Hold onto your gavels, folksSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just dropped a comparison during a heated hearing that’s raising eyebrows across the political spectrum, as Breitbart reports.
In a recent Supreme Court session on the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a case known as Louisiana v. Callais took center stage, sparking debate over whether Louisiana’s congressional map, with two majority-Black districts, violates constitutional protections against racial gerrymandering.
The hearing tackled heavy questions about the 14th and 15th Amendments, specifically whether the map’s design amounts to unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering as claimed by the plaintiffs.
Enter Justice Jackson, who decided to frame the issue with an analogy that’s got conservatives scratching their heads -- she likened the challenges faced by Black American voters to those encountered by Americans with physical disabilities.
Drawing on the Americans with Disabilities Act, she argued that remedial actions in civil rights law often address disparities without proving discriminatory intent, much like making buildings accessible regardless of a builder’s motives.
“Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible. I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here,” Jackson stated during the hearing.
She pushed further, questioning why voting rights remedies couldn’t follow a similar logic -- addressing current disadvantages for minorities even if no explicit intent to discriminate exists.
“The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system,” Jackson argued, even using the term “disabled” to describe unequal processes, referencing a past Supreme Court case, Milliken v. Bradley.
While her point aims at fairness, equating racial challenges to physical disabilities feels like a stretch to many on the right, who see it as muddling distinct issues with loaded language.
Lawyer Edward Greim, representing the opposition, wasn’t buying the comparison, countering that remedies under laws like the ADA don’t rely on assumptions or stereotypes, unlike some race-based voting fixes.
“It’s whether the remedy that relates to race involves stereotyping voters and making assumptions about their politics and their views and thoughts based on their race and that’s the problem,” Greim asserted, pointing to a slippery slope in applying such logic to electoral maps.
His rebuttal hits a nerve for conservatives wary of policies that might pigeonhole individuals based on group identity rather than individual merit or behavior.
Justice Jackson pressed on, questioning whether racial disparities in voting access should simply be ignored if race-based remedies are off the table, a query that sounds noble but risks overcorrecting in ways that could divide more than unite.
Greim’s concern about stereotyping isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a reminder that good intentions can pave a path to policies that assume too much about people’s beliefs based on skin color, a notion that clashes with the colorblind ideal many conservatives hold dear.
While the debate in Louisiana v. Callais won’t settle overnight, it’s clear this case, and Jackson’s analogy, will fuel discussions about how far remedial action should go before it becomes another form of bias -- something worth watching as the court deliberates on balancing equality with fairness.
In a surprising move, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has just thrown a curveball by teaming up with Senate Democrats to demand back pay for furloughed federal workers amid a grinding government shutdown.
As the shutdown drags into its 16th day, Murkowski became the lone Republican to sign a bipartisan letter pressing the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure back wages for the 2.2 million federal employees caught in the crossfire.
Earlier this month, the OMB fired off a memo suggesting that back pay for furloughed workers hinges on Congress passing new appropriations, a stance that’s sparked uncertainty and frustration among Democrats and now, apparently, Murkowski.
On Wednesday, Murkowski joined forces with Democratic Senators like Tim Kaine and Mark Warner in signing a letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, urging clarity on back pay for federal workers idled by the shutdown.
The letter leans hard on the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, signed into law during President Trump’s first term, which promises back wages to affected employees once the government reopens.
Democrats argue this uncertainty is piling “unnecessary stress” on workers, and Murkowski’s signature suggests she’s not buying the OMB’s foot-dragging either.
The bipartisan letter didn’t mince words, stating, “The law is clear: all impacted government employees, regardless of excepted or furloughed status, are entitled to back pay after a government shutdown ends,” aligning with guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
It further noted, “OPM's shutdown guidance from September 2025 still states that furloughed federal workers will be provided back pay once the government reopens.”
