President Donald Trump’s grand vision for a fiscal overhaul just hit a brick wall. The House Budget Committee, in a stunning 21-16 vote, rejected his “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) on Friday, thanks to five Republican rebels who dared to defy the MAGA playbook, as the New York Post reports. Apparently, not everyone’s dazzled by “beautiful” promises.
The OBBB, a colossal reconciliation measure, crumbled under opposition from GOP fiscal hawks who warned it would balloon the federal deficit by $3.3 trillion over a decade, per the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. If Trump’s 2017 tax cuts -- barring IRS payments on tips, overtime, or Social Security -- are locked in permanently, that deficit could swell to $5.2 trillion by 2034. Talk about a pricey legacy, critics say.
Leading the charge against the bill were Reps. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, Andrew Clyde, and Lloyd Smucker, who refused to rubber-stamp the $3.8 trillion tax-cut package. Roy griped, “This bill falls profoundly short,” slamming its “backloaded savings” and “front-loaded spending.” Sounds like someone’s reading the fine print.
The bill’s text dropped Monday from the House Ways and Means Committee, setting the stage for Friday’s showdown. Roy and Norman didn’t even stick around for the full Budget Committee hearing, bolting after Chairman Jodey Arrington admitted the bill needed serious work. Only three GOP defectors were needed to tank it -- five was overkill.
“I do not anticipate us coming back today,” Arrington sighed, clearly frustrated by the chaos. The committee now plans to reconvene Sunday at 10 p.m. to salvage the measure. Good luck herding those cats.
Trump, predictably, didn’t take kindly to the rebellion. “Republicans MUST UNITE behind, ‘THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!’” he thundered, accusing dissenters of being “GRANDSTANDERS” who’ll let taxes skyrocket 65%. His math’s as creative as his rhetoric, but it’s not winning over the skeptics.
The bill’s Medicaid changes, slated for 2029, would curb benefits for “able-bodied” Americans and non-citizens getting emergency services. Democrats warn this could strip 8.6 million Americans from Medicaid, though Republicans counter that 1.4 million of those are illegal immigrants. Either way, it’s a political landmine.
The Congressional Budget Office noted that taxpayers shelled out $16 billion under Biden for emergency Medicaid services to illegal immigrants. Republicans argue the bill protects Medicaid for “those in real need,” as Trump put it. But cutting benefits to score points? Risky move.
Roy doubled down, warning, “We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are gonna pay the price.” His call for “serious reforms” before Sunday’s vote signals the fiscal hawks aren’t budging. Trump’s “beautiful” bill might need more than a weekend makeover.
House Speaker Mike Johnson scrambled Thursday to appease both fiscal hardliners and New York Republicans worried about the $30,000 state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. “If you do more on SALT, you have to find more in savings,” Johnson insisted, claiming the bill’s “very very close” to deficit-neutral. Wishful thinking, perhaps?
New York’s Nicole Malliotakis defended the bill, saying, “We successfully pushed back on New York’s Medicaid from being cut.” But her jab at dissenters -- “What these members are doing is telling the country that they want to see a $4 trillion tax increase” -- misses the mark. Fiscal restraint isn’t a tax hike; it’s common sense.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed $900 billion in cuts, including Medicaid work requirements, to offset the bill’s costs. Yet the CRFB’s $3.3 trillion deficit estimate suggests those cuts are a drop in the bucket. Numbers don’t lie, even if politicians try.
If the bill somehow clears the Budget Committee on Sunday, it could sail through the House and Senate with a simple majority via reconciliation. That’s a big “if,” given the GOP’s internal squabbles. Unity’s harder to come by than Trump’s superlatives.
Smucker, one of the five defectors, claimed his “no” vote was just “procedural” to keep the bill alive for Sunday’s redo. “I fully support the One Big Beautiful Bill,” he said, trying to thread the needle. Nice try, but actions speak louder than press releases.
Trump’s vision of tax cuts and Medicaid reform may sound bold, but it’s teetering on the edge of fiscal recklessness. The GOP rebels aren’t grandstanding -- they’re sounding the alarm on a bill that promises more than it can deliver. Sunday’s vote will show if “beautiful” can also mean “balanced.”
Bryan Malinowski, a respected Arkansas airport executive, didn’t wake up on March 19, 2024, expecting to die at the hands of federal agents.
The executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport was gunned down in his own home during a pre-dawn ATF raid, sparking outrage and a lawsuit from his grieving widow, Maria “Maer” Malinowski, who is now taking on the feds, as the New York Post reports.
Maria filed a federal lawsuit in Little Rock, accusing the ATF of reckless and negligent actions that led to her husband’s death. The raid, executed with a warrant tied to alleged gun sales, ended in tragedy when Bryan, a lifelong gun collector, was fatally shot. This isn’t just a widow’s cry for justice—it’s a warning shot against overzealous federal overreach.
