Hold onto your hats, folks—Taylor Taranto, a man once pardoned by President Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 events, is back in the legal spotlight with fresh allegations that have eyebrows raised across Washington, D.C.
From past convictions to recent suspicious activities near a congressman’s home, Taranto’s story is a whirlwind of controversy that raises serious questions about accountability and second chances, Fox News reported.
Taranto’s legal troubles began with his involvement in the January 6 Capitol events, for which he received a presidential pardon, but that grace didn’t keep him out of hot water for long.
Later, he was convicted for threatening Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and former President Barack Obama, showing a pattern of behavior that’s hard to ignore.
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols also found Taranto guilty of possessing firearms and ammunition illegally in his van near Obama’s D.C. residence, a move that screamed red flags.
Not stopping there, Taranto was caught on camera making a fake bomb threat against a Maryland government building, further cementing concerns about his judgment.
Fast forward to this week, and Taranto’s probation officer reported local police spotting him near Raskin’s Takoma Park, Maryland, home early Tuesday morning—an unsettling development for anyone paying attention.
Living out of his van and livestreaming on Rumble as a self-proclaimed “independent journalist investigating major crimes,” Taranto seems to be crafting a narrative that’s more fiction than fact.
In one such stream, he brazenly admitted, “he’s one of the guys that hates January 6 people, or more like Trump supporters,” referring to Raskin, as if proximity to a lawmaker’s home is just casual journalism (Taranto, via livestream).
Let’s unpack that quote—Taranto’s words drip with resentment, but they also reveal a dangerous obsession with figures who oppose his worldview, a mindset that doesn’t scream “harmless citizen.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Travis Wolf didn’t mince words either, warning that Taranto’s actions suggest he’s “on the path” to repeat the criminal antics of 2023, a chilling prospect for law enforcement (Wolf, court statement).
At a recent hearing, Judge Nichols ordered Taranto to hightail it back to Washington state, with a stern warning that custody awaits if he steps out of line again.
Nichols, clearly not playing games, scheduled a probation hearing for December 10 in Washington state and made it crystal clear he’s ready to lock Taranto up for any violations.
Prosecutors also raised alarms about Taranto’s mental health and potential breaches of supervised release, while his attorney pleaded for more time to review the case and a holiday return home.
Taranto promised to drive back by Friday noon, but with his track record—including livestreamed threats near a Maryland elementary school chosen for its closeness to Raskin’s residence—one wonders if promises mean much.
Controversy is swirling around Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Republican senators are caught between frustration and loyalty to President Donald Trump.
From mishandling sensitive information to questionable military decisions, Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon has sparked dissatisfaction among GOP lawmakers, though they’re quick to note that his fate ultimately rests with the president, as The Hill reports.
Let’s rewind to the start: Hegseth’s confirmation as secretary of Defense was a contentious battle, with past allegations of financial mismanagement and excessive drinking at nonprofits he led raising eyebrows. Despite this, he secured the role with a decisive vote from Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Fast forward to a bombshell incident involving Hegseth sharing sensitive military data on Signal, a commercial app, in a chat that accidentally included a journalist. A Pentagon inspector general report confirmed this lapse, with Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island slamming it as showing “reckless disregard for the safety of American servicemembers.” That’s a polite way of saying it’s a national security blunder of epic proportions.
Then there’s the Sept. 2 missile strike in the Caribbean, in which a follow-up attack targeted survivors of a suspected Venezuelan drug boat. The White House confirmed the strike happened, though senior officials and Navy Adm. Frank Bradley insist Hegseth didn’t directly order the killing of survivors. Still, his initial dismissal of a Washington Post report as “fake news” -- only for it to be verified a day later -- hasn’t helped his credibility.
Sen. Thom Tillis didn’t mince words on this flip-flop, stating, “Just have the information and don’t undermine your credibility by making a snap statement that proves to be either false or inadequate.” Ouch -- when a key supporter calls you out for lacking precision as the nation’s defense chief, it’s time to rethink your media strategy.
