The Florida case involving classified documents and former President Donald Trump is proceeding erratically and inconsistently for special counsel Jack Smith.

Aileen Cannon, a U.S. District Judge appointed by Trump, issued a reprimand against Smith in an order dated Sunday afternoon. The matter pertained to the parties' requests for redactions in the criminal case, as the Washington Examiner reported.

The judge has indicated that Smith is reversing his previous statements regarding his apprehensions regarding the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings and the safety of witnesses.

This action undermines the special counsel's consistency during a trial-bound case that is already encountering significant obstacles.

From the Judge

“The Court deems it necessary to express concern over the Special Counsel’s treatment of certain sealed materials in this case,” Cannon wrote in her five-page order in the dispute over what information in pending pretrial motions should be concealed.

As she has done in the past, Cannon partially complied with Smith's requests to seal documents. However, she expressed concern over the special counsel's "no objection" to a complete unsealing of docket entries that had been previously sealed and pertained to the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct made by Trump attorneys.

The judge expressed apprehensions that Smith is essentially contradicting himself by endorsing complete transparency exclusively for documents that are advantageous to his position.

In support of its motion to unseal previously redacted docket entries, the special counsel's office argued that it was attempting to publicly refute Trump's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. "Fair enough," Cannon wrote.

Concern from Cannon

But the larger concern for the judge is that Smith’s office failed to explain a basis for why the special counsel couldn’t defend the integrity of his office while simultaneously preserving witness safety rules he has repeatedly cited to the court “and which the Court has endeavored with diligence to accommodate in its multiple Orders on sealing/redaction.”

“The Court is disappointed in these developments,” Cannon added. “The sealing and redaction rules should be applied consistently and fairly upon a sufficient factual and legal showing. And parties should not make requests that undermine any prior representations or positions except upon full disclosure to the Court and appropriate briefing.”

As much of the case remains under seal, the specifics of the dispute between Cannon and Smith remain murky. However, the judge's most recent reprimand highlights the deteriorating relationship between the prosecution and the jurist presiding over the case.

More Denials

Cannon similarly denied a request from Trump's counsel to omit the names of several witnesses from his motions, in the same sequence. Trump had filed a motion to suppress the information on the grounds that it violated the attorney-client privilege.

This is not the first time that visible tensions have developed between Cannon and Smith. A ruling issued by the special counsel in February to unseal a segment of witness testimony was deemed a "manifest injustice."

In an apparent effort to defend against Trump's prosecutorial misconduct allegations, Cannon is now interrogating Smith in a similar fashion regarding his willingness to recant his own concerns regarding the confidentiality of specific filings.

Charges that PGA golfer Scott Scheffler didn't follow police directions and assaulted a police officer before the final round of the tournament when an accident closed all lanes of traffic are expected to be dropped by Kentucky prosecutors, according to a post by No Laying Up on X. 

Editorial Director Kevin Van Valkenburg posted Sunday that a source that is “familiar with the office’s thinking” said the charges against Scheffler should be dropped.

Scheffler was arrested on Friday morning after he encountered the aftermath of a fatal accident while driving to Valhalla Golf Club for his scheduled tee time.

Police accused Scheffler of disregarding their directions and dragging an officer who had grabbed onto his car down the road. The officer was hospitalized with minor injuries after the incident.

Not as it seems

The official charges were second-degree felony assault of a police officer, reckless driving, disregarding signals from an officer directing traffic and criminal mischief, according to Yahoo Sports.

Scheffler's lawyer in the matter said that multiple eyewitnesses said Scheffler was following another police officer's directive when he pulled forward while the first officer was holding onto his car.

The lawyer, Steve Romines, added that Scheffler “stopped immediately upon being directed to and never at any point assaulted any officer with his vehicle.”

Scheffler was arrested just before 7:30 a.m., was taken to a local holding cell, and was released around 8:30 a.m., at which time he was driven back to the golf club for his tee time at 9 a.m.

How he golfed

He said that he didn't get to do his usual warmup routine, but that he played the round the best he could.

He shot five under par and finished three behind the eventual winner, Xander Schauffele.

Scheffler is the number one ranked golfer in the world, so the arrest might very well have cost him the championship.