Well, that sounds ironclad, but when the OMB is playing word games with appropriations, one wonders if this is less about law and more about political posturing—still, workers deserve better than being pawns in this mess.
On Tuesday, the Senate couldn’t muster the 60 votes needed to pass a House-approved bill that would’ve ended the shutdown and extended funding, with no additional Democrats jumping on board to break the deadlock.
Meanwhile, Vought stirred the pot on “The Charlie Kirk Show” Wednesday, casually mentioning that up to 10,000 federal employees could face termination during this ongoing fiasco.
That’s a gut punch to families already on edge, and while conservatives rightly push for leaner government, dangling pink slips over a shutdown feels like a low blow.
Let’s be real: government shutdowns are a blunt tool, often wielded to score points rather than solve problems, but the collateral damage to federal workers—many of whom aren’t pushing some progressive agenda—can’t be ignored.
Murkowski’s move might rankle some on the right who see any concession as weakness, yet there’s something to be said for standing by folks who didn’t sign up for this political cage match.
While the fight for fiscal responsibility remains crucial, using federal employees as bargaining chips risks alienating the very heartland voters who expect government to function, not flounder.
Brace yourselves, folks—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is throwing punches at her own party with the kind of gusto that could rattle even the sturdiest Capitol Hill egos.
In a fiery interview with the Washington Post, Greene unleashed a barrage of criticism against House Speaker Mike Johnson and what she calls the "weak" Republican men in Congress, accusing them of sidelining strong female lawmakers while cowering under leadership pressure, the Daily Mail reported.
Greene didn’t mince words when comparing Johnson to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, noting that McCarthy nurtured female talent while Johnson has seemingly pushed women to the back bench.
She painted a vivid picture of a boys’ club in the House, where men are more intimidated by assertive women than by tough policy debates.
"There's a lot of weak Republican men and they're more afraid of strong Republican women," Greene declared to the Washington Post, a statement that cuts right to the heart of GOP internal struggles.
Let’s unpack that—her point isn’t just about gender; it’s a jab at a lack of backbone among colleagues who, in her view, dodge confrontation to avoid a scolding from higher-ups.
On hot-button issues like the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files—tied to the notorious predator who exploited countless young women—Greene stands with Reps. Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert as the only GOP women backing a petition to make them public.
She suggests her male counterparts can’t grasp the urgency of this cause, perhaps too worried about ruffling feathers at the top.
After all, when the White House labels such support a "hostile act," it’s no surprise some might shy away from the fight.
Greene’s frustration extends to specific slights, like the treatment of Rep. Elise Stefanik, who was handed what Greene called an "honorary bulls*** role" after her UN ambassadorship nomination fell through.
While Stefanik was asked to stay in the House due to the slim Republican majority, a male colleague involved in controversy was elevated to the UN post instead—a disparity Greene sees as blatantly unfair.
"She gets shafted, he gets rewarded," Greene told the Washington Post, hinting at a deeper bias against women in power.
Beyond gender, Greene isn’t afraid to break ranks on policy, from questioning mass deportation strategies to supporting efforts to extend health care subsidies, even if it means aligning with Democrats.
She’s also vocal about foreign aid, decrying massive sums sent overseas while Americans grapple with soaring insurance costs, a stance that’s earned her sharp rebukes from fellow Republicans.
Yet, Greene remains unshaken, confident her district backs her rebel streak since she campaigned on challenging the GOP establishment—and won.
Hold onto your hats, folks—another media storm has erupted over a supposed Qatari military base on American soil, only to be revealed as a tempest in a teapot.
Last week’s uproar among MAGA Republicans, sparked by reports of Qatari pilots training at an Idaho air base, has been chalked up to sloppy reporting and a game of telephone gone wrong, The Hill reported.
The controversy kicked off on Friday when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a plan to establish a Qatar Emiri Air Force facility at Mountain Home Air Base in Idaho, complete with Qatari F-15 jets and pilots.