The ATF claims Bryan fired first, injuring an agent, which forced them to return fire. But Maria’s lawsuit tells a different story: agents stormed in without properly announcing themselves, leaving Bryan to believe he was defending his home from intruders. Sounds like the ATF forgot the Constitution applies to them, too.
The lawsuit pulls no punches, alleging the ATF violated Bryan and Maria’s constitutional rights. “The Constitution requires reasonableness,” the filing states, slamming agents for failing to knock and announce their presence. The ATF thought “surprise” was a better strategy than following the law.
Bryan, described as a gun enthusiast who traded at weekend shows, had no clue he was under investigation. The ATF’s warrant accused him of buying over 150 firearms between May 2021 and February 2024 and reselling some without a dealer’s license. Since when does exercising your Second Amendment rights justify a deadly ambush?
Maria’s legal team is demanding a jury trial and unspecified damages for the “nightmare” she’s endured for 14 months. “Today’s lawsuit seeks justice,” she said in a news release, her words dripping with the pain of loss. The ATF, predictably, hid behind a “no comment” on ongoing litigation, as if silence absolves them.
On that fateful March morning, ATF agents descended on the Malinowski home in Little Rock. The warrant they carried was meant to address alleged unlicensed gun sales, but what unfolded was far from routine. Bryan, startled and unaware of the agents’ identity, grabbed a firearm -- any red-blooded American might do the same.
The ATF’s version is that Bryan shot an agent, leaving them no choice but to fire back. Yet Maria’s lawsuit argues the agents’ failure to identify themselves turned a lawful search into a deadly misunderstanding. If you’re going to raid a man’s castle, at least ring the doorbell first.
Bryan didn’t survive the encounter, succumbing to his injuries days later. The loss of a man who led a major airport and lived for his passion for firearms sent shockwaves through Arkansas. Actions have consequences, and the ATF’s trigger-happy approach left a widow to pick up the pieces.
The fallout was swift, with Arkansas Republican lawmakers calling out the ATF for answers. Their criticism highlighted a growing distrust in federal agencies that seem to operate with impunity. When a local prosecutor later deemed the agent’s actions justified, it only fueled the fire of public skepticism.
Bryan’s lifelong hobby of collecting and trading guns was no secret to those who knew him. He wasn’t running a cartel; he was a guy at gun shows, doing what millions of Americans do. The ATF’s decision to treat him like a kingpin raises serious questions about their priorities. Maria’s lawsuit isn’t just about her husband -- it’s about holding the government accountable. The filing accuses 10 agents and task force officers of acting with reckless disregard for the law. If the ATF can barge into your home without warning, who’s safe?
In assigning the federal agency a duty to prevent such scenarios, the lawsuit declares, “The ATF failed to do so, resulting in an entirely predictable, needless and tragic outcome." That line cuts deep, exposing the human cost of bureaucratic arrogance. Maria’s not just suing for money -- she’s demanding the ATF face the music for their botched raid.
The case is now in federal court, where a jury will decide if the ATF’s actions were as “justified” as they claim. For Maria, it’s personal: “Today’s lawsuit seeks justice for the nightmare I’ve been living.” Good luck to the ATF explaining why they thought storming a man’s home at dawn was the only option.
This story isn’t over, and neither is the fight against federal overreach. Bryan Malinowski’s death is a stark reminder that the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment aren’t just words on paper -- they’re rights worth defending. Maria’s lawsuit might just be the spark that forces the ATF to rethink its playbook.
Rep. Shri Thanedar’s quixotic quest to impeach President Donald Trump has crashed spectacularly into a wall of internal Democratic Party scorn.
The Michigan congressman, undeterred by reality, introduced seven articles of impeachment on Tuesday, only to be swiftly rebuked by his own party, as the Daily Mail reports. Turns out, even liberals have limits on their tolerance for political theater.
Weeks ago, Thanedar began his solo crusade to impeach Trump, culminating in a Tuesday House floor stunt. Charges ranged from bribery to obstruction of justice, a laundry list of grievances that failed to inspire his colleagues. This wasn’t a rallying cry; it was a cry for relevance.
Democrats, smelling a fiasco, held a closed-door meeting Wednesday to squash Thanedar’s plan. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler led the charge, dismissing the effort as a pointless distraction. The party’s message was clear: focus on governing, not grandstanding.
“This is the dumbest f***ing thing,” one anonymous Democrat told Axios, capturing the caucus’s raw frustration. The sentiment wasn’t isolated; another called Thanedar a “dumbs***,” proving civility takes a backseat when egos run amok. These aren’t zingers -- they’re warning shots.