“Unbelievable that he gets arrested and then goes out and shoots 66,” said Mark Hubbard, who tied Scheffler in the round. “You can’t stop him right now.”

Scheffler was not the only golfer who hit the snarled traffic coming into Valhalla.

He was the only one arrested, though.

A former top prosecutor is awaiting sentencing on perjury and mortgage fraud convictions, and she is currently attempting to secure clemency from President Joe Biden.

Marilyn Mosby, once the state's attorney in Baltimore, Maryland, is seeking a pardon in order to avoid likely prison time, as Fox News reports, suggesting she is the victim of political persecution, despite the fact that similar arguments raised by former President Donald Trump generally fall on deaf ears among her Democrat Party colleagues.

Mosby seeks pardon

Ahead of a sentencing date at which prosecutors will request that she receive at least 20 months' incarceration but faces the theoretical possibility of 40 years in prison, Mosby has initiated a request for a presidential pardon.

Mosby's efforts have garnered the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus, and its members have since submitted a letter to the White House in her support.

Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV), caucus chair, has taken up Mosby's cause, writing, “As a national that leads by example, our justice system must not be weaponized to prevent progress toward a more perfect union.”

Mosby has attempted to make the case herself in the court of public opinion, recently appearing on MSNBC to argue why a pardon in her case would be appropriate. “I know that I have done absolutely nothing wrong, nothing criminal, nothing to be separated from my children for 40 years as a result of withdrawing $90,000 of my own money. It makes absolutely no sense.”

During an appearance on The Breakfast Club radio program, Mosby blamed the Trump Justice Department for her predicament and for “malicious prosecution,” saying, “This is all related to this prior administration. Who has the power now to do something about that is this administration.”

Wrongdoing found

The former prosecutor's characterization of her convictions, however, is clearly at odds with what a jury decided last November as well as in February.

Last year, she was convicted on two counts of perjury related to her assertion of financial hardship during the pandemic, which allowed her to prematurely withdraw funds from her retirement accounts.

She was also convicted on one count of mortgage fraud related to false statements made on loan applications that facilitated her purchase of a pair of vacation properties in Florida.

Despite federal prosecutors' demands that she serve at least 20 months in prison, Mosby has requested that she receive probation only, or, in the alternative, she is hoping to obtain the aforementioned pardon.

No remorse

Federal prosecutors have remained firm on their position that Mosby deserves time behind bars, as CBS News reports, noting that she has demonstrated a lack of “respect” and “accepts no responsibility” for her actions.

“Mosby has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated that she accepts no responsibility for her actions, has no respect for this court's rulings and lacks honesty with the public and candor before this court,” the DOJ said in a filing.

Lawyers for the soon-to-be-sentenced former state's attorney have declared, however, “Ms. Mosby has a First Amendment right to state her opinion on the prosecution and the case...She has a continuing constitutional right to proclaim her innocence and protest to prosecution,” a concept that most Democrats have curiously and routinely denied applies to former President Trump.

A New Mexico judge will decide whether actor Alec Baldwin is off the hook for an involuntary manslaughter charge filed against him in January, Breitbart reported. The 30 Rock actor's motion to dismiss is set to be heard on Friday.

Baldwin was implicated in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in October 2021. The incident happened while filming the Western Rust as Baldwin was holding a gun that was not supposed to hold live rounds.

The 66-year-old was co-producing the film and starred in the leading role. Baldwin has maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty.

Attorneys for Baldwin filed the motion to dismiss, citing prosecutors' alleged misconduct during the grand jury proceedings. If convicted, Baldwin faces 1.5 years in prison.

A Horrific Accident

The shooting occurred during rehearsals for the film as Baldwin pointed a revolver at Hutchins. Somehow, the gun fired, and Hutchins was struck with a live bullet.

The cinematographer was killed, and director Joel Souza was injured by the bullet. Still, Baldwin maintains that he never pulled the trigger but only pulled back on the revolver's hammer.

Attorneys for Baldwin believe that the grand jury was not allowed to hear possible exculpatory evidence or testimony. Special prosecutors disagree, stating instead that Baldwin engaged in "shameless" attempts to deny his own responsibility.