Adding fuel to the fire, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa described Hegseth’s leadership as “bumpy,” while withholding final judgment on the missile strike until more evidence emerges. She noted that military brass, including the Joint Chiefs chair, deemed the strike justified in a classified briefing. But that hesitation speaks volumes about the unease in GOP ranks.
Democrats aren’t holding back either, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanding Hegseth release tapes of the strike and testify publicly. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky echoed the call for transparency, pushing for video footage to be shown to the American public. When both sides agree on something, you know the pressure’s on.
Then there’s the Ukraine aid debacle earlier this year, in which Hegseth reportedly halted military shipments without full White House backing. A Reuters report highlighted the surprise this caused, and Tillis branded the move “amateurish.” For a party focused on strong national defense, that’s not a compliment.
Despite the mounting controversies, many Republican senators are treading carefully to avoid clashing with President Trump, who championed Hegseth from the start. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota dodged direct questions about confidence in Hegseth, instead crediting Trump’s broader policies for making the country safer. It’s a classic sidestep -- support the boss, not the baggage.
An anonymous GOP senator admitted there’s “a lot of frustration” within the party over Hegseth’s leadership, though defenders point to increased military recruitment as a win. Even so, moves like renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War have rubbed some lawmakers the wrong way. Boldness is one thing; recklessness is another.
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota summed up the GOP’s hands-off stance, saying, “It’s really a question for the president.” Translation: we’re not touching this hot potato -- let Trump decide. It’s loyalty over criticism, even when the missteps pile up.
Critics like Sen. Reed argue that Hegseth’s Signal messaging app mishap could have endangered U.S. personnel and jeopardized missions, a charge that’s hard to dismiss in a role that demands utmost caution. Meanwhile, Thune emphasized that the Senate Armed Services Committee will probe whether the missile strike broke any rules or international law. The clock is ticking for answers.
So where does this leave Hegseth? GOP senators are clearly uneasy -- some openly, others behind closed doors—but they’re deferring to Trump’s judgment rather than taking a stand. It’s a tightrope walk between principle and political allegiance, and one that leaves the Pentagon’s leadership in a precarious spot.
At the end of the day, Hegseth’s tenure is a lightning rod for debate, from operational blunders to policy disputes. While conservatives may appreciate his focus on a stronger military, the question remains whether these controversies outweigh the gains. Only time -- and Trump -- will tell if he stays or goes.
President Donald Trump just dropped a political bombshell by granting a full pardon to a Democratic congressman, proving once again that truth can be stranger than fiction.
In a stunning turn of events, Representative Henry Cuellar, a moderate Democrat from South Texas, and his wife, Imelda, received a "full and unconditional" pardon from Trump, following their indictment by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice for alleged bribery involving $600,000 from foreign entities.
Cuellar’s troubles began when he was indicted in May 2024, a move that raised eyebrows given his outspoken criticism of Biden’s border policies.
Long before the legal storm hit, Cuellar had been a vocal thorn in the side of the Biden administration, publicly challenging their approach to border security over 150 times on national media.
He warned early on that border issues would be a political flashpoint, urging the president to find a practical solution rather than sticking to progressive talking points.
The timing of the indictment—just 40 days before a primary race where $20 million was spent against him—smelled fishy to many, including Cuellar, who noted he had legal and ethics opinions backing his actions.
Enter Trump, who didn’t hesitate to call out what he saw as weaponized justice by the Biden administration against a member of their own party.
In his pardon statement, Trump declared, "For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents," framing Cuellar’s case as a prime example of political targeting.
Let’s be real—when a president targets a critic in his own party over policy disagreements, it’s not justice; it’s a power play dressed up in legal jargon.
Cuellar didn’t hold back his relief, stating, “I’m certainly very thankful to the president, and also very thankful to God. It was a very difficult time for my family, my daughters, my wife, a very difficult time, but we came through this.”
That raw gratitude cuts through the political noise, reminding us that behind every headline are real families weathering storms that most of us can’t imagine.
Despite the lifeline from Trump, Cuellar made it crystal clear he’s not jumping ship from the Democratic Party, insisting he’ll remain a conservative “blue dog” while still open to working across the aisle.