That phrasing lit a fire under some GOP figures who assumed this meant a full-blown foreign military outpost on U.S. turf, a notion that spread like wildfire.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer took to social media with a flurry of posts, decrying the idea of an Islamic nation setting up shop stateside and even threatening to sit out future votes.
Loomer’s outrage, while passionate, seems to have missed the mark, as her posts painted a picture of betrayal that doesn’t quite match the facts on the ground.
Quick to douse the flames, Qatar’s media attaché to the U.S. explained this isn’t a stand-alone base but a dedicated training space within an existing American installation, locked in for a 10-year partnership.
Vice President Vance jumped into the fray on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News, calling the whole brouhaha a fabrication born of misreporting rather than Pentagon missteps.
“This is largely a fake story,” Vance declared, stressing that joint training with allied pilots is routine and dismissing any notion of a foreign base on our soil. (Source: Vice President Vance)
“We’re not going to let a foreign country have an actual base on American soil,” Vance added, taking a swipe at the media for fanning unnecessary panic. (Source: Vice President Vance)
Let’s be honest—while Vance’s point about joint operations holds water, the initial wording from Hegseth didn’t exactly help clarify things for a skeptical conservative base.
Speaking of Hegseth, he doubled down on the U.S.-Qatar defense ties during a Pentagon address alongside Qatari Defense Minister Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, praising their support for American troops at Al Udeid base in Qatar.
The Trump administration has indeed deepened connections with Qatar, pointing to their role in brokering peace between Israel and Hamas in Gaza as a key achievement.
Earlier this month, an executive order from Trump bolstered U.S. protection for Qatar after an Israeli strike in Doha claimed six lives, including a Qatari security officer, further cementing this alliance.
Yet, for many on the right, this cozy relationship raises eyebrows, especially when voices like Loomer’s echo a deep distrust of Qatar’s intentions—though her rhetoric may overstep into territory that clouds the real policy debate.
Brace yourself for a book tour that’s less about pages and more about political firestorms.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris found herself in the crosshairs of pro-Palestine activists during a recent stop in Chicago, where her memoir promotion turned into a shouting match over foreign policy, the Daily Caller reported. It’s a stark reminder that public figures can’t escape the weight of global issues, even when they’re hawking personal stories.
At this Chicago event for her book “107 Days,” Harris endured multiple interruptions from activists decrying her perceived role in the Gaza conflict, echoing similar disruptions from an earlier stop in New York City.
Saturday’s event saw Harris in discussion with journalist Michael Norris when a female heckler unleashed a verbal barrage, accusing her of supporting atrocities in Gaza. The crowd wasn’t having it, demanding security step in, and the protester was promptly shown the door.
The heckler didn’t hold back, shouting, “Your legacy is genocide! This is what you did,” directly at Harris, laying the blame squarely at her feet. Let’s be real—such accusations are heavy, but they sidestep the reality of who actually wields executive power in Washington.
Harris, unfazed, shot back with a pointed reminder of her current status. “You know what? I am not president of the United States,” she said, urging the protester to take her grievances to the White House instead. The audience roared with approval, clearly appreciating the deflection of responsibility to the sitting commander-in-chief.
But the drama didn’t end there—a second activist branded Harris a “war criminal,” while a male heckler echoed the genocide claim, insisting her legacy is tied to the conflict. It’s a tough crowd when your book signing feels more like a war crimes tribunal. One has to wonder if these activists are targeting the right figure for their frustrations.
This isn’t the first time Harris’s tour has been derailed by such protests. A similar scene unfolded in New York City, where she offered the same defense—pointing out her lack of authority over the Israel-Hamas situation. It’s a consistent playbook, but does it really address the underlying anger?
Meanwhile, Harris’s memoir itself isn’t winning universal praise, even among her own party. Advisers have called the book “divisive” and an “embarrassment” for both Harris and the Democratic establishment. When your own team is throwing shade, it’s hard to claim a literary victory.