Baldwin allegedly changed his story on several aspects of the incident when speaking to the media, law enforcement, and workplace safety officials. The case is set to go before a jury in July, but Baldwin's legal team is asking for charges to be dismissed right away.

However, Baldwin's case for dismissal contradicts to the findings in the trial against Hanna Gutierrez-Reed, who was in the armorer on the set. She received 1.5 years in April after receiving an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

The Factors at Play

Whether Baldwin will face a similar fate to Gutierrez-Reed depends on the way prosecutors pursue the case. They may assert that Baldwin was negligent in his handling of the weapon.

Another avenue involves proving that Baldwin acted without "due caution" or "circumspection," which led to Hutchins' death. This would mean that Baldwin committed "an act committed with total disregard or indifference for the safety of others."

The factors at play include Baldwin's actions and attitude, as well as Gutierrez-Reed's culpability. Initially, Baldwin wasn't charged based on information that the weapon he was handed was already modified in some way beforehand.

However, a fresh look at the gun in evidence proved that assertion to be inaccurate. This new finding allowed prosecutors to pursue charges against Baldwin once again.

Baldwin was not an innocent bystander but rather a person in charge of a potentially deadly weapon. Even if the armorer didn't do her job, Baldwin had a duty to do his before he pointed the weapon at the cinematographer.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday to accept a congressional redistricting map for the 2024 election despite objections to it, SCOTUS Blog reported. The map creates a second congression district that is majority Black, but opponents don't believe it goes far enough. 

A lawsuit filed against the state alleged that race was unfairly considered when redrawing the congressional maps. The high court did not make its decision based on that claim, however.

Instead, the justices who signed the brief leaned on the Purcell principle, which prohibits the courts from getting involved in election-related issues too close to the election. The rationale is that changes wouldn't filter down to voters and election officials in a timely manner.

The high court's decision fell along conservative lines, with the three liberal justices dissenting. Led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said that there was ample time before the 2024 election that the Purcell principle wouldn't apply.

The Issue of Race

Objections first began when the Louisiana legislature redrew congression maps for the 2022 election. Although the 2020 census revealed that Louisiana's population is approximately one-third black, only one of the six districts was drawn in such a way that it was majority Black.

After a challenge on the basis that the map violated the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court sent the issue back to the state to redraw a more equitable map in time for the 2024 election. The latest decision from the high court applied to the newest map.

Some are warning that it sets a precedent on how other race-based disputes on redistricting are handled. "This ruling is a short-term win for Black voters in Louisiana, and, thus, Democrats, but a long-term expansion of a deeply controversial approach to how federal courts handle election-year voting cases..." CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck said.

He believes the court was skirting the race issue by invoking the Purcell principle. “One of the biggest criticisms of Purcell is that it’s deeply subjective with regard to how close to an election federal courts should stay their hand," Vladeck, a University of Texas School of Law professor, warned.

"Today’s ruling only compounds that critique because it expressly applies it more than five months before an election without any explanation for why. That will make Purcell both broader and more malleable in lower courts going forward," Vladek added.

Weaponizing the Maps

The challenge to Louisiana's map is part of a growing trend among Democrats. After suffering electoral losses that put the GOP in charge of congressional redistricting, they've taken to the courts to try to override that privilege.

Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans Von Spakovsky explained that a 2019 Supreme Court decision that said gerrymandering is not unconstitutional has forced the issue into state courts. Several Democrats and a handful of Republicans have used them as a tactic.

"In that Supreme Court decision [Rucho v. Common Cause], the court said political gerrymandering does not violate the U.S. Constitution. That basically struck out the federal Courts and the federal Constitution as a possible tool by Democrats to basically object to redistricting that they didn't like," Von Spakovsky told Fox News.

"So, they then switched to state courts. And they started filing claims, like in North Carolina, for example, Pennsylvania, claiming that political gerrymandering that favored – in those cases – the Republican Party violated the state's constitution," he added.

The party that wins elections is supposed to draw the congressional districting maps. Unfortunately, Democrats are sore losers and have taken to the courts to make sure that doesn't happen, but they don't always get what they want.

