President Donald Trump said the Department of Justice "probably owes me a lot of money" for the many federal investigations against him that amounted to nothing but a hassle, Fox News reported. Sources say Trump is seeking $230 million in damages, but the president said it wasn't about the money but about principle.

There were several investigations launched against Trump, beginning with the Russia-collusion hoax during the 2016 campaign that was built on a false dossier. The FBI later raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 over the supposed mishandling of classified documents, which again was thrown out in court.

These investigations turned Trump's life upside down for years and threatened to keep him off the ballot, but they ended up being mostly baseless. Now, the  New York Times claimed that Trump is seeking $230 million in compensation, which would be well within his rights.

After all, Trump spent millions on his legal defense and likely lost earning potential as his time and attention were turned toward these baseless investigations. However, when asked about it at the Oval Office by a reporter, Trump seemed genuinely unconcerned about the money and instead wanted justice.

Restitution

When Trump was asked about the possibility of a lawsuit, he noted that it was certainly something to consider, given how much time and money had been wasted defending himself in these cases. "Well, I guess they probably owe me a lot of money for that," Trump told the female reporter.

The president made it clear he wasn't in it for the money. "No, I get no salary. I gave up my salary. It's a good salary. Not as much as these guys make, but that's OK. It's a lot of money, and I don't, as you know, I didn't take it in the first four years. I didn't take it these four years either," Trump pointed out.

However, he did acknowledge that the DOJ owes him. "But as far as all of the litigation, everything that's been involved, yeah, they probably owe me a lot of money," Trump said.

"But if I get money from our country, I'll do something nice with it. Like, give it to charity or give it to the White House while we restore the White House, and we're doing a great job with the White House, as you know, the ballroom is under construction," Trump added. A clip of the exchange was posted by RedWave Press to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.

Seeking Justice

While the media was singularly focused on the financial implications, Trump just wants justice after all he's been through. "We'll see what happens. We have numerous cases having to do with the fraud of the election, the 2020 election, and because of everything that we found out, I guess they owe me a lot of money," Trump said.

"But I'm not looking for money. I'm looking for — really, I think it's got to be, it's got to be handled in a proper way… We don't want it to happen again," Trump said, once again alluding to the fact that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from under him.

"We can never let what happened in the 2020 election happen again. We just can't let that happen," Trump added.

The president went on to say that he does not know the exact figure his legal team may be seeking. "I don't know what the number is. I don't even talk to them about it," Trump said. He noted that he would be the one to decide based on the law ultimately, but Trump admitted it would be "awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself."

Since the day the results came in, the president has contended that he was robbed of his 2020 victory. Though he has never produced definitive proof of those accusations, Trump notably went on to win the 2024 presidential election handily, clinching both the popular vote and the Electoral College. He accomplished this even while the government was busy prosecuting him, and Trump deserves justice for this.

 

MSNBC host Jen Psaki is being called out for suggesting that Vice President JD Vance's wife, Usha, finds him "scarier" than President Donald Trump and is perhaps a hostage in her own home, Fox News reported. The former White House press secretary made this outrageous claim on the podcast I've Had It, released on Wednesday.

The title of the podcast episode, "Devil Wears MAGA with Jen Psaki," clearly conveys the viewpoint of all involved. Psaki served as the press secretary under then-President Joe Biden, where she was often forced to cover for the feeble-minded commander-in-chief and toe the Democratic Party line.

Now she has a cushy cable news gig because of it, but her unbelievable bias continues to come through in her remarks. This is especially troubling because, as a leftist woman, she is supposed to be supportive of her fellow females in the public eye, but Psaki made the most disparaging comments about Usha Vance and her relationship with her husband.

Sick remarks

Psaki and hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie "Pumps" Sullivan pulled no punches in Tuesday's sitdown, which already had over a million views by the following day. "I think the little Manchurian candidate, JD Vance, wants to be president more than anything else," Psaki said about the vice president.

"I always wonder what's going on in the mind of his wife. Like, are you OK?" she said of Usha Vance, who has been married to JD since 2014. The couple also has three children together.

"Please blink four times. We'll come over here. We'll save you," Psaki added, implying that a woman who made a vow to her husband is somehow now a hostage.

Psaki, who arguably held the highest job in her profession as Biden's mouthpiece, then went on to disparage JD Vance's ambition. "And that he's willing to do anything to get there. And your whole iteration you just outlined, I mean, he's scarier in certain ways in some ways," Psaki went on.

"And he's young and ambitious and agile in the sense that he's a chameleon who makes himself into whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear from him," Psaki added. This remark was more than just a one-off, as it appeared in the episode's tagline.

The Fallout

Although the hosts heartily agreed with Psaki, many other sane Americans did not like what she had to say about the vice president's wife. "Unhinged Jen Psaki is now smearing JD Vance, suggesting that his wife, Usha, wants to leave her husband and offers to 'save' her," the LibsofTikTok account posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.

"She also thinks JD Vance is 'scarier' than Donald Trump. @MSNBC should be ashamed to pay her salary," the post added and included the clip from the show.

Amy Curtis, a writer for Town Hall, similarly expressed outrage at Psaki's comments. "Also, this is an absolutely vile thing to say. Usha Vance is happily married," Crutis pointed out in her post to X.

"She made a vow to JD, and those words mean something. It’s also an insult to women who are in actual bad marriages," Curtis concluded.

These