Interestingly, Cuellar revealed that members of Trump’s team have already reached out to collaborate on future initiatives, signaling a potential bridge between party lines.
While some might scoff at a Democrat cozying up to Trump’s camp, isn’t this the kind of bipartisanship we’ve been begging for, especially on issues like border security that affect every American?
Cuellar’s story isn’t just about a pardon; it’s a stark reminder that political vendettas can backfire, and sometimes, the most unexpected alliances can emerge from the ashes of partisan warfare.
A stunning public feud has erupted within House Republican leadership, exposing deep fissures over a critical defense policy issue.
This clash between Rep. Elise Stefanik and House Speaker Mike Johnson centers on a contentious provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets annual defense and national security priorities, Fox News reported.
The drama kicked off on a Monday evening when Stefanik, a senior GOP leader and chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, took to social media to blast Johnson for allegedly blocking her measure.
Stefanik’s provision aims to mandate congressional disclosure whenever the FBI launches counterintelligence probes into presidential or federal candidates, a response to past controversies like the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation.
She didn’t hold back, accusing Johnson of caving to Democratic influence and failing to combat what she calls government overreach. Her frustration is palpable, and it’s clear she sees this as a betrayal of core Republican principles to root out bureaucratic abuse.
By Tuesday morning, Stefanik doubled down after a briefing, claiming her suspicions were confirmed and pointing fingers at Johnson for aligning with Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., to shield entrenched interests.
Johnson, for his part, seemed blindsided by the public attack, insisting to reporters that Stefanik’s claims are unfounded. He emphasized his support for her proposal, expressing confusion over why she’s targeting him.
“Well, all of that is false,” Johnson told reporters, adding that he even texted Stefanik while campaigning to offer help in resolving the issue.
Johnson explained that the NDAA process requires provisions to pass through relevant committees, and Stefanik’s measure, falling under judiciary jurisdiction, hadn’t secured the necessary bipartisan approval.
This isn’t just a policy spat—it’s a window into the razor-thin majority Republicans hold in the House, where every internal disagreement risks derailing major legislation. Stefanik’s role on the House Armed Services Committee, which crafts the NDAA, gives her opposition extra weight.
Stefanik has drawn a line in the sand, threatening to vote against the NDAA if her provision isn’t included, calling it “dead on arrival” without her reform. That’s a bold move, considering the bill’s importance to national security policy.
Her reference to past FBI missteps, including testimony from former Director James Comey about notification failures during the 2016 investigation, underscores why she believes this transparency measure is non-negotiable.
Adding fuel to her fire, Stefanik highlighted revelations about Special Counsel Jack Smith accessing Republican lawmakers’ phone records without notice during probes into former President Donald Trump. It’s a stark reminder of why many conservatives distrust federal overreach.
Johnson, meanwhile, maintains he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and assist Stefanik, claiming the exclusion isn’t final and wasn’t even on his radar until the dispute erupted. His tone suggests a desire to mend fences, but the public nature of this rift makes reconciliation tricky.
Ultimately, this showdown isn’t just about one provision—it’s about whether Republican leadership can unify around a shared vision to curb what many see as a weaponized bureaucracy. With Stefanik’s accusations of Johnson “protecting the deep state” still ringing, the GOP must navigate this fracture carefully to avoid handing Democrats an easy win.
Hold onto your hats, folks—New York City’s sanctuary policies are under fire for reportedly shielding thousands of criminal unauthorized migrants from federal deportation.
According to Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, the Big Apple is currently harboring 7,169 known criminal unauthorized migrants, a situation she argues endangers public safety due to the city’s refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcement, Breitbart reported.
McLaughlin dropped this bombshell during a recent interview with Fox News, pointing a finger at sanctuary city rules that prevent local officials from turning over these individuals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Among this staggering number, McLaughlin highlighted that “hundreds of murderers, hundreds of sexual predators, drug traffickers, the worst of the worst” are housed in NYC jails.
Instead of facing deportation, these individuals are often released back onto the streets, free to potentially commit further crimes in sanctuary havens like New York or Chicago.
It’s a revolving door that McLaughlin warns could have dire consequences for law-abiding citizens.