A GOP oversight committee has requested additional documents between the Jan. 6 committee's key witness and others, Fox News reported. The demand includes communications between former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) asked Hutchinson for the information in a correspondence Wednesday. Loudermilk is the chairman of the Committee on House Administration’s oversight subcommittee, which is examining the earlier probe and looking to bust Cheney, the Jan. 6 committee's one-time vice chairwoman.

Also included was a request for "all communications referencing or referring to potential publishing or book deals or related compensation" as former President Donald Trump's ex-aide published her memoirs last year. Cheney and Hutchinson have bonded since the committee's original inquest.

"Liz Cheney is the leader that we all need to aspire to be, and she is the leader that we need as a country to come together and find people to elect people like Liz Cheney," Hutchinson gushed in a 2023 interview. Former White House deputy chief Anthony Ornato, former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Secret Service agent Robert Engel were also included in the request.

Missing Evidence

Loudermilk is leading the subcommittee through the investigation into evidence missing from the Jan. 6 committee records. He said the Democrat-led investigation "failed to properly archive their records, including as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts, over one terabyte of digital data, and over 100 deleted or encrypted documents" related to the probe.

"Therefore, the Subcommittee must now determine what documents were not properly archived, and assess what documents are necessary to accomplish a productive investigation. The Subcommittee has no choice but to repeat much of the work of the Select Committee to understand their investigative findings," Loudermilk said in his letter.

While Hutchinson has given him some documents, Loudermilk noted that she did not furnish "all records, notes, or documents prepared by you for interviews with the Select Committee or the Department of Justice" in response to his request earlier this year. Moreover, what was provided to him was somehow not included in the archives for the Jan. 6 committee.

The missing pieces included Hutchinson's correspondence with Trump administration officials Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe. "As such, the Subcommittee is working to determine why the Select Committee did not archive these documents produced by or related to you," the Georgia Republican wrote.

"Given the extensive interviews, lengthy errata sheet, and ex parte conversations with Select Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, the failure to archive certain parts of your production is concerning," he added. Democrats are predictably running cover for the committee.

Providing Cover

Former Jan. 6 committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) attempted to explain away Loudermilk's accusations. "This letter was not addressed to me, but I can tell you that Mr. Loudermilk’s previous correspondence to me has been riddled with significant factual errors," Thompson claimed.

"As I have said time and again, the Select Committee archived its official records in accordance with House rules. It seems Mr. Loudermilk is using this fishing expedition to distract from the fact that their release of security camera footage is completely failing to provide any evidence to support extreme MAGA Republican conspiracies about Jan. 6 — and is only bolstering the work we did in investigating the circumstances surrounding that terrible day," he added.

That's an ironic statement, considering the Jan. 6 committee's investigation was itself a fishing expedition designed to hook the king of all catches: President Trump. The committee's final report, released in December of 2022, ran 814 pages and blamed Trump for the incursion at the U.S. Capitol, the New York Post reported.

“The central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed. None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him," the Jan 6. committee's report stated.

The entire premise of the Jan. 6 committee investigation was poisoned with partisanship from the start. The latest probe perhaps seeks to uncover the truth without the politics.

Former President Donald Trump's "close contacts" were released in a Manhattan courtroom last week during his hush money trial, The Hill reported. The people on the list included athletes, billionaires, and celebrities.

The list was leaked during testimony from Trump's former White House aide Madeleine Westerhout. The people's names were entered into evidence, though their phone numbers were kept private.

These 54 contacts he had varying degrees of communication with Trump over the years, beginning around the time of his 2016 election. Some were newly formed attachments, while others were people he has known for some time, the New York Times reported.

Trump's lawyer Necheles: Would the RNC create a travel schedule for presumptive nominee Trump?
Westerhout: Yes.
Necheles: I want to show you L-8 and L-9. Oh, when they're ready. So People's 69 [the Trump contact list]

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) May 10, 2024

Media Members

Several of the contacts include members of the media, some of whom he's had a contentious relationship with. For instance, Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC is on the list despite their "roller-coaster relationship."

Fox News's Bret Beier, whom Trump has similarly had his ups and downs with, is also listed along with Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity from the network. The Hannity host has been very friendly in his coverage of Trump and is arguably Fox News's most pro-Trump personality.