The backdrop to these protests is a shifting landscape in the Middle East, where Israel and Hamas have agreed to the initial phase of a deal brokered by President Donald Trump. This agreement includes freeing hostages and repositioning Israeli troops in Gaza—a step toward de-escalation. It’s a development that might temper some criticism, if only the news could reach the hecklers.
Adding to the geopolitical context, President Trump is set to travel to Israel on Sunday afternoon to mark this agreement. It’s a moment of diplomatic spotlight, one that contrasts sharply with Harris’s current role on the sidelines. Her detractors might note who’s actually steering the ship on these issues.
Back to the book tour, it’s clear Harris is navigating a minefield of public opinion. The accusations of complicity in Gaza are emotionally charged, but they often ignore the limits of her influence as a former vice president. It’s easier to yell at a book event than to engage with the complexities of policy-making.
Still, the optics aren’t great for Harris when her memoir—meant to reflect on her political journey—becomes a lightning rod for international grievances. One might argue she’s paying the price for a progressive agenda that’s long struggled to balance domestic image with foreign policy realities.
Critics within her party aren’t helping, as their harsh words about the book paint Harris as out of touch with even her base. When your own advisers are calling your work an embarrassment, it’s a signal that the narrative is slipping out of control.
At the end of the day, Harris’s Chicago event shows how deeply the Israel-Hamas conflict resonates, even in personal, non-political settings. Protesters have every right to voice their concerns, but targeting someone without current executive power feels like a misdirected punch.
As Trump prepares to celebrate a potential breakthrough in the Middle East, Harris is left fending off hecklers at home. It’s a tale of two political realities—one shaping global outcomes, the other stuck defending a memoir amid cries of “war criminal.” Perhaps it’s time for activists to redirect their energy toward those actively crafting policy, rather than a figure signing books.
Brace yourselves, folks—Darius McCrary, forever etched in our minds as Eddie Winslow from "Family Matters," has been snagged in a jaw-dropping bust at the U.S.-Mexico border.
McCrary was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol in California on felony charges linked to a fugitive warrant over a missed court date tied to a child support dispute, and now he’s locked up in a San Diego jail with no bail in sight, Fox News reported.
The incident went down on a Sunday, per arrest records, as McCrary was reportedly near the border while involved in a project across in Tijuana.
According to his representative, Ann Barlow, this wasn’t a sneaky border hop but a charitable act gone south. "Darius was picked up at the Border of Mexico because he was partnering with a real estate developer that is building homes for the homeless in Tijuana, Mexico," Barlow told Fox News Digital. If that’s the case, it’s a stinging twist that helping others landed him in handcuffs, though some might raise an eyebrow at the story’s timing.
The felony warrant stems from a missed court appearance in Michigan related to an ongoing child support conflict.
Oakland County sent a notice to McCrary’s PO Box, giving him a mere three days to appear, which feels like a setup for failure to anyone who’s ever dealt with snail mail.
Barlow elaborated on the mishap, stating, "Unfortunately, Darius had COVID therefore did not check his PO Box until the day after his court date." It’s a relatable excuse in a post-pandemic world, but the timing couldn’t be worse for McCrary.
Upon discovering the missed date, he quickly informed the judge and submitted a doctor’s note confirming his illness, showing at least an attempt to make amends.
Still, the damage was done, and now he’s stuck behind bars awaiting a court date later this week.
This mess isn’t just about a missed letter; it’s rooted in a contentious 2017 divorce from ex-wife Tammy Brawner, who cited irreconcilable differences and safety worries for their daughter.
By 2019, Brawner secured full custody, while McCrary was ordered to pay over $1,300 monthly in child support and attend classes for substance abuse and batterers’ intervention.
Visitation was granted, but the court’s mandates hint at a rocky history that’s tough to overlook, even for those hoping for a comeback story.