Thanedar, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur turned politician, seemed blindsided by the backlash. “Some Democrats have called me lunatic,” he whined, conveniently noting Trump used the same insult. Equating party criticism with Trump’s barbs? That’s a stretch even for a rookie.
By Wednesday, Thanedar’s resolve crumbled under pressure. He announced he wouldn’t force a vote on impeachment, opting instead to “add to my articles” and “rally support.” Good luck with that -- his colleagues seem more likely to rally for his resignation.
“After talking with many colleagues, I have decided not to force a vote on impeachment today,” Thanedar said in a statement. The retreat was less a strategic pivot than a forced surrender to political gravity. Actions, as they say, have consequences.
At a press conference, Thanedar doubled down, vowing to revise his articles and win bipartisan support. “Instead, I will add to my articles of impeachment and continue to rally the support of both Democrats and Republicans,” he declared. Spoiler alert: Republicans aren’t lining up to join this circus.
Meanwhile, Trump, ever the showman, mocked the impeachment push at a Michigan rally celebrating his first 100 days. “What the hell did I do, they want to impeach me,” he quipped, delighting supporters. The crowd’s laughter underscored the absurdity of Thanedar’s gambit.
“Did I just hear I’m being impeached again? They’ve gone totally crazy,” Trump added, turning Thanedar’s stunt into rally fodder. The president’s glee was palpable, and why not? Thanedar handed him a political gift on a silver platter.
Thanedar’s colleagues weren’t laughing. A Democrat aide, dripping with disdain, told the Daily Mail, “Shri is killing his career so brutally you’d think it was one of his lab animals.” The jab referenced a report alleging Thanedar abandoned over 100 dogs at a research facility -- a scandal that haunts his impeachment crusade.
The dog controversy, reported earlier this year, paints Thanedar as a man with questionable judgment. Launching a doomed impeachment effort while dodging animal cruelty allegations? That’s not courage; it’s a masterclass in self-sabotage.
Thanedar isn’t entirely alone -- Rep. Al Green of Texas is also drafting impeachment articles against Trump. Green, however, hasn’t announced a timeline, suggesting he’s savvier about picking battles. Thanedar could learn a thing or two about reading the room.
For now, Thanedar’s impeachment dream is on life support, sustained only by his stubbornness. His party’s patience, however, is wearing thin, and bipartisan support remains a fantasy. Political careers have ended for less.
The lesson here is simple: grand gestures don’t win wars when your allies desert you. Thanedar’s impeachment flop proves even Democrats tire of woke posturing when it’s this blatantly futile. Karma, as they say, is a swift teacher.
Thieves in Slovenia have sunk to new lows, hacking off a bronze statue of Melania Trump at the ankles and making off with it.
The heist, which reeks of petty political vendetta, happened in Sevnica, Mrs. Trump's former hometown, as the New York Post reports, and this isn’t just theft -- it’s a slap at a woman who rose from Communist Yugoslavia to global prominence.
In a single brazen act on May 13, a bronze statue honoring Melania Trump was stolen after it was severed at the ankles in a field near Sevnica, Slovenia. The statue, anchored to a tree stump, was a tribute to the hometown hero born in Novo Mesto in 1970. Police were alerted the same day and launched an investigation, but the culprits remain at large.
The statue was the work of American artist Brad Downey, erected after a wooden predecessor was torched by arsonists in 2020. That earlier vandalism was bad enough, but this theft takes the cake, cutting Melania’s likeness off at the feet like some woke guillotine. It’s hard to see this as anything but a targeted attack on her legacy.
“The theft was reported on 13 May and immediately police officers visited the crime scene and launched an investigation,” a police spokesperson said. Well, good luck to them -- Slovenia’s not exactly crawling with bronze statue fences. The real question is whether this was a local grudge or a political hit job.
Downey, the artist behind the statue, isn’t holding his breath for justice. “I’m a bit sad that it’s gone,” he said. Sad? Try infuriated -- another piece of art honoring a conservative icon gets trashed, and the world just shrugs.
The artist is not wrong to suspect deeper motives. “My feeling is that it has something to do with the new election [of Donald Trump], but who knows, right?” he said. Oh, we know -- nothing screams “tolerance” like defacing a statue of a former first lady right after her husband’s political comeback.
Melania Trump, born in 1970, grew up in Sevnica when it was still part of Communist Yugoslavia -- a place where dreaming big wasn’t exactly encouraged. She defied those odds, becoming a global figure, only to have her hometown tributes repeatedly vandalized. It’s almost like success invites resentment from the perpetually aggrieved.
The wooden statue that preceded the bronze one was set ablaze in 2020, a fiery middle finger to Melania’s achievements. Arsonists didn’t just destroy art -- they tried to erase a symbol of aspiration. Funny how the “progressive” crowd loves to torch what they can’t control.
Now, the bronze replacement has been stolen, cut down like a trophy for some coward’s mantle. The thief’s hacksaw wasn’t just slicing metal -- it was carving out another chunk of respect for a woman who’s weathered more than her share of hate. Actions have consequences, and this one’s a disgrace.
The statue stood in a field, anchored to a tree stump -- a humble but proud nod to Melania’s roots. Cutting it off at the ankles feels symbolic, doesn’t it? Like trying to hobble the spirit of a woman who’s spent decades standing tall against critics. Sevnica’s loss isn’t just a statue; it’s a piece of its history. Melania’s journey from a small town to the White House put this place on the map. Yet some locals -- or outsiders -- seem hell-bent on erasing that pride.
The police investigation is ongoing, but don’t hold your breath for a quick resolution. Thieves who go to the trouble of sawing through bronze aren’t exactly leaving calling cards. Still, the truth has a way of surfacing, even in a world that loves to hide it.
This isn’t the first time Melania’s likeness has been targeted, and it probably won’t be the last. The 2020 arson was a wake-up call; this theft is a screaming alarm. When will people realize that tearing down symbols doesn’t erase the person they represent?
Brad Downey’s creation was more than art -- it was a statement of resilience. Replacing a burned wooden statue with a bronze one was a defiant act, a refusal to let vandals win. Too bad the mob doesn’t appreciate defiance when it’s not their own.
Melania Trump deserves better than having her legacy hacked apart in her hometown. If this theft is tied to political grudges, as Downey suspects, it’s just another reminder: the left’s “tolerance” stops where conservative icons begin. Slovenia -- and the world -- could use a refresher on respecting achievement over ideology.
Joe Biden’s team got caught red-handed. Judicial Watch’s latest document haul reveals a desperate scramble by the Biden White House and the former president’s lawyers to snag an early peek at Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on their client's classified document mishaps, as Just the News reports, and apparently, some folks thought they could charm their way into a sneak preview.
Through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judicial Watch pried loose 49 pages of Justice Department records showing the Biden administration’s relentless pressure on Hur. The conservative legal group’s victory exposes a saga of four requests for an advanced copy of the report, spanning October 2023 to January 2024. It’s like they thought persistence would wear down the special counsel.
The first salvo came via email on Oct. 18, 2023, just days after Hur grilled Biden about his handling of sensitive documents. Special counsel to the president, Richard Sauber, and Biden’s attorney Bob Bauer fired off a letter demanding an overview of the investigation and a chance to review the report before it hit the attorney general’s desk. Talk about trying to get ahead of the narrative.
Sauber and Bauer’s Oct. 18 letter didn’t stop at asking for a preview. They warned Hur that his report could stir up trouble in “every foreign capital” if it touched on national security procedures. Sounds like a not-so-subtle attempt to spook the special counsel into playing ball.
Hur, to his credit, didn’t budge right away. He told Biden’s team he’d “take their requests under consideration” but wasn’t ready to comply, according to the records. That’s the kind of spine you’d hope for when the White House comes knocking.
Undeterred, Biden’s crew kept up the pressure with additional requests on Oct. 31, 2023, Dec. 15, 2023, and Jan. 3, 2024. It’s almost comical how they thought spamming Hur’s inbox would get them the report early. Persistence is one thing; desperation is another.
By Jan. 9, 2024, Hur had had enough of the pestering and sent a nondisclosure agreement to Sauber and Biden’s legal team. That move screams, “Fine, but you’re signing on the dotted line first.” Smart play to keep things above board.
But Biden’s attorneys weren’t just after an early copy -- they had gripes about the report’s content. In a letter, they whined that Hur’s criticism of Biden’s memory was “prejudicial” and “inaccurate,” especially since the report concluded no charges were warranted. Cry me a river; if the shoe fits, wear it.
“We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate,” Biden’s lawyers wrote, clutching their pearls over the report’s language. They called it “highly prejudicial” to note Biden’s foggy recall of years-old events. Funny how they’re fine with selective memory until it’s called out.
Biden’s legal team went on to argue that discussing Biden’s memory was pointless since no trial would ever happen. “If the evidence does not establish guilt, then discussing the jury impact of President Biden’s hypothetical testimony at a trial that will never occur is entirely superfluous,” they huffed. Sounds like someone’s worried about public perception more than legal technicalities.
Judicial Watch's president, Tom Fitton, didn’t mince words about the findings. “These new records further show how desperate the Biden gang was to hide the full truth about Biden’s failing memory -- and criminality,” he said. Fitton’s got a point; this smells like a cover-up attempt from a mile away.
The records paint a picture of a White House scrambling to control the narrative around Biden’s document-handling fiasco. Four requests in four months? That’s not diligence; that’s panic.