Famed reality TV producer Mark Burnett appeared on the list of contacts after the two worked on Trump's program The Apprentice. Burnett is credited with helping refine Trump's brand from simply a rich man to a shrewd business leader.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker appeared among Trump's contacts. Earlier in the trial, Pecker testified that he bought rights to Karen McDougal’s account of an affair she had with Trump with the intention of keeping it out of the press.

Also on the list was MSNBC Morning Joe co-host  Joe Scarborough. Trump and Scarborough were friendly until a 2017 row between the two changed that dynamic permanently.

Athletes and Other Notable People

Several others from the sports and business world showed up among Trump's contacts. Famed New England Patriots since-retired quarterback Tom Brady made the list and notoriously kept a "Make America Great Again" hat in view in his NFL locker.

Also on the list is supporter and Patriots coach Bill Belichick. Trump read a personal note from Belichick to him at one of his rallies to boast his support.

On the business side, former Goldman Sachs partner Mike Fascitelli appeared among the names. Fascitelli is now the chief executive at Vornado Realty and an investor in a startup owned by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law.

Trump's ex-attorney, Michael Cohen, who is said to have paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about her affair with Trump before being reimbursed and falsifying documents, was also named. Matt Calamari, a senior executive at the Trump Organization, made the list as well.

It's unclear how much contact Trump had with the people on the list over the years. However, it's likely the names were put into evidence as another way to intimidate Trump and his inner circle during this sham of a trial.

David Sanborn, a six-time Grammy-winning saxophonist who worked with greats including Stevie Wonder, has died, ABC News reported. The 78-year-old had been in a prolonged battle with prostate cancer. 

Representatives for Sanborn confirmed that the musician died Sunday with a post to his Facebook page. "It is with sad and heavy hearts that we convey to you the loss of internationally renowned, 6-time Grammy Award-winning, saxophonist, David Sanborn," the post said.

"Mr. Sanborn had been dealing with prostate cancer since 2018, but had been able to maintain his normal schedule of concerts until just recently. Indeed he already had concerts scheduled into 2025," the post continued.

A Storied Career

Sanborn worked with some of the greats during a career that spanned decades and genres. He was best known as a jazz musician after experiencing success with his first album, "Taking Off."

His 1975 release made it to the Billboard Jazz Albums chart in the top 20 that year. Sanborn would later earn a Platinum album, several RIAA-certified Gold albums, and six Grammy Awards.

Although he got his start in jazz, Sandborn also collaborated with musicians across several other genres. He was versatile enough to play pop, R&B, and rock music with the greats of his time.

Some of those included Bruce Springsteen, The Rolling Stones, the Grateful Dead, Paul Simon, the Eagles, Steely Dan, Billy Joel, Carly Simon, James Brown, and Elton John and more. Sandborn's most celebrated collaborations were with top artists of his time who were trailblazers.

The saxophonist played on David Bowie's "Young Americans" album in 1974 and later went on to record four albums with James Taylor, including the single "How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You)." In 1992, Sandborn performed with Eric Clapton and Sting on their hit "It's Probably Me," which was featured on the soundtrack to the film "Lethal Weapon 3."

Cancer Takes Its Toll

Sandborn had scheduled stops on his "Experience The Magic" tour well into 2025, Fox News reported. However, it became apparent that the cancer was taking its toll on his body as he was forced to cancel shows for health reasons last month.

"For the last weeks I’ve been dealing with unbelievable pain in my spine that prohibited me from walking, let alone playing my horn," a statement from the saxophonist explained last month. "We were finally able to diagnose the issue as two stressed fractures in my spine," he added.

"Last week I underwent an unexpected spinal surgery. The doctors assure me the procedure was a success, but recovery is 6 to 8 weeks of doing nothing, including not playing my horn," Sandborn wrote.

This was a shock coming from the man who first picked up a saxophone at three years old to help develop his lungs fter being diagnosed with polio. Unfortunately, the prostate cancer and its treatments were too much to bear in his advanced age.