Brawner’s 2018 court filings added fuel to the fire, alleging McCrary endangered their infant daughter, claims that weigh heavily on public perception despite lacking a final verdict.
McCrary pushed back hard, telling TMZ in 2018, "None of these allegations are true … I would never do anything to harm my child." For those who stand by due process, his denial deserves consideration over unproven accusations, though the court of opinion rarely waits for facts.
As we await McCrary’s next court appearance on Wednesday, this case spotlights a system that can turn a paperwork slip—on a ridiculously short notice—into a felony charge, leaving conservatives like us questioning whether justice is truly balanced or just blindly punitive.
Hold onto your hats, folks—First Lady Melania Trump just pulled off a diplomatic coup that’s got even the most hardened skeptics taking notice.
In a stunning announcement on Friday, Melania Trump revealed she has secured a groundbreaking agreement with Russia to reunite Ukrainian children displaced by the ongoing war with their families, Daily Caller reported.
This isn’t just talk; it’s action, and fast. Within a mere 24 hours of the deal, eight children have already been brought back to their loved ones. That’s the kind of result-driven leadership conservatives have been craving amidst the chaos of global conflicts.
Let’s rewind a bit to how this all started. Melania Trump penned a letter, delivered through her husband to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting in Alaska, sparking the initial dialogue. That personal touch opened a direct line of communication with Putin himself, proving that sometimes old-school diplomacy still works better than progressive posturing.
From there, Melania kept the conversation alive, focusing on the heartbreaking plight of Ukrainian children torn from their families by war. Russia, in a surprising move, agreed to facilitate the return of these young souls. It’s a rare moment of cooperation in a world too often obsessed with division over dialogue.
Now, let’s talk numbers—eight children are already home, and that’s just the beginning. Three of these kids were displaced to Russia due to intense fighting on the frontlines, separated from their parents in the chaos. The other five were scattered across borders, caught in the crossfire of conflict, including one young girl who made the journey back from Ukraine to Russia to reunite with family.
Speaking of that girl, Melania didn’t shy away from the emotional toll of these separations. “Each child has lived in turmoil because of the war in Ukraine,” she said, painting a vivid picture of the human cost.
She went on to detail the specifics: “Three were separated from their parents and displaced to the Russian Federation because of frontline fighting. The other five were separated from family members across borders because of the conflict, including one young girl who has now been reunited from Ukraine to Russia.” It’s hard not to feel a lump in your throat hearing that, even if you’re skeptical of government overreach on either side of the Atlantic.
But Melania didn’t stop at the immediate wins. She also raised the issue of children who were displaced as minors but have since turned 18, ensuring Russia agreed to return these young adults as well. That’s foresight—something sorely lacking in the endless virtue-signaling of the left’s foreign policy playbook.
Looking ahead, Melania made it clear that this is just the start. Plans are already in motion to bring more children back to their families, a commitment that shows a focus on results over rhetoric.
She also emphasized the broader spirit of this agreement. “We have agreed to cooperate with each other for the benefit of all people involved in this war,” Melania Trump said. While some might roll their eyes at such optimism, it’s a refreshing change from the usual finger-pointing that dominates international affairs.
Let’s be real, though—this deal isn’t going to solve every problem in the Ukraine conflict overnight. But it’s a concrete step forward, one that prioritizes the innocent over political gamesmanship. In a world where woke ideology often drowns out common sense, this kind of pragmatic compassion is a breath of fresh air.
For conservatives, this is a moment to celebrate leadership that doesn’t bow to the progressive agenda but still shows heart. Melania Trump’s efforts cut through the noise, focusing on real families rather than empty hashtags or trendy causes. It’s a reminder that strength and empathy aren’t mutually exclusive.
Critics on the left might scoff, claiming this is just a publicity stunt, but let’s see them broker a deal that brings even one child home. Actions speak louder than sanctimonious tweets, and right now, the scoreboard shows eight kids reunited with their loved ones thanks to this agreement. That’s not spin; that’s fact.
So, as plans unfold to reunite more families, let’s keep an eye on this rare bipartisan bright spot. If the U.S. and Russia can work together on something this vital, maybe there’s hope yet for cutting through the ideological fog. For now, Melania Trump has shown that a firm hand and a kind heart can still move mountains—or at least bring children home.
Hold onto your hats, folks -- North Carolina politics just took a dark turn with the arrest of a sitting Democratic lawmaker on charges that’ll make your stomach churn.
Democrat State Rep. Cecil Brockman, representing Guilford County, was arrested Wednesday on grave accusations involving a minor, charged with two counts each of statutory rape and indecent liberties with a child, as Breitbart reports.
The allegations are as serious as they come, with warrants claiming Brockman engaged in unlawful acts with a 15-year-old in August of this year.
According to court documents, the accusations paint a disturbing picture of behavior unfit for anyone, let alone a public official entrusted with representing a community.
Adding fuel to the fire, the magistrate’s order suggests Brockman misused his position as a representative to try locating the alleged victim at a hospital—a move that raises eyebrows about abuse of power.
Currently, Brockman sits in Guilford County Jail with no bond set, awaiting a court appearance scheduled for Thursday afternoon, as reported by WRAL.
The fallout has been swift, with political leaders from both sides of the aisle demanding that Brockman step down faster than a hot potato dropped at a picnic.
The North Carolina Democratic Party didn’t mince words, stating, “The profound seriousness of these criminal charges makes it impossible for him to effectively represent his community.” Well, that’s one way to say the obvious—when charges like these surface, trust is shattered beyond repair.
Speaker of the House Destin Hall, a Republican from Caldwell County, echoed the sentiment, declaring, “The charges against Rep. Brockman are shocking and extremely serious.” Given what’s public, Hall’s call for immediate resignation isn’t just political posturing -- it’s a rare moment of bipartisan clarity in a polarized world.
North Carolina House Democrat Leader Robert Reives has also joined the chorus, insisting Brockman must resign without delay, citing the mounting allegations as incompatible with public service.
If Brockman does submit a resignation letter to the Speaker of the House, the Guilford County Democratic Party’s Executive Committee would be tasked with picking a replacement to fill the void.
Under state rules, only committee members residing in Brockman’s district would have a say in choosing the successor -- a small but critical detail in how North Carolina handles such vacancies.
Let’s not forget the irony here: in 2023, Brockman had a youth academic center named in his honor, a recognition now tainted by these horrific charges.
For a state already weary of political shenanigans, this scandal is a gut punch to those who believed in public servants as role models, not cautionary tales.
While the court will ultimately decide Brockman’s fate, the damage to public trust is already done, leaving conservatives and moderates alike questioning how such alleged behavior went unnoticed -- and reminding us all that accountability must cut through party lines like a sharp blade.
Hold onto your hats, folks—former FBI Director James Comey is in hot water, facing serious charges that could unravel a tangled web of Washington intrigue.
The saga unfolded with Comey entering a not guilty plea to accusations of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding from 2020, a case now complicated by the looming presence of classified materials.
This legal drama kicked off with an arraignment in Alexandria, Virginia, on a Wednesday morning, where Comey stood before the court to face the music.
When questioned by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff about whether he grasped the gravity of the charges, Comey responded with a calm, “I do, your honor. Thank you very much.”
That polite reply might sound confident, but it’s hard to ignore the irony of a former top lawman now defending himself against claims of dishonesty—shouldn’t the FBI’s finest be above such accusations?
Following an indictment on Sept. 25, Comey issued a statement welcoming the chance for a trial, seemingly eager to clear his name in the public eye.
Yet, his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, hinted at a different strategy, suggesting they might try to sidestep a full-blown trial altogether—a move that raises eyebrows about what might be lurking in the shadows of this case.