McLaughlin didn’t hold back in criticizing certain politicians, specifically naming New York Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman for obstructing federal efforts to remove dangerous individuals.
She argued that if local leaders honored ICE detainers, there’d be no need for an increased federal presence on city streets.
“Dan Goldman and these other sanctuary city politicians,” McLaughlin noted, “they should agree to hand over those individuals, honor those detainers, and then we won’t have to flood the zone with our ICE law enforcement.”
Her point is sharp—if cooperation existed, we wouldn’t see federal officers dodging bricks and bottles, a subtle jab at the reported 1,150% spike in violence against ICE agents, as per recent DHS data.
McLaughlin painted a grim picture of what happens post-release, stating, “We’re seeing that these criminal illegal aliens are exiting the jails and going back onto New York or Chicago or these other sanctuary streets to re-perpetuate their crimes.”
That’s not just a statistic—it’s a warning bell for communities already grappling with crime rates.
On the flip side, Congressman Goldman has pushed back, claiming recent anti-ICE unrest in NYC stemmed from what he called “reckless behavior” by federal officers.
While sanctuary advocates argue these policies protect vulnerable populations, critics like McLaughlin counter that shielding known criminals undermines the very safety those policies claim to uphold.
The question remains—how many more chances should be given before public safety takes precedence over ideological stances? If cooperation with ICE could prevent even one tragedy, isn’t that worth a serious conversation, free from the usual political theater?
With just days to go, President Donald Trump has thrown his weight behind a key Tennessee congressional race, stirring up a storm of attention.
Two days before the special election for Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, Trump took to Truth Social to rally support for Republican candidate Matt Van Epps while sharply criticizing his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Aftyn Behn, Fox News reported.
Trump’s endorsement of Van Epps isn’t new—he formally backed the candidate earlier this year, a move Van Epps described as “an incredible honor.”
On Sunday, Trump posted a passionate call to action on Truth Social, urging Tennesseans to turn out for Van Epps in the special election.
He didn’t hold back on the urgency, stating, “all America First Patriots in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, who haven’t voted yet, to please GET OUT AND VOTE.” Let’s be honest, when Trump sounds the alarm like this, it’s a reminder that every vote counts in a race that could shape the district’s future.
Trump also emphasized his full confidence in Van Epps, giving him his “Complete and Total Endorsement” and promising the candidate “WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” That’s a hefty promise, but for many conservative voters, Trump’s word carries serious weight.
Turning his focus to Behn, Trump unleashed a barrage of critiques, alleging she opposes core values important to many Tennesseans.
He claimed Behn “hates Christianity, will take away your guns, wants Open Borders, Transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, and openly disdains Country music.” While these are strong accusations, they play into broader conservative concerns about progressive policies that seem out of step with Tennessee’s cultural heartbeat.
Trump insisted these views are well-documented, adding, “She said all of these things precisely, and without question — IT’S ON TAPE!” If true, such statements could alienate a significant chunk of voters in a deeply red district.
Van Epps, a lieutenant colonel in the Tennessee Army National Guard and former Army helicopter pilot, brings a background of service to the table. For many, his military record signals discipline and dedication—qualities conservatives often prioritize in leaders.
Trump painted Van Epps as a top-tier candidate under siege, warning that “The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat” him. It’s a classic narrative of the underdog patriot fighting against a well-funded progressive agenda.
Trump’s plea to not “take this Race for granted” underscores the stakes, suggesting even a strong candidate like Van Epps needs every supporter to show up. Complacency, after all, is the silent killer of many a campaign.
Meanwhile, Behn has found herself under the national spotlight for past statements that have raised eyebrows among conservatives. Her previous calls to cut funding for the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department have resurfaced, drawing questions about her stance on law enforcement.
Last week, on MS NOW’s “The Weekend,” host Catherine Rampell pressed Behn to explain her critical comments from 2020 about police. Behn sidestepped a direct defense, instead focusing on local solutions over federal or state overreach, which might not satisfy voters craving clarity on public safety.
Behn’s admitted aversion to country music and Nashville’s drinking culture also risks painting her as disconnected from the district’s identity. In a state where honky-tonks and heartfelt ballads are practically sacred, such views could be a tough sell. While her policy positions deserve fair debate, cultural missteps might just be the bigger hurdle in winning over Tennessee hearts.
Hold onto your boarding passes—President Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell that could ground flights over Venezuela for good.
Trump’s latest move to clamp down on drug trafficking and security threats from Venezuela includes a stark warning to airlines and pilots to treat the country’s airspace as a no-fly zone, alongside military actions and stern words for traffickers, Breitbart reported.
Let’s rewind to October, when Trump hinted at a willingness to engage in talks with Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, noting that Maduro had laid everything on the table to cling to power.
Fast forward to early October, and U.S. forces, under Trump’s direct command, struck a drug-smuggling vessel in international waters near Venezuela, taking out four narco-terrorists and seizing a hefty narcotics haul.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth didn’t mince words, confirming the vessel was part of a well-known trafficking route and signaling that such strikes are far from over.
Clearly, the administration isn’t playing games when it comes to cutting off drug pipelines that poison American communities.
Then came Trump’s announcement on Saturday via Truth Social, urging airlines, pilots, and even traffickers to steer clear of Venezuelan skies entirely.
As he put it, “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY” (Truth Social post by President Donald Trump). Well, that’s one way to send a message—direct, unapologetic, and with no room for misinterpretation.
While U.S. flights to Venezuela have been grounded since 2019 due to the socialist regime’s grip on the nation, some planes still crossed over its airspace—until now, that is.
On Thanksgiving, Trump doubled down during a call with military personnel, praising their work in deterring drug smugglers by sea and hinting at upcoming land operations.
In his words, “The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon. We warn them: Stop sending poison to our country” (Thanksgiving remarks by President Donald Trump). If that doesn’t put traffickers on notice, what will?
Trump’s focus on land routes shows a comprehensive strategy—sea, air, and now ground—to choke off the flow of narcotics into the United States.
By Sunday, the ripple effects were clear as international airlines started canceling flights to Venezuela after the FAA issued warnings about the risks of flying there.
This isn’t just a symbolic gesture; it’s a pragmatic response to a real threat, though one wonders how long travelers and businesses will feel the pinch of disrupted routes.
Between the airspace closure, military strikes, and designations like labeling the Cartel de los Soles a terrorist organization on Monday, the administration is hitting Venezuela’s drug networks from every angle—hard, fast, and without apology.
Buckle up, folks—War Secretary Pete Hegseth is under fire for allegedly ordering a no-survivors strike on a drug smuggling boat, and the controversy is hotter than a summer day in the Caribbean.
On September 2, the U.S. military conducted a strike against a speed boat suspected of carrying 11 members of a narco-terrorist group, sparking a fierce debate over a reported second attack on survivors that has Democrats crying foul and Hegseth defending the operation as a necessary blow against drug trafficking.
The initial strike targeted the vessel in the Caribbean Sea as part of Operation Southern Spear, a campaign to dismantle drug smuggling networks.
After the first hit, reports claim two individuals were spotted clinging to the wreckage, barely holding on.
According to a story by The Washington Post, a Joint Special Operations Command commander then ordered a second airstrike, allegedly following a verbal directive from Hegseth to eliminate everyone on board.
Four missiles in total were reportedly fired—two to ensure no crew survived and two more to sink the boat entirely, with the Pentagon justifying the follow-up strikes as a means to remove navigational hazards.
The Pentagon insists the strikes were designed to be “lethal, kinetic,” with a clear mission to halt drug trafficking and neutralize narco-terrorists tied to designated terrorist organizations.
Hegseth has come out swinging, dismissing the accusations as baseless and accusing the media of trying to tarnish the reputation of brave service members. “As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland,” Hegseth stated.
He doubled down, arguing the operation was fully compliant with U.S. and international law, vetted by top military and civilian legal experts up and down the chain of command.
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic lawmakers are not buying the explanations, demanding investigations and even floating the possibility of war crimes charges.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., scoffed at the Pentagon’s rationale, calling the idea of a small boat posing a marine hazard “patently absurd” and labeling the act of targeting survivors as outright illegal.
Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., echoed the call for transparency, insisting that Congress and the public deserve to see unedited footage and hear the radio orders from that day.
Adding fuel to the fire, an anonymous source who witnessed a live feed of the second strike warned that the public would be “horrified” if the footage ever surfaced—hardly a comforting thought.
Interestingly, after the September 2 incident, Pentagon protocols were updated to prioritize rescuing survivors, a shift that suggests even internal brass may have had second thoughts about the operation’s optics or ethics.
While President Trump shared video of the initial missile strike, the footage conveniently omitted the follow-up attacks, leaving many to wonder what the full story might reveal—and whether Hegseth’s staunch defense will hold under scrutiny or crumble like a house of cards.
Imagine your Thanksgiving table packed with political heavyweights, and guess who’s snagging the prime seat? A fresh poll from the Daily Mail and JL Partners crowns Donald Trump as the most desired guest for Americans’ holiday feasts, beating out familiar faces like Barack Obama, as the Mail reports. It’s a win for the MAGA crowd, though not without some eyebrow-raising caveats.
This survey of 1,246 registered U.S. voters, with a slim 3% margin of error, paints a fascinating picture of holiday preferences amid the usual partisan squabbles.
Trump grabbed 24% of the 841 responses, leaving Obama in the dust at 15%, while Kamala Harris and JD Vance trailed in third and fourth spots, respectively. For conservatives tired of the progressive agenda dominating dinner chatter, this feels like a small victory. Yet, let’s not carve the turkey just yet -- most Americans still aren’t eager to host Trump for the holiday.
When it comes to picking a single politician to share cranberry sauce with, Trump remains the undisputed champ. But the mood shifts when scenarios get more personal or collaborative. It’s as if folks admire his boldness from afar but aren’t ready to pass him the mashed potatoes.
Take the couples’ matchup: respondents had to choose between dining with Donald and Melania Trump or Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau paired with Katy Perry. A hefty 35% picked neither, 32% went for the Trumps, and 26% opted for the Canadian duo. Clearly, Trump’s charisma doesn’t always translate to a plus-one setting.
“A whopping 35 percent of all respondents said ‘neither,’” notes the Daily Mail and JL Partners poll. That’s a polite but firm rejection of both pairings, suggesting Americans might just want their turkey without a side of international drama. For conservatives, it’s a reminder that even Trump’s star power can’t win every room.
Then there’s the question of what role Trump might play at Thanksgiving beyond just showing up. The poll dug into which tasks Americans would trust him with, and the results are a bit of a roast. Spoiler: don’t expect him to whip up a pie.
A staggering 45% wouldn’t trust Trump to handle dessert, marking it as his least trusted gig. He also flunked in house decorating and table-setting duties, areas where folks seem to doubt his flair. It’s a funny mental image -- Trump wrestling with a tablecloth while the left chuckles from the sidelines.
“Americans would least trust Trump with making dessert, with 45 percent saying they would not have faith in him to do it at all,” the Daily Mail and JL Partners poll reveals. That’s a brutal verdict for a man known for bold moves, though perhaps conservatives can argue he’s better suited to leading the charge than baking it. Still, it stings to see such skepticism.
On the flip side, Trump shines when it comes to speaking roles, with the most trust placed in him to deliver the Thanksgiving toast. Carving the turkey came in as his second-strongest suit, showing Americans prefer his voice over his kitchen skills. For MAGA supporters, this aligns perfectly with his knack for commanding attention.
Media personalities also got their moment in the poll, with Ben Shapiro leading at 24% as a dream guest, followed closely by Candace Owens at 23% and Tucker Carlson at 18%. Among Republicans, Laura Ingraham edged out Carlson for top media pick, though Shapiro oddly landed as the least desirable for 22% of GOP respondents. It’s a curious split -- conservative voices are loved, yet not universally embraced even among their own.
These preferences highlight a broader trend: Americans, especially on the right, crave voices that challenge the woke narrative at their holiday tables. Shapiro and Owens resonate for their sharp takes, though the GOP’s mixed feelings toward Shapiro suggest not everyone’s ready for his brand of debate over pumpkin pie.
