Brace yourself for a Capitol Hill exodus that’s shaking up the political landscape as a staggering 36 House members pack their bags and call it quits ahead of next year’s midterm elections, Fox News reported.
This wave of retirements, spanning both Democrats and Republicans, signals a deeper frustration with the toxic partisanship and gridlock that have come to define Congress,
The retirements kicked off with announcements earlier this year, including from notable figures like moderate Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a retired Air Force general who’s battled through nine tough races in his Omaha district over the past decade.
Bacon, who revealed this summer he won’t seek a sixth term, summed up his disillusionment with a blunt confession to Fox News Digital: "The fire wasn’t there anymore."
Let’s unpack that—when a seasoned fighter like Bacon, who’s weathered countless political storms, admits the spark is gone, it’s a glaring red flag about the state of our legislative arena.
He’s not alone; with 21 Republicans and 15 Democrats bowing out, the tally reflects a bipartisan discontent, though the GOP feels the heavier hit as they scramble to defend a slim House majority.
While some departing Democrats, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 85, carry decades of service, the majority of retirees are surprisingly younger, fed up with the nastiness that’s infected Capitol Hill.
Take Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington of Texas, just 53 and chair of the House Budget Committee, who told Fox News Digital he views public office as "a temporary stint in stewardship, not a career."
That’s a refreshing nod to the Founding Fathers’ vision, but it also stings—when even rising stars see more value outside Congress than in it, what’s left for those still grinding through the partisan muck?
Then there’s Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, only 43, who penned a raw op-ed in the Bangor Daily News lamenting the "increasing incivility and plain nastiness" pervading politics.
Golden’s words cut deep, especially for those of us who long for a return to principled debate over petty name-calling, but they also highlight how progressive and far-right agendas have turned compromise into a dirty word.
Former Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire echoed this, noting to Fox News Digital that working across the aisle became "much more difficult" over her 12 years, as moderate GOP allies vanished.
Even major legislative victories, like the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s second-term domestic agenda—haven’t convinced some Republicans to stay.
David Wasserman of The Cook Report pointed out that many GOP members feel they’ve made their mark with this bill and now see "opportunities to be more impactful elsewhere," a sobering take on Congress’s diminishing allure.
Yet, amidst the gloom, Bacon offers a flicker of hope, telling Fox News Digital, "When folks move on, new people move in, and I know there’s good people out there," a reminder that fresh faces might just shake off the partisan cobwebs.
Tragedy struck Utah Valley University (UVU) with the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), during a campus event, raising serious questions about security failures.
The heartbreaking incident unfolded on Sept. 10 when Kirk was fatally shot while debating attendees at a TPUSA event, only to be followed by stunning revelations of ignored warnings from his security team, the Daily Caller reported.
Days before the tragedy, on Sept. 8, Brian Harpole of Integrity Security Solutions, who led Kirk’s security detail, flagged a critical vulnerability to UVU Police Chief Long.
Harpole specifically warned about student access to a rooftop near the event location at the Sorenson Center building, a spot disturbingly close to where Kirk would be speaking.
He urged either restricted access to the roof or permission for one of his team members to stand guard there, a reasonable request for any high-profile event.
Chief Long’s response, according to Harpole, was a casual assurance of “I got you covered,” a promise that now rings hollow in the wake of disaster.
On the day of the event, the alleged assassin exploited that very rooftop access Harpole had flagged, using it as a vantage point for the attack before escaping by dropping off the roof.
Video footage captured the suspect’s daring getaway, a chilling reminder of how preventable this might have been with basic precautions.
Authorities moved quickly after the shooting, arresting 22-year-old Tyler Robinson early on Sept. 12, accusing him of the fatal attack on Kirk.
Harpole’s frustration with UVU’s police response is palpable, as he shared correspondence with Chief Long that seems to show a tragic dismissal of legitimate concerns.
“On Monday before, this correspondence went to Chief Long. ‘Hello, Chief Long. We received this message today from the student group. There is a student roof access pretty close to where CK will be set up at the Utah Valley,’” Harpole recounted, painting a picture of proactive concern met with inaction.
“He comes back and his last correspondence was, ‘I got you covered.’ What else am I to do when a command level person from an accredited police department says, ‘I’ve got this area’?” Harpole added, a question that cuts to the heart of this preventable loss.