Prosecutors, led by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, dropped a bombshell by revealing that classified information will play a role in the discovery phase, a detail not previously discussed before the arraignment.
Halligan described the situation as intricate, requesting extra time before heading to trial, a plea that suggests the government is wading through a bureaucratic swamp of sensitive data.
Judge Nachmanoff, however, wasn’t entirely buying the complexity argument, expressing skepticism over the fuss surrounding what appears to be a straightforward two-charge indictment.
Still, he agreed to set a preliminary trial date for Jan. 5, giving a nod to the prosecution’s concerns while keeping the wheels of justice turning.
The government also pushed for the trial to fall outside the usual speedy trial window, citing the sheer volume of discovery materials—including those classified tidbits that could make or break the case.
From a conservative lens, this case reeks of the deep state’s endless appetite for drama—why does it always seem like classified info pops up to muddy the waters when high-profile figures are in the dock?
Comey’s tenure at the FBI was marked by decisions many on the right view as overreaching or politically motivated, and now, seeing him face charges feels like a long-overdue reckoning, though one must wonder if justice will truly be blind here.
While the left may paint this as a witch hunt, the presence of classified materials and the serious nature of obstructing congressional proceedings demand accountability—no one should be above the law, especially not a former FBI director.
Well, folks, if you thought California politics couldn’t get any spicier, think again—gubernatorial hopeful Katie Porter just tried to storm out of a CBS interview when pressed on courting Trump voters, the New York Post reported.
During a sit-down recorded last month and aired on Monday, Porter, a Democratic contender for California’s top job, found herself in hot water over a simple question about winning over the 40% of state voters who backed President Trump, leading to a viral meltdown that’s got everyone talking.
Porter, who launched her campaign for governor in March, has been a familiar face in Democratic circles, serving in the House of Representatives from 2019 until earlier this year.
Before this latest dust-up, she was leading the gubernatorial race by a comfortable 7 points, according to RealClearPolitics polling averages.
But her past isn’t all smooth sailing—Porter faced a tough loss in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate last year to Sen. Adam Schiff, after which she controversially claimed the process was “rigged” due to heavy opponent spending, though she later walked back the rhetoric.
Add to that prior accusations of staff bullying and troubling allegations from her ex-husband, Matthew Hoffman, during their divorce—claims of verbal abuse and even an incident involving hot mashed potatoes—and you’ve got a candidate with some serious baggage.
Now, let’s get to the meat of this CBS interview, where reporter Julie Watts asked a straightforward question about how Porter planned to appeal to Trump-supporting Californians.
Porter initially responded by saying she’d seek every vote possible and build broad support, but when Watts pressed further, the conversation took a sharp turn south.
Visibly frustrated, Porter called the exchange “unnecessarily argumentative,” attempted to remove her microphone, and insisted she didn’t want the whole fiasco on camera, even stating, “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” as captured in the aired footage (CBS).
Porter’s campaign later claimed the interview continued for another 20 minutes after the tense moment, but the damage was done as the clip spread like wildfire across social media.
Critics were quick to pounce, pointing out the irony of a former congresswoman known for her own tough, viral questioning in hearings now dodging a basic inquiry about voter outreach.
State superintendent Tony Thurmond didn’t hold back, saying, “If she can’t answer basic questions from a reporter, how can Californians expect her to stand up to President Trump?”—a jab that cuts deep for a candidate banking on grit (CBS).
Porter’s Democratic primary opponents piled on, with former state Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa questioning her leadership chops and ability to tackle hard issues with simple transparency.
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra took a broader swipe, emphasizing the need to include all voters in the race for governor, a not-so-subtle reminder that alienating any group—Trump supporters or otherwise—won’t win California’s diverse electorate.
With Gov. Gavin Newsom term-limited and former Vice President Kamala Harris sitting this race out, the field is wide open, but Porter’s latest stumble might just give her rivals the ammunition they need to close the gap.