The music world is mourning the loss of one of the greats. Sandborn's talent and ability to play across genres made him a prolific performer and collaborator, and his contribution to music history will not soon be forgotten.

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (R), who is apparently on the short list for former President Donald Trump's running mate in November, on Thursday accused President Joe Biden of "negotiating for Hamas" to get votes from the pro-Palestinian wing of the Democrat Party. 

“I think it’s truly unbelievable,” he said. “We’re in completely new territory here for a president of the United States because we’ve always had a rule, which is don’t negotiate with terrorists, but Joe Biden has gone way beyond that — he’s actually negotiating for the terrorists.”

GOV. DOUG BURGUM: We've always had a rule: don't negotiate with terrorists. Joe Biden has gone way beyond that—he's negotiating *FOR* the terrorists.

None of this would have happened under President Trump.

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) May 9, 2024

In a post on X, Burgum wrote, "None of this would have happened under President Trump."

"I hear the message"

Biden is withholding a shipment of weapons from Israel because that nation couldn't show that it had a plan to avoid civilian casualties as it entered Rafah in a ground offensive.

Rafah is the last bastion for Hamas fighters, but up to 1 million refugees are also residing there.

Israel has vowed to annihilate Hamas, and it really can't do so without going into Rafah.

Biden is likely objecting to the offensive in order to make it seem like he is listening to pro-Hamas protesters in his party.

He told Erin Burnett on CNN on Thursday, "I hear the message" of the pro-Hamas protesters.

Will he be VP?

Burgum was himself a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2024, but he dropped out with under 1% of the vote and endorsed Trump.

He introduced Trump at a massive rally in Wildwood, New Jersey on Saturday after flying there with Trump on his private jet.

He criticized Biden for having “put a red line for Israel, for our ally.”

“When you think about that, think of every one of our allies around the world watching this and going, ‘Wow, Israel is supposed to be America’s top ally and the president is threatening them?’” he noted.

“How about Joe Biden saying we’re gonna keep providing weapons until you release the hostages, Hamas?” he suggested. “He should be negotiating alongside of Israel. He’s on the opposite side of the table.”

The nation's capital has always been a tough environment for those who take an active role in the country's governance, but according to one high-profile figure, conditions there are getting out of hand.

During a recent appearance, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas lamented the intensity of partisan criticisms sent his way in recent months, noting the personal nature of the attacks he has received, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Thomas lets loose

At the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference on Friday, Thomas made his feelings known about the prevailing culture in Washington, D.C. and the untruths he says his detractors have spread, as Fox News details.

Thomas' remarks were spurred by a question from a conference participant, who asked what it was like to operate in a realm characterized by its mean-spiritedness.

The longtime justice began by saying, “I think there's challenges to that.”

“We're in a world and we – certainly my wife and I the last two or three years it's been – just the nastiness and lies, it's just incredible,” he said, referencing his spouse, conservative activist Ginny Thomas.

Offering some further insight into his perspective on the situation, Thomas continued, “But you have some choices. You don't get to prevent people from doing horrible things or saying horrible things. But one you have to understand and accept the fact that they can't change you unless you permit that.”

Favorite target of the left

Thomas has long been a target of intense scrutiny from the political left, and he has faced questions in recent years about a series of controversies some say have rendered him too conflicted to serve on the high court.

A ProPublica report from last year called into question a number of trips Thomas accepted from top GOP donor Harlan Crow.

Though Thomas insisted that the ethics rules in effect at the time did not require disclosure of the travel, the justice has remained a target of liberal ire just the same.

In addition, Thomas has faced scrutiny over his refusal to step aside from hearing cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol unrest, even though his wife was heavily involved in efforts questioning the validity of the 2020 presidential election results.

Not holding back

Though Thomas did not venture into the specifics of the allegations leveled against him by his critics, he lamented the determination of “reckless” individuals in Washington to “bomb your reputation” if it furthers their political ends.

“They don't bomb you necessarily, but they bomb your reputation or your good name or your honor. And that's not a crime. But they can do as much harm that way,” Thomas asserted.

Summing up his feelings Thomas mused that folks in D.C. “pride themselves on being awful,” adding that the city is “a hideous place,” expressing sentiments with which countless Americans surely concur.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts