Argument - Zachary Young  v. AP - Florida 1DCA June 9, 2026 (…) LISA GLASS: Well, smuggling can be used in a rhetorical sense where it doesn't imply illegality, but that's not the way it was used in this article. And the trial court’s reasoning where the analogy about smuggling a candy bar divorces the term smuggle from the context in which it was used in the article. So the article says, "Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan," and then talks about the funding for that. So, those are the definitional elements of the crime of human smuggling as recognized by federal and international law and also as recognized in the AP Stylebook, which says, which talks about smuggling as being cross-border illegal transport -- illegal movement of people across the border in exchange for money. And that’s exactly what AP reported, so they didn't report it in a rhetorical sense. (…) CHARLES D. TOBIN: Your Honor, those are all pages 407 to 415 of the record. What is the testimony on which the word "smuggle" is based, and we would submit that for purposes of defamatory meaning when read in the context - JUDGE L. CLAYTON ROBERTS: The AP publishes something called the AP Style Manual, correct? TOBIN: Correct. ROBERTS: And it defines “smuggling,” and the definition that the AP publishes for their reporters to use, and lots of other people use it, it says “smuggling” is an illegal activity. TOBIN: It says, “human smuggling” is an illegal activity, or “people smuggling,” the whole point of defining a term, Your Honor, we do this in our briefs every day, is to use the term consistently from case-to-case moment-to-moment within it as you're walking through a brief. The AP did not use the terms in its Stylebook. The Stylebook is inapt as, it is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. And Your Honor, we haven't talked yet about Judge Winoker's question, which I think does drive the decision that the court should reach here, which is, how do you read something? What are the tools that the court uses to read something when somebody argues that they're all avail themselves of more than one meeting? And what you do is you look to the context for the defamatory meaning question, you look to the context of the entire publication. (…) GLASS: We just heard the attorney for the Associated Press get up here and say that its stylebook, which is a handbook for journalists, for students worldwide, does not apply to this case, that its reporter should not be held to what it says. Words matter. The AP created its own stylebook to ensure that. JUDGE THOMAS D. WINOKUR: But, I mean, defamation, the definition of it is that the public has been led to, believe, some falsity about somebody. So, why does the public care what the AP writes in its stylebook about what the definitions of words are? I'm not denying that the word “smuggle” might have some sort of a very negative connotation, but what does the AP Stylebook have to do with what the public thinks? GLASS: Well one of the purposes of the stylebook is to have consistency in reporting, and for especially in a hard news article like this, when a public reads it and they take it at face value, they know what human smuggling means. Below, we provided 40 examples of recent reporting by the AP, which were reported both before and after the article at issue that used “human smuggling,” “people smuggling” in exactly the way that its stylebook was intended; to describe criminal conduct. And I find it disingenuous to accept this one article from that manner of usage of the word that's dictated by the stylebook. Also it's not just one word which counsel kept repeating, it's just one word, it's just one word, no, it's a defined term, it's a phrase, it's not “smuggle” in isolation, it's smuggled people. (…)

Between Monday night and Tuesday morning, ABC and NBC used their flagship newscasts to not only trumpet far-left Los Angeles Councilwoman Nithya Raman overtaking independent Spencer Pratt for the coveted second place in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, but blasted those raising concerns or even grievances about the molasses-paced vote counting because, in their mind, it’s proof the country’s second-largest city knows what it’s doing. Predictably, Disney-owned ABC News had correspondents treating viewers like we’re stupid. On Monday’s World News Tonight, correspondent Kayna Whitworth reveled in the switch with “the upstart conservative candidate from reality TV” losing to “progressive council member, Nithya Raman” and stated as an accepted reality that “it can take weeks to get final results” in California because “80 percent of voters vote by mail” in the Golden State. Whitworth also discouraged any gripes as more or less “baseless claims of fraud” when “this is typical for California.” Monday on ABC’s ‘World News Tonight,’ correspondent Kayna Whitworth explained away California’s snail’s pace vote counting as proof of a secure election... “Now with Pratt trailing, Trump making baseless claims of fraud, citing how long it’s taking to count the ballots. But this… pic.twitter.com/4VsWG5tHg5 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 9, 2026 She even had the gall to argue the slowness is a sign of security: “[B]allots postmarked by election day can arrive up to a week later and still be counted, and election workers cross-check the signatures on those mail-in ballots. It’s not fast, but it’s meant to prevent voter fraud.” Tuesday’s Good Morning America wrought more profoundly pathetic spin. National correspondent Trevor Ault took a veiled jab at Pratt before insisting telling people to cut it out on complaining about the count: “His campaign was fully focused on critiquing the mayor, and it did generate a lot of traction online, but not enough traction with voters in the city of Los Angeles[.]” WATCH: ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ insisted on Tuesday that California and Los Angeles taking forever to count the votes is proof the city’s elections ARE secure... “[W]e know there's been a lot of questions on why it's taking California so long to count the votes. Well, 80… pic.twitter.com/PHdzprdKEf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 9, 2026 Ault then lamented “there’s been a lot of questions on why it’s taking California so long to count the votes,” but insisted this explanation was proof this “not...fast process” is actually a good thing: Now, we know there’s been a lot of questions on why it’s taking California so long to count the votes. Well, 80 percent of voters here vote by mail, and ballots postmarked by election day can arrive as late as today and still be counted. Plus, election workers are cross-checking the signatures on all of those mail-in ballots. It is not a very fast process, but it is meant to prevent voter fraud. Monday’s NBC Nightly News had the same arrogance. Anchor Tom Llamas denounced “growing unfounded claims tonight of fraud in the mayoral election” with President Trump “putting forward no evidence.” Correspondent Liz Kreutz facilitated the spin that taking over a week to count votes is well and good (click “expand”): KREUTZ: Pratt, the Republican political outsider, who ran after losing his home in the Palisades fire and surged late with viral ads railing against the city’s leadership. SPENCER PRATT [in ad]: This is where I live. They let my home burn down. KREUTZ: Tonight, Pratt’s saying there’s still hundreds of thousands of votes outstanding. The GOP gubernatorial candidates, Steve Hilton, blasting the process. STEVE HILTON [on FNC, 06/07/26]: This election shambles this fiasco where they’re saying is going to be like another month before we know the result fully. It’s just an example of how these people can’t run anything properly. KREUTZ: The L.A. County registrar pushing back. LA COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER & COUNTY CLERK DEAN LOGAN: Our job is to make sure that we process this ballots correctly, securely, accurately, and that does take time. KREUTZ: He says California’s universal vote-by-mail system causes delays. Mail-in ballots are counted so long as they’re postmarked by Election Day and arrive a full seven days after the election.  From inside a voting-counting facility, Kreutz doubled down: [Counting by hand] is just one of the steps in this very long process. You can see the workers here opening up all of the ballots, and then they make their way over here, Tom, to the highly secure tally room. There is no internet, no unauthorized personnel allowed in there. Officials say part of the delay is that more than 80 percent of all the ballots processed so far in this race are vote-by-mail.  Tuesday’s Today even framed the concerns about the speed as a nuisance for Democrat Mayor Karen Bass even though she too is a candidate. “L.A. Shake up. NBC News projecting former reality star Spencer Pratt’s bid to become mayor of Los Angeles now coming to an end. His third-place finish, falling just short of November’s runoff as the city’s current mayor addresses baseless claims of election fraud,” co-host Craig Melvin said in a tease. Kreutz was back with the story and first conceded “Spencer Pratt gained a lot of momentum, especially online, through his viral campaign ads railing against the city’s leadership, as well as this personal story of losing his home in the Palisades fire,” but still failed because Los Angeles is a “very blue city where Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans[.]” NBC's 'Today' really thinks we're stupid, and we're supposed to feel bad for Los Angeles electoral system and Mayor Karen Bass having to deal with those pesky voters saying things about it! pic.twitter.com/GOChAutR1a — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 9, 2026 She then made the turn to bashing those concerned about the process and evaporation of what had seemed like a ticket for Pratt to November: The race drawing national attention with some top Republicans — without evidence — claiming voter fraud, including President Trump posting on Truth Social: “Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the LA runoffs after the big lead he had...rigged elections.” But California’s election process often slower than other states more than 80 percent in this race voting by mail and those ballots are counted so long as they’re postmarked by Election Day. “The nonpartisan official in charge pushing back on fraud claims,” she boasted ahead of a soundbite from the Los Angeles County Registrar-recorder. For some reason, she even shoe-horned in an attempt at sympathy for Bass: KREUTZ: And Mayor Bass also firing back. [TO BASS] What do you make of the President’s claims and some of the claims by Spencer Pratt’s supporters that the Democrats have cheated in this election? BASS: Well, I mean, I think that that’s a familiar accusation that is made when one is losing. “Statewide, well over a million mail and ballots still need to be counted. You can see every single one of these ballots is being counted by hand. They then make their way over here to this highly secure tally room,” she declared ahead of raising the specter “Democrat Tom Steyer” could catch Republican Steve Hilton for second place in the gubernatorial election. CBS was far more muted about it and did not step on a series of rakes by insulting viewers. Monday’s CBS Evening News skipped the big change in the vote tally, while Tuesday’s CBS Mornings only had a 26-second news brief from co-host Gayle King that kicked off the second hour: We begin with this, though, a major shakeup in the race to be mayor of Los Angeles. Now it is down to two Democrats. Reality star Spencer Pratt, endorsed by President Trump, was running second for a long time, but fell to third place as the rest of the primary votes started coming in. City Counselor Nithya Raman, a democratic socialist, has surged ahead. She now will face mayor Karen Bass. That race is set for November. To see the relevant transcripts from June 8, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from June 9, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Can the Morning Joe crew possibly be this oblivious to its hypocrisy? The panel spent Tuesday morning blasting Republicans for raising questions about suspicious vote counting in the Los Angeles mayoral primary — then immediately launched its own sweeping conspiracy theory about how Republicans plan to steal the 2026 midterms. Mika Brzezinski led the way, claiming President Trump was "amplifying baseless claims of election fraud in California" after reality star Spencer Pratt, whom Trump endorsed, went from an eight-point election night lead for second place to finishing third—and thus out of the runoff—once mail-in ballots were counted. Trump had posted: "Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the LA runoffs after the big lead he had. Rigged elections." Mika retorted: "Here we go again." She then began spinning the anti-GOP conspiracy theory on the 2026 midterm elections: "I think the bigger picture is, there seems to be some sort of preparation going on here. That's just my analysis. But it doesn't feel good looking ahead to the midterms, the way these Republicans are behaving." Willie Geist concurred: "You're not alone in that thought, by the way, Mika." Jonathan Lemire eagerly joined in, warning that Republicans are "laying the groundwork" for two possible plays: claiming irregularities and interfering with the vote, or, "They could say, 'Well, the voting result is illegitimate, and we're not gonna honor it,' and therefore not give the Democrats, let's say, the House of Representatives." Richard Haass took the paranoia even further, describing a "two-part strategy" and "multi-phase, multi-prong strategy" that included redistricting, voter repression, ICE troops at polls in Democratic districts, seizing voting machines and ballot boxes, and ultimately mounting "the most concerted assault" on a "free and fair election this November" during America's 250th anniversary year. WATCH: Morning Joe crew blasts Trump on LA vote 'fraud'... then immediately floats massive GOP midterm conspiracy theory pic.twitter.com/EHT0KDCO8Z — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 9, 2026 Axios co-founder Jim VandeHei chimed in with this gem: "Every time you call into question whether or not our elections are valid, you weaken the soul of the country." VandeHei was oblivious to the fact that his own panel was doing exactly what he claims weakens a country's soul: preemptively calling into question the validity of this November's elections by painting Republicans as conspirators already plotting to overturn results. The hypocrisy is staggering. This is the same crew that spent years defending or ignoring Democratic election challenges — from Stacey Abrams' endless "Jim Crow" claims in Georgia to Hillary Clinton's refusal to accept 2016 and the Russia-collusion narrative. Yet when Republicans note strange swings in a blue-city primary, it's suddenly a dire threat to democracy and "preparing the ground" for assaulting the republic. Morning Joe’s hypocrisy meter is permanently pegged. Note: Although Mika rarely hesitates to make her points, she typically does so without being snide or nasty. But with Joe Scarborough away today, Mika borrowed one of her husband's disagreeable habits: condescendingly talking down to conservatives. Thus, describing California's ballot-counting process, she said: "I'll speak slowly for those who are confused," and proceeded to do so. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 6/9/26 6:06 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: President Trump amplifying baseless claims of election fraud in California. This continues as vote counts show his endorsed candidate, Spencer Pratt, has been defeated in the Los Angeles mayoral race. Trump took to social media yesterday, writing in part, quote, "Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the LA runoffs after the big lead he had. Rigged elections." Here we go again.  . . .  That's how California counts its ballots every year. I'll speak slowly for those who are confused.  . . .  But I think the bigger picture is, there seems to be some sort of preparation going on here. That's just my analysis. But it doesn't feel good looking ahead to the midterms, the way these Republicans are behaving. WILLIE GEIST: You're not alone in that thought, by the way, Mika.  . . .  JIM VANDEHEI: Yeah, I mean, it really sucks for democracy. This is the stuff you see happen in a broken country, in a Third World country, where they've not been able to govern effectively. Every time you call into question whether or not our elections are valid, you weaken the soul of the country. . . .  JONATHAN LEMIRE: What they're doing is laying the groundwork.  MIKA: Yeah, what's really going on? LEMIRE: Two different plays they could take while claiming conspiracies as we look towards November's midterms. They could claim irregularities, they can claim conspiracies and actively take measures to interfere with the vote.  Or, they could say, "Well, the voting result is illegitimate and we're not gonna honor it" and therefore not give the Democrats, let's say, the House of Representatives. RICHARD HAASS: Absolutely. So what we're seeing now is a two-part strategy. One is before people cast their votes, one is after.  The before, things like redistricting is gonna be a real issue. Voter repression, having ICE or other troops around and so forth, making it really hard to reach polling stations in largely Democratic districts. That's the pre-vote process.  Then you have after the votes, how do you ensure the integrity of the process? Don't be surprised in November if we see voting machines and ballot boxes seized, and so forth, in order to prevent fraud, but what we're gonna find is local officials may find themselves no longer in control of mail in ballots. And then, as you're right, this could end up in the House or whatever. So what we're seeing is a multi-phase, multi-prong strategy.  Here we are. This is the two hundred fiftieth year of this country. Yeah, well, here we are. We're meant to be honoring, celebrating the Declaration, and we probably right now are facing, in some ways, the most concerted assault, potentially. Hopefully won't happen, but these rumblings, this is really worrisome stuff. This is preparing the ground, as you say, for a serious pushback against, I think, a free and fair election this November. So people ought to take this seriously.