Thanksgiving often gets billed as a time to ditch partisan bickering, but this poll shows politics still sneaks into guest lists. Trump’s top billing as a solo guest is a nod to his enduring appeal among those fed up with establishment fluff. Yet the reluctance to invite him in other contexts hints at a nation still wrestling with his larger-than-life persona.
For conservatives, this data is a mixed bag worth chewing on alongside the holiday feast. Trump’s lead over Obama feels like a cultural pushback against years of progressive dominance, even if most wouldn’t open their doors to him. It’s a subtle reminder that admiration doesn’t always mean an invite.
So, as families gather this season, the question lingers: Would you save a seat for Trump? The poll suggests many would, but only if he sticks to toasting and skips the kitchen. For those on the right, it’s a chance to celebrate a small win while acknowledging the complex dance of politics at the dinner table.
Brace yourselves, patriots—wild rumors of the Justice Department turning on its own have just been slapped down hard.
The actual headline is a federal probe targeting Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) for allegedly manipulating mortgage rules by claiming two homes as primary residences for financial perks, while officials like Ed Martin and Bill Pulte remain clear of scrutiny, contrary to some media spin.
Let’s start at the beginning of this tangled web. Last year, reports surfaced showing Schiff listed properties in Maryland and California as his "principal residence" in various filings, potentially scoring better loan terms and tax breaks. Freddie Mac rules, however, allow only one such designation.
Evidence points to this dual claiming in several years, including 2009, 2011, and 2013, with contradictory filings for each home. It wasn’t until 2020 that Schiff updated his Maryland property to "secondary residence," a belated fix that raises questions.
Step in Bill Pulte, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director, who took decisive action. He submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department, alleging Schiff might have broken federal laws like wire fraud by falsifying records for favorable rates on his Maryland home from 2003 to 2019.
Pulte didn’t hold back on the gravity of the issue. "As regulator of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, we take very seriously allegations of mortgage fraud or other criminal activity," he declared in the referral. Such misconduct, he warned, could rattle the U.S. mortgage market’s stability.
Fast forward to the recent media frenzy. Outlets like the Associated Press and CNN pushed stories implying a grand jury was investigating Chief Pardon Attorney Ed Martin and Pulte for chasing Schiff’s alleged fraud. What a distracting sideshow that turned out to be!
A source with insider knowledge of the probe quickly debunked this narrative. "Ed Martin and Bill Pulte are not being investigated by a grand jury," the source insisted. The focus, including a subpoena to activist Christine Bish, remains on Schiff’s mortgage documents alone.
Chad Mizelle, former chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, piled on with a pointed rebuttal to the media claims. "Completely wrong," he said, suggesting the Justice Department is simply tightening its case against Schiff to avoid courtroom surprises. This isn’t a betrayal of their own—it’s strategic groundwork.
On the other side, Schiff isn’t taking this lying down. He’s branded the accusations as mere political retaliation and even launched a legal defense fund. But shouldn’t a public figure’s financial dealings be squeaky clean to begin with?
Pulte’s referral lays out damning specifics against Schiff. By allegedly listing both homes as primary, the senator reportedly gained lower interest rates and a $7,000 tax cut in California. That’s not a minor oops—it’s a potential abuse of the system.
Bish, who previously filed an ethics complaint against Schiff, was also pulled into the investigation with a subpoena. However, it’s strictly about gathering records tied to the mortgage fraud claims, not some broader conspiracy against Justice Department figures.
Why should everyday Americans care about this drama? Allegations of mortgage fraud by a prominent official erode trust in a system already bogged down by bureaucratic excess and progressive policies that often seem to shield the powerful.
Pulte’s caution about the housing market’s vulnerability hits home. If proven, Schiff’s actions could signal that the rules bend for the elite, a frustrating reality for citizens who follow them to the letter.
Ultimately, this saga is about fairness and accountability. When public servants are accused of gaming financial systems, it’s not just a scandal—it’s a blow to the stability many families depend on for their American dream. Let’s keep the focus on facts, not woke distractions.