Shawn Ryan, reacting to Harpole’s revelations, couldn’t hide his shock, exclaiming, “Holy shit,” a sentiment many share as the details emerge.
UVU has remained silent, offering no immediate comment when reached by the Daily Caller News Foundation, leaving the public to wonder if accountability will ever surface. Isn’t it time for institutions to prioritize safety over optics, especially when conservative voices like Kirk’s are so often targeted in today’s hyper-polarized climate?
The assassination of Charlie Kirk isn’t just a loss for TPUSA; it’s a stark warning about the dangers of complacency in securing public events. If a simple post at a stairwell, as Harpole suggested, could have saved a life, why wasn’t it done? This tragedy demands answers, not excuses, and conservatives across the nation are watching to see if justice—and change—will follow.
Hold onto your weather maps, folks—Janice Dean, the beloved senior meteorologist and “Fox & Friends” host, is taking a much-needed breather from the Fox News spotlight.
Dean announced on Wednesday via social media that she’s stepping back from both her on-air duties and online presence to focus on health challenges that demand rest and recovery, the New York Post reported.
At 55, Dean has been a fixture at Fox News since 2004, bravely navigating her career while managing multiple sclerosis (MS), a diagnosis she received just a year after joining the network.
Multiple sclerosis, for those unfamiliar, is a tough neurological condition that messes with the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves, often damaging the protective myelin sheath and disrupting nerve signals.
Symptoms can range from balance issues to muscle spasms and tingling limbs, and while there’s no cure, treatments can help manage the progression—something Dean has faced head-on since her early days of overwhelming fatigue and numbness.
Back then, she chalked up her exhaustion and odd sensations to a grueling work schedule, but persistent problems pushed her to seek answers from doctors and neurologists, leading to her life-changing diagnosis.
Since then, Dean hasn’t just coped—she’s become a fierce advocate for the MS community, openly sharing her struggles and triumphs to inspire others battling this unpredictable disease.
Her latest announcement didn’t detail the specifics of her current health woes or how long she’ll be off the air, but it’s clear she’s prioritizing healing over hustle—a choice any sensible person can respect.
“I’m ok, but I’ve had some health issues that require rest and time to heal,” Dean shared on Facebook, adding a nod to Fox News for their supportive stance during this hiatus.
She also mentioned a recent trip to Rome with her husband, Sean, as a spiritual reset, a reminder that sometimes stepping away is the first step toward coming back stronger.
“The trip to Rome with [husband] Sean was a good place to start healing spiritually, and now I have to get back to feeling healthy and strong,” Dean wrote on Facebook, proving she’s tackling this with both heart and grit.
Now, let’s be real—while the progressive crowd might spin this as just another “personal journey” fluff piece, Dean’s transparency cuts through the noise of today’s over-sanitized, woke culture that often hides real struggles behind hashtags.
Her honesty about needing a break isn’t weakness; it’s a refreshing slap to the face of a society obsessed with non-stop productivity, showing that even high-profile conservatives value family and health over relentless grind.
Dean’s fans have rallied around her, flooding her posts with encouragement, and she’s taken the time to thank them, proving that community—real, not virtual—still matters in a world drowning in digital likes.
Here’s the bottom line: Janice Dean will return, and when she does, expect her to bring the same no-nonsense energy that’s made her a trusted voice at Fox, all while reminding us that strength isn’t just in showing up, but in knowing when to step back.
Imagine tuning into a high-stakes congressional hearing only to learn a lawmaker was texting a notorious figure like Jeffrey Epstein for real-time advice. That’s the bombshell dropped by newly released records from Epstein’s estate, exposing a curious exchange with Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett during a 2019 testimony by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. It’s a plot twist that raises eyebrows about influence and propriety in the halls of Congress.
These records, unveiled by the House Oversight Committee this month, paint a picture of Epstein messaging Plaskett as she sat on a panel grilling Cohen, with suggestions that appear to shape her line of questioning.
Let’s rewind to February 27, 2019, when Cohen’s testimony gripped the nation with revelations about the Trump Organization. Epstein, watching intently, fired off texts to someone on the panel—context and timestamps, as reviewed by The Washington Post, point squarely to Plaskett. It’s unsettling to think a figure with Epstein’s dark history had a direct line to a sitting delegate during such a pivotal moment.
In one exchange, Epstein nudged Plaskett to dig into “other henchmen” at the Trump Organization, as if scripting her next move. “Hes [sic] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org,” he texted, per the released documents. That’s not just a casual chat—it’s a playbook suggestion from a man whose own scandals were about to explode.
Plaskett’s reply? “Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn,” she shot back, showing she was dialed in and ready to act, according to the records. It’s hard not to wonder if this was just friendly banter or something more coordinated.
When Cohen name-dropped Rhona Graff, a Trump aide, Epstein pounced, texting Plaskett to call her the “keeper of secrets.” Sure enough, Plaskett soon pressed Cohen on Graff by name, mirroring Epstein’s tip. That kind of synchronicity doesn’t exactly scream independent thought.
Beyond the professional nudges, Epstein’s messages veered into the personal, complimenting Plaskett’s outfit and even asking if she was chewing on camera. She clarified it was just a nervous habit, chewing the inside of her mouth since middle school. It’s a quirky detail, but one that underscores how familiar this exchange seemed for a public hearing.
Epstein also inquired how long Plaskett would stick around at the hearing, as if keeping tabs on her schedule. For a man with no official role in Congress, that level of interest feels like overreach. It’s a reminder of how blurred lines can get when powerful figures mingle with elected officials.
Epstein’s ties to the Virgin Islands, where he owned two private islands, add another layer of discomfort to this story. He donated to various politicians, Plaskett included, as reported by Business Insider. That financial link, even if legal, casts a shadow over these interactions.
After reports of these texts surfaced on a recent Friday evening, Plaskett’s office pushed back, claiming she received messages from “staff, constituents and the public at large,” Epstein among them, during the hearing. They framed it as routine communication, nothing out of the ordinary. But let’s be honest—Epstein wasn’t your average constituent dropping a friendly note.
Her team also leaned on her background as a former prosecutor, emphasizing her work on sexual assault and trafficking cases. They insisted she welcomes any information to uncover truth. That’s a noble stance, but it sidesteps why someone with Epstein’s baggage was a go-to source during a live hearing.
Then there’s the messy aftermath of Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges. Plaskett’s office initially resisted returning his campaign contributions, only relenting under public pressure. It’s a flip-flop that doesn’t inspire confidence in where her priorities lie.
In 2023, Plaskett found herself named in a lawsuit by six Epstein accusers, alleging Virgin Islands officials either benefited from or enabled his trafficking network. That suit was dismissed with prejudice earlier this year, closing the legal chapter. Still, the association lingers like a bad aftertaste.
What’s the takeaway from this tangled web? These texts reveal a troubling coziness between a lawmaker and a man whose crimes would soon shock the world, all while she questioned a key witness on national television. It’s not illegal, but it’s a stark reminder that optics matter in public service.
Conservative voices often rail against the progressive elite for questionable alliances, and this incident fuels that fire without needing to exaggerate. Plaskett may have had pure intentions, but leaning on Epstein’s input—however minor—during a hearing is a misstep that undermines trust. In an era where accountability is demanded, this is a story that deserves scrutiny, not a shrug.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Indiana’s Republican-dominated state Senate just threw a curveball by refusing to redraw congressional maps, even with President Donald Trump breathing down their necks.
This bombshell decision, announced on Friday, means the Hoosier State won’t be reshuffling its districts before the 2026 midterm elections, despite intense White House lobbying, the New York Post reported.
The saga kicked off months ago when pressure started mounting from Trump and his team, pushing Indiana lawmakers to craft new maps that would tilt heavily in favor of Republicans for the upcoming congressional races.
Vice President JD Vance even made two trips to Indianapolis to twist some arms, while legislative leaders got a personal sit-down with Trump in the Oval Office.
Despite holding a supermajority in both chambers, Indiana Republicans—whose congressional delegation currently stands at seven to two over Democrats—found themselves split on the issue.
Some party members argue that with Democratic states sporting near-total blue delegations, Indiana should play hardball and aim for an all-Republican map, while others worry about the political fallout or question the ethics of such a move.
Governor Mike Braun, a fellow Republican, tried to force the issue last month by calling for a special session to get a vote on new districts.
Instead of a special session, lawmakers opted for an unusual move—starting the 2026 regular session early in December—but that plan has now been scrapped by the Senate.
Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray dropped the hammer on Friday, declaring that his caucus simply doesn’t have the votes to push redistricting through, with more than 15 of the 40 Republican senators standing in opposition.
“Over the last several months, Senate Republicans have given very serious and thoughtful consideration to the concept of redrawing our state’s congressional maps,” Bray stated. “Today, I’m announcing there are not enough votes to move that idea forward, and the Senate will not reconvene in December.”
Well, there you have it—Bray’s statement is a polite but firm slap to the administration’s ambitions, signaling that even in a red state like Indiana, not every Republican is ready to march lockstep with a gerrymandering agenda that could alienate voters.
State Sen. Kyle Walker, another Republican, echoed this sentiment on Thursday, noting that “the overwhelming majority of his constituents are against” redistricting, which guided his decision to oppose it. Talk about listening to the folks back home—Walker’s stance shows that grassroots voices can still cut through the noise of D.C. power plays.
While the Indiana House reportedly has the votes to support new maps, it remains uncertain if they’ll even convene in December without the Senate on board, further dimming the prospects of a redraw before the early February filing deadline for congressional races.
Across the country, the stakes are high—Democrats need just three seats to flip control of the U.S. House, and redistricting battles are heating up in states like Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio on the Republican side, while California and Virginia see Democratic efforts to redraw lines.
Back in Indiana, this Senate decision might just be the final nail in the coffin for now, as U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indianapolis, celebrated the news, suggesting it’s game over for redistricting—at least until the political winds shift again. For conservatives who value fair play over short-term gains, this pause might be a quiet victory against overreach, even if it frustrates some in the party’s upper echelons.
In a heartbreaking turn of events, a 32-year-old Chinese migrant met a grim fate while in ICE custody, raising urgent questions about the treatment of those detained by the federal government.
The story of Chaofeng Ge, found dead in a Pennsylvania detention center, has ignited a firestorm of concern over facility conditions and government transparency, as his family battles for answers through a lawsuit against ICE and Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security, as the Daily Mail reports.
Ge, who had entered the U.S. without authorization, was first intercepted by Border Patrol agents near Tecate, California, back in November 2023, charged with inadmissibility for lacking proper entry documentation.
By January 2024, Ge faced another arrest in Lower Paxton Township, Pennsylvania, accused of unauthorized access to someone else’s device, a charge to which he later pleaded guilty.
On July 31, 2024, he received a sentence of six to twelve months, with credit for time served, but his story took a darker turn just days later.
Tragically, on Aug. 5, 2024, Ge was discovered hanging in a shower stall at Moshannon Valley Processing Center at 5:20 a.m., with staff unable to revive him despite efforts ending 40 minutes later.
Official complaints paint a chilling picture: Ge was found with his hands and legs tied behind his back, a detail that fuels suspicion about how such a death could occur under supervision.
His family calls the circumstances mysterious, pointing to alleged isolation due to language barriers -- Ge spoke Mandarin, but staff reportedly made no effort to communicate or provide mental health support.
While some might scream “systemic failure” in a rush to push a progressive narrative, one must ask why basic decency couldn’t bridge a language gap in a taxpayer-funded facility.
Yanfeng Ge, Chaofeng’s brother, has taken legal action, suing ICE and DHS for stonewalling requests for records about the death, despite a Freedom of Information request filed on Sept. 9, 2024.
Yanfeng’s frustration is raw as he stated, “There is still so much left unknown about the circumstances of his death.”
That’s a fair grievance -- when a life ends in custody, shouldn’t the government prioritize clarity over bureaucratic dodging?
ICE Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin noted that “all in-custody deaths are tragic, taken seriously, and are thoroughly investigated by law enforcement,” but where’s the tangible follow-through for the Ge family?
No outreach from GEO Group, the private operator of the detention center, and no records released yet -- hard not to see this as a sidestep of accountability rather than a commitment to transparency.
While oversight is crucial, especially in facilities holding unauthorized migrants, this case begs the question: if the system can’t protect or even explain a death in custody, what’s the point of all the tough-on-borders rhetoric?
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has unleashed a pointed critique of Senate Democrats for their role in ending a grueling 43-day government shutdown without securing key healthcare provisions.
The firebrand congresswoman didn’t mince words on Wednesday, holding not just Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) but a broader swath of Senate Democrats accountable for a deal that left Affordable Care Act tax credits on the cutting room floor.