Thanks to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the public gets a front-row seat to this political maneuvering. The 49 pages of documents lay bare the Biden team’s efforts to get ahead of Hur’s findings. Transparency: 1, White House spin: 0.
What’s particularly galling is the Biden team’s attempt to paint Hur’s memory jabs as unfair. If you’re going to handle classified documents like they’re grocery lists, don’t be shocked when your recall gets questioned. Actions have consequences, folks.
This saga proves one thing: no one’s above scrutiny, not even a former president. Judicial Watch’s dogged pursuit of the truth has exposed a White House more concerned with optics than accountability. Here’s hoping more documents come to light -- because this story’s far from over.
Hunter Biden’s fists were itching at a 2018 Super Bowl party, where he cornered CNN’s Jake Tapper with a threat to “knock you out.”
In a glitzy Minneapolis bash packed with celebrities and politicos, Hunter’s meltdown over perceived media slights stole the show, and Tapper’s new book, Original Sin, spills the tea on this clash while dishing on President Joe Biden’s health cover-up, as the Daily Mail reports, telling a tale of elite tantrums and media hypocrisy.
Picture the scene: Super Bowl LII pre-game, 2018, Minneapolis buzzing. Tapper, fresh off a handshake with Kevin McCarthy, strolls toward Hunter Biden. The vibe shifts fast -- Hunter’s not here for pleasantries.
Hunter slung an arm around Tapper, hissing he’d “knock you out” if they weren’t in public. Was it CNN’s coverage of his 2017 divorce and drug scandals? Tapper swears he never touched those stories, but Hunter’s rage didn’t care for facts.
Some whisper Hunter’s beef traced back to a bizarre claim: Tapper allegedly called him from an unknown number to break news of brother Beau’s death. Hunter supposedly told Tapper to “f*** off.” Tapper calls this nonsense, denying he’d ever dial up such a personal tragedy. “I’ve never even had his phone number,” Tapper insists, batting down the rumor mill. Yet Hunter’s Super Bowl showdown was real, fueled by his mistaken belief that Tapper smeared him over drugs and prostitutes. Classic case of shooting the messenger -- erroneously.
Fast-forward to 2025, and Tapper’s book, co-written with Alex Thompson, drops bombshells. Original Sin claims that Biden’s family and aides hid his “serious decline” while pushing a “narcissistic” re-election bid. Penguin’s synopsis doesn’t mince words: Biden’s choice was “shockingly reckless.”
“What you will learn makes President Biden’s decision to run seem self-delusional,” the publishing house teases. Over 200 interviews paint a damning picture of denial and deception. Yet critics smell hypocrisy -- didn’t CNN, Tapper included, play along with the charade?
Tapper moderated the June 2024 presidential debate, where Biden’s rambling on Medicare and taxes tanked his campaign. “Thank you, President Biden -- President Trump?” Tapper cut in, barely masking the disaster. Biden’s verbal flubs sparked bipartisan calls for his exit, and he folded weeks later.
Tapper is no stranger to Biden’s struggles. He moderated a 2020 debate and was among the few left-leaning hosts flagging Biden’s health pre-2024. But when Lara Trump mocked Biden’s stutter in 2020, Tapper pounced: “How do you think it makes kids with stutters feel?”
Defending Biden’s speech while ignoring his decline? That’s Tapper’s tightrope. Commenters on CNN’s story cry foul, accusing him of complicity in the cover-up. “Remove Tapper!” they demand, branding his book a deflection dodge.
Hunter’s baggage -- drug addiction, federal firearms convictions, and a cozy presidential pardon -- hardly helps the Biden brand. Actions have consequences, but not for the first son. His Super Bowl threat now reads like a tantrum from a man allergic to accountability.
Meanwhile, CNN is in turmoil -- 200 staffers axed for “minimal work,” per a senior source. Tapper, reportedly denied a raise, might be feeling the pinch. Writing a tell-all seems a savvy move when your network’s sinking.
Tapper quotes Toni Morrison to justify the tell-all project: “If there’s a book you want to read, you must write it.” Noble, but the timing reeks of opportunism. After years of softball coverage, he’s suddenly the truth-teller?
The MAGA crowd sees through the charade: Tapper’s book doesn’t absolve CNN’s role in propping up Biden. Hunter’s threat may have been a one-off, but the media’s selective blindness is a chronic condition. Time for accountability, not just page-turners.
Seashells spelling “86 47” on a beach sparked a firestorm when President Donald Trump accused former FBI Director James Comey of posting a coded assassination threat.
The Instagram photo, quickly deleted by Comey, ignited outrage among Republicans who see it as a dangerous provocation from a disgraced figure, as the Daily Mail reported, and Trump, never one to mince words, called it a clear message even a “child” could grasp.
Trump alleged that Comey’s post, showing shells arranged as “86 47,” was a deliberate call to “take out” the 47th president. The controversy erupted after Comey shared the image, later claiming he stumbled upon the shells during a beach walk and didn’t grasp their violent implications. His excuse, flimsier than a paper kite in a hurricane, has drawn fierce skepticism.
Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, has a history of stirring the pot, from leaking memos to mishandling the Clinton email probe. The “86” slang, meaning to “get rid of,” paired with Trump’s presidential number, fueled interpretations of a sinister intent. Republicans, smelling blood, demanded swift accountability for what they see as a reckless act.
In a Fox News interview with Bret Baier, Trump didn’t hold back, declaring, “He knew exactly what that meant.” He dismissed Comey’s claim of ignorance, arguing the former FBI chief was “competent enough” to understand the post’s weight. The interview, taped before Trump’s Middle East tour ended, aired Friday at 6 p.m.
“That meant assassination,” Trump told Baier, his voice brimming with conviction. He accused Comey of posting with a purpose, noting the backlash proved the public’s loyalty to his leadership. Comey’s history as a “dirty cop,” in Trump’s view, only deepens the post’s malice. Comey’s defense? He claimed the shells were a random find, photographed without grasping their violent undertones. “I oppose violence of any kind,” he said, explaining why he deleted the post. Such naivety from a former FBI director strains credulity, like a fox swearing it didn’t raid the henhouse.
Republicans wasted no time slamming Comey’s actions. Donald Trump Jr. took to X, branding Comey “vile” and accusing him of openly calling for his father’s death. The post’s timing, after two assassination attempts on Trump during his 2024 campaign, only heightened the fury.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced a joint DHS and Secret Service probe into the post as a presidential threat. “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of President Trump,” she stated on X. Actions have consequences, and Comey’s beachside “art” may land him in hot water.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard shredded Comey’s excuse, calling it “ridiculous and insane.” A former FBI director claiming ignorance of such a loaded symbol? Gabbard argued Comey’s authority makes his post a grave risk to Trump’s safety, demanding he face the music.
Comey’s claim of stumbling upon pre-arranged shells raised eyebrows. Commentators scoffed at the idea that he, a seasoned prosecutor, wouldn’t recognize the numbers’ implications. His swift deletion of the post only fueled suspicions that he knew exactly what he was doing.
Some Comey supporters argued “86” merely meant to “discard” or “veto,” suggesting a call for impeachment, not violence. Yet this defense crumbles when paired with “47,” a clear nod to Trump’s presidency. Republicans once used “86 46” against Biden, proving the phrase’s political sting.
Gabbard doubled down, insisting Comey’s actions endangered Trump’s life. “He should be held accountable and put behind bars,” she declared. Her words reflect a broader Republican sentiment: no one, not even a former FBI chief, is above the law.
Trump, leaving legal decisions to Attorney General Pam Bondi, called Comey’s post “terrible.” He noted Comey’s tainted past -- leaking memos, botching the Hillary Clinton probe -- makes leniency unlikely. Bondi’s team, Trump implied, will ensure justice isn’t blind to Comey’s antics.
Comey’s 2017 firing followed his controversial tenure, marked by the Clinton email saga that many Democrats blame for her 2016 loss. His post-firing email to FBI staff admitted a president can fire a director for “any reason.” Yet his latest stunt suggests he’s still itching for a fight with Trump.
The seashell saga underscores a hard truth: actions, especially from figures like Comey, ripple far beyond intent. With investigations underway, the former FBI director may soon learn that cryptic posts aren’t as innocent as a walk on the beach. Trump, unscathed, remains a lightning rod for loyalty and loathing alike.
President Donald Trump’s bold move to end birthright citizenship via executive order has slammed into a judicial brick wall, and now the Supreme Court is wrestling with the fallout.
On Thursday, the nation’s highest court dove into a heated debate—not about the order’s legality, but whether a single judge can slap a nationwide halt on it, as SCOTUS Blog reports, and in the process, the left’s love affair with universal injunctions is getting a reality check.
Trump signed the executive order at issue on Jan. 20, declaring that, starting Feb. 19, children born in the U.S. to illegal or temporary residents would no longer get automatic citizenship. This one-sentence bombshell sparked lawsuits from states, immigrant groups, and even pregnant women, all racing to block it before it kicked in. The Supreme Court’s job was to decide if federal judges can keep playing whack-a-mole with Trump’s agenda.
Back in Seattle, Judge John Coughenour didn’t mince words, calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” Nice try, but one judge’s opinion doesn’t rewrite the Constitution. The 14th Amendment’s promise of citizenship for those born here has been a legal sacred cow since it overruled Dred Scott in 1868.
Not just Coughenour -- judges in Maryland and Massachusetts, Deborah Boardman and Leo Sorokin, also issued injunctions to stop Trump’s order cold. Federal appeals courts refused to step in, leaving the Trump administration no choice but to beg the Supreme Court’s emergency docket for relief. Turns out, judicial overreach is a bipartisan sport these days.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case back on April 17, setting the stage for a Thursday's showdown. The Trump team argued they should at least be allowed to enforce parts of the order and develop guidance, even if specific challengers were protected. Sounds reasonable, unless you’re allergic to common sense.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer came out swinging, claiming universal injunctions are judicial overreach and a “bipartisan problem” plaguing the last five administrations. He’s not wrong -- judges acting like mini-dictators isn’t exactly what the Founders had in mind. Sauer also argued the order aligns with the 14th Amendment’s original intent, meant for children of former slaves, not illegal border-crossers.
The 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was front and center. In 1898, the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision confirmed that a San Francisco-born child of Chinese parents was a citizen. Justice Horace Gray called it the “ancient and fundamental rule” of birthright citizenship -- sorry, no loopholes for emperors.
But Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark argued that children of foreign citizens with ties to another country aren’t fully “subject” to U.S. jurisdiction. Sauer leaned into this, suggesting Trump’s order isn’t some radical departure but a return to constitutional roots. The left’s meltdown over this logic is predictable.
Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t buying it, snapping at Sauer that he was “dead wrong” about the order’s legality. She even quipped that “nobody’s going to lose in this case,” which sounds like a dodge to avoid the real issue. Kagan’s flair for drama doesn’t change the Constitution.
The court’s focus stayed on procedure, specifically, whether universal injunctions are a judicial power grab. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out the country “survived until the 1960s” without them, a not-so-subtle jab at modern judicial activism. Actions have consequences, and judges shouldn’t be rewriting policy from the bench.
Some justices, though, worried that swapping injunctions for class actions might be trading one mess for another. They questioned if class actions could handle the chaos of a policy like Trump’s. Fair point -- legal gymnastics won’t fix a broken immigration system. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum defended the injunctions, saying they prevent “chaos on the ground” where citizenship could flip-flop by state line. Chaos? Try telling that to the Border Patrol dealing with the real mess at the border.
Kelsi Corkran, representing private plaintiffs, claimed every court so far agrees that Trump’s order is “patently unlawful.” She warned that letting it move forward would bring “catastrophic consequences.” Hyperbole much? The only catastrophe is the open-border policies that got us here.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on the order’s scope, asking if it would apply to “all the newborns.” It’s a valid question -- logistics matter when you’re rewriting citizenship rules. The Trump team better have a plan beyond campaign promises.
A decision is expected by late June or early July 2025, leaving the nation on edge. The Supreme Court dodged the order’s constitutionality this time, but that fight’s coming. For now, Trump’s attempt to secure the border through executive action remains tangled in judicial red tape.
A reported 17 family members of Sinaloa Cartel leaders have crossed into the United States, raising eyebrows over an alleged deal with the Trump administration.
Mexico’s Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch confirmed the border crossing during a radio interview this week, as NBC News reports, and the move has sparked questions about what the U.S. government is offering as a deal in exchange.
Last week, these family members, tied to extradited cartel figure Ovidio Guzmán López, crossed from Tijuana into the U.S. Video evidence captured them with suitcases, greeted by U.S. agents at the border. Guzmán López, son of the notorious Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, faces multiple drug trafficking charges in the U.S.
The crossing followed negotiations between Guzmán López and U.S. authorities, according to García Harfuch. Rumors swirled that Guzmán López might plead guilty to avoid a trial. His lawyer had already hinted at talks with the Justice Department in January 2025.
García Harfuch suggested the family’s move was tied to a U.S. offer. “It is evident that his family is going to the U.S. because of a negotiation or an offer that the Department of Justice is giving him,” he said. The exact terms of this deal remain unclear. Notably, Mexican authorities were not pursuing these family members. This lack of action south of the border points to a U.S.-driven arrangement. The Trump administration has yet to share details with Mexican prosecutors, leaving many in the dark.
The Sinaloa Cartel, long a thorn in the side of law enforcement, is under intense U.S. scrutiny. Guzmán López, one of the brothers leading a cartel faction, was extradited in 2023. His family’s crossing adds a new layer to the ongoing saga.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Attorney General’s Office announced “narcoterrorism” charges against top cartel leaders. This marked a bold escalation, as the Trump administration has designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. The charges signal a no-holds-barred approach to dismantling these networks.
U.S. Attorney Adam Gordon, based in the Southern District of California, issued a stark warning to the Sinaloa Cartel. “You are no longer the hunters, you are the hunted,” Gordon declared. His words underscore the administration’s aggressive stance.
Gordon’s warning was direct and chilling. “You will be betrayed by your friends, you will be hounded by your enemies,” he said. He vowed that cartel leaders would face justice in U.S. courtrooms.
The family’s crossing has fueled speculation about the Trump administration’s strategy. By allowing cartel kin into the U.S., the government may be leveraging Guzmán López’s cooperation. Yet the lack of transparency raises concerns about accountability.
Mexican officials, sidelined in the process, have expressed frustration. García Harfuch’s confirmation was the first public acknowledgment of the crossing. The absence of U.S. communication with Mexico suggests a unilateral move.
The timing of the “narcoterrorism” charges adds complexity. Coming on the same day as García Harfuch’s interview, the charges may be part of a broader push. The Trump administration appears to be tightening the screws on the Sinaloa Cartel.
The sight of cartel family members crossing with U.S. agents in tow has stirred debate. For many Americans, it’s a troubling image amid ongoing border security concerns. The deal, while strategic, may not sit well with those demanding tougher immigration policies.
Guzmán López’s potential guilty plea could yield valuable intelligence. Disrupting the Sinaloa Cartel’s operations would be a win for law enforcement. But the optics of welcoming cartel relatives could undermine public trust.
As the Trump administration pursues its hardline stance, the nation watches closely. The fight against cartels is a priority for many working-class Americans battered by the drug crisis. How this deal plays out will test the government’s commitment to justice and sovereignty.
Tempers flared this week as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) battled GOP colleagues over Medicaid reform.
During a House Energy and Commerce panel markup, Ocasio-Cortez could be seen clashing with Republicans over unclear Medicaid work requirement exemptions for mothers who suffer miscarriages, as The Hill reports.
The committee debated legislation allowing pregnant or postpartum women to bypass Medicaid work rules. The incident unfolded Wednesday morning amid rising tensions between Democrats and Republicans over proposed Medicaid changes.
The proposed bill does not explicitly state whether miscarriages qualify for exemptions from Medicaid work requirements. Ocasio-Cortez pressed for clarity on this issue, seeking to ensure coverage for affected women. Her question sparked immediate pushback from GOP members.
Republican colleagues accused Ocasio-Cortez of addressing the hearing’s camera rather than engaging directly with representatives. Rep. Randy Weber of Texas remarked that she should focus on dialoging with committee members. This criticism set the stage for a contentious exchange.
Panel chair Rep. Buddy Carter, a Georgia Republican, declared Ocasio-Cortez out of order. He insisted the floor belonged to another representative, attempting to halt her line of questioning. Despite this, Ocasio-Cortez persisted in seeking answers about miscarriage coverage, stating that she was speaking to the American public through the camera. She emphasized that 13.7 million Americans rely on Medicaid. Many of these individuals, she noted, live in districts—including Republican ones—where up to 40% of constituents depend on the program.
“I’m talking to you because I work for you,” Ocasio-Cortez said, addressing the public directly. She argued that constituents deserve transparency about the legislative process. Her remarks underscored the stakes of the Medicaid reform debate.
Carter reiterated that Ocasio-Cortez was out of order, yielding the floor back to another member. The interruptions highlighted the deep partisan divide on the panel. Ocasio-Cortez refused to back down, calling the GOP’s comments disrespectful.
“I will not yield to disrespectful men,” she declared, pushing back against the interruptions. Her defiance resonated with some Democratic Party allies on the panel. The exchange escalated tensions further, overshadowing the policy discussion.
Rep. Yvette Clarke, a New York Democrat, came to Ocasio-Cortez’s defense. She argued that no member can dictate where another representative directs their gaze. Clarke’s support framed the incident as a matter of personal autonomy.
“She has the right to do so,” Clarke said, referring to Ocasio-Cortez’s choice to address the camera. Clarke emphasized that panel members cannot control their colleagues’ actions. Her remarks aimed to refocus attention on the substance of the debate.
The legislation under discussion aims to reform Medicaid requirements for millions of Americans. Pregnant and postpartum women would be exempt from work mandates under the proposal. However, the ambiguity surrounding miscarriage coverage remains a sticking point for some.
Ocasio-Cortez’s clash reflects broader partisan battles over Medicaid policy. Recent weeks have seen heightened friction between Democrats and Republicans over proposed cuts to the program. These disputes underscore differing visions for healthcare access in America.
The incident highlights the challenges of addressing sensitive issues like miscarriage in policy debates. Ocasio-Cortez’s push for clarity, she said, sought to protect vulnerable women navigating healthcare challenges. Yet, procedural conflicts derailed a substantive discussion on the issue.
As Medicaid serves millions, including in GOP districts, the stakes of reform are high. The panel’s inability to address Ocasio-Cortez’s question constructively could raise concerns about legislative priorities. This episode reveals the deep divides shaping America’s healthcare future.