Let’s rewind to how this unfolded: the shutdown, a 43-day slog, finally ended after a bipartisan agreement brokered by what Ocasio-Cortez called “eight Democrats who coordinated” with Republicans, according to Politico.
While the deal reopened the government, it conspicuously failed to extend those critical healthcare subsidies—a miss that has conservatives nodding in agreement with Ocasio-Cortez’s frustration, albeit for different reasons.
After all, when government overreach balloons costs for everyday Americans, shouldn’t the priority be fiscal restraint over piling on more subsidies?
Schumer, for his part, didn’t personally back or vote for this agreement, but critics argue he failed to keep his caucus in line or block the deal from moving forward.
Ocasio-Cortez made it clear she’s not just pointing fingers at one man, stating, “This problem is much bigger than Leader Schumer."
That’s a rare moment of clarity—perhaps the progressive agenda’s obsession with centralized solutions is starting to crack under the weight of its own contradictions.
She also took the Senate to task for dropping the ball on healthcare, saying, “We had a responsibility to deliver on healthcare subsidies, and the Senate failed to do that.”
Her dissatisfaction with the outcome was palpable when asked about confidence in Schumer’s leadership, to which she replied she “certainly disagreed with what just happened.”
Conservatives might smirk here—when even the left’s rising stars question their own leaders, isn’t it a sign the Democrat machine is running on fumes?
Adding fuel to the fire, at least five House Democrats have openly called for Schumer to step down as Senate leader, though no senators have echoed that sentiment yet.
Whispers of a potential primary challenge against Schumer in 2028 have bubbled up, with some House Democrats quietly backing Ocasio-Cortez for such a run, though she’s stayed mum on her plans.
This isn’t the first time she’s clashed with Schumer—earlier this year, she criticized him for supporting Republican efforts to keep the government open, showing a pattern of discord.
For now, the congresswoman’s focus seems to be on holding the Senate accountable, and while her progressive priorities may not align with conservative values, her call for responsibility in government dealings strikes a chord worth considering.
Hold onto your hats, folks—the U.S. Supreme Court just sidestepped a cultural lightning rod by refusing to hear a challenge from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who dug in her heels against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
According to NCR Online, on November 10, the justices turned down Davis’s appeal, leaving intact the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that cemented same-sex marriage as a constitutional right across the nation.
Let’s rewind to 2015, when Davis, then a county clerk in Kentucky, made headlines by flat-out refusing to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple, citing her personal beliefs.
That decision landed her in hot water, with a federal jury later ordering her to pay a hefty $100,000 in damages and $260,000 in attorneys’ fees to the couple she denied.
Davis’s appeal wasn’t just about the money—it was a bold push to get the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, the landmark 5-4 decision that tossed out state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
This was the first major attempt to unravel that ruling, but the justices, perhaps wary of reopening a settled cultural debate, said “no thanks” to taking up the case.
Many legal minds saw this coming, questioning whether Davis’s case had the chops to challenge such a significant precedent as Obergefell.
Robert George, a Princeton legal scholar, noted, “One question undoubtedly in the minds of some justices is whether, despite its being wrongly decided — and a usurpation by the judiciary of democratic legislative authority — the doctrine of 'stare decisis' counsels leaving the decision in place.”
Translation: Even if some justices think Obergefell was a judicial overreach, the principle of sticking to past rulings might keep them from touching it—especially in a case as messy as this one.
Mathew Staver, Davis’s attorney from Liberty Counsel, didn’t mince words, stating, “[Kim Davis] was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings.”
While one can sympathize with Davis’s conviction, the law isn’t a feelings-based system, and Staver’s promise to keep fighting Obergefell feels like tilting at windmills when the Court won’t even hear the case.
Justice Clarence Thomas has hinted in past writings, like his concurrence in the Dobbs decision, that Obergefell and other due process precedents deserve a second look, a point Davis’s team leaned on heavily in their petition.
Yet, as Notre Dame’s Rick Garnett pointed out, this case never seemed like the right vehicle for such a monumental reversal, predicting the justices would pass on it due to its narrow, fact-specific nature.
On the flip side, voices like William Powell from Georgetown Law celebrated the outcome as a victory for same-sex couples, affirming their right to marry without fear of local officials playing gatekeeper.
While the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022 offers a federal safety net for existing same-sex and interracial unions, the broader cultural clash over marriage’s definition—echoed by groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who opposed Obergefell—shows this debate is far from over, even if the Court stays on the sidelines for now.
Hold onto your hats, folks—there’s a storm brewing among Senate Democrats as a progressive lawmaker calls for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s head on a political platter.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, has openly demanded that Senate Democrats ditch Schumer as their leader after a messy vote to reopen the government amid a 41-day shutdown, spotlighting a rift over healthcare subsidies and party unity, The Hill reported.
For 41 days, the federal government has been shuttered, leaving Americans frustrated and lawmakers scrambling.
During this deadlock, Schumer, alongside House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pushed hard against a House-passed funding bill, arguing it failed to extend critical Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Most Senate Democrats held the line, rejecting the bill 14 times on the Senate floor.
But on Sunday, the dam broke when eight members of the caucus—including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire—voted to move forward with the Republican-backed plan to restart government operations.
Enter Rep. Ro Khanna, a Silicon Valley progressive, who didn’t mince words on social media, blasting Schumer for failing to keep his team together on such a pivotal issue.
“Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Khanna declared, adding, “If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”
That’s a sharp jab, but let’s be real—when a party can’t rally around protecting something as fundamental as healthcare access, it’s no surprise folks are questioning the coach’s playbook.
Khanna isn’t alone in his critique; Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin piled on, pointing to Schumer’s apparent reluctance to back a Democratic mayoral candidate in New York City and his perceived weakness in negotiations.
Such public infighting isn’t just a bad look—it’s a signal that the progressive wing feels sidelined by leadership’s inability to secure wins on policies they hold dear.
After all, if your team is fracturing over a funding bill that ignores enhanced health insurance protections, what’s the point of claiming to champion the little guy?
On the flip side, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen defended the vote to reopen the government, noting that Republicans weren’t budging on adding healthcare subsidies no matter how long the shutdown dragged on.
“When I talk to my constituents in New Hampshire, you know what they say to me? They say, ‘Why can’t you all just work together to address the problems that are facing this country?’” Shaheen remarked.
While her plea for bipartisanship sounds noble, one has to wonder if caving to a bill that sidesteps crucial healthcare support is really the “working together” Americans want—or just a surrender to political gridlock.
Former Jets quarterback and commentator Mark Sanchez has been fired by Fox Sports ahead of his criminal trial for assaulting a truck driver.
“We can confirm that Mark Sanchez is no longer with the network. There will be no further comment at this time,” the network told the New York Post.
In October, Sanchez was arrested after a violent altercation outside a hotel in Indianapolis, where he was traveling to cover a Raiders-Colts game.
The 69-year-old victim, Perry Tole, sued Fox Sports for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging the network "knew or should have known” about Sanchez’s “unfitness as an employee, propensity for drinking and/or harmful conduct."
Sanchez, who was allegedly drunk during the late-night incident, was set off by the truck driver blocking an alley where Sanchez was doing sprints.
Tole said he stabbed Sanchez in self-defense after pepper spray failed to stop the crazed sports star, who allegedly threw Tole to the ground and slashed him through the cheek with his own knife - leaving Tole "permanently disfigured."
"This guy is trying to kill me,” Tole told police.
Tole suffered a "severe laceration to the side of his face, penetrating all the way through his left cheek," according to court documents, and the man's attorneys released a grisly photo of him spattered in blood in his hospital bed.
Sanchez, 38, was also seen on surveillance camera with a big blood stain on his shirt.
He was initially charged with misdemeanors, but prosecutors added a felony battery count due to the severity of the victim's injuries.
"This incident should never have happened,” Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said in a statement. “What began as a disagreement between a 38-year-old former professional athlete and a 69-year-old man should not have escalated into violence or left anyone seriously injured. As with any case, we will follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”
While Sanchez has not commented on his firing, his family issued a statement expressing "disappointment" at the turn of events.
“It’s been a long month for Mark as he continues to recover from serious injuries while also grieving the loss of a close friend,” Mark’s brother, Nick, said in a statement from the Sanchez family.
“While the recent news — and its timing — is understandably disappointing, our priority remains his continued healing and recovery. Mark deeply values his time at Fox and the exceptional colleagues he’s had the privilege to work with. Those relationships are meaningful and will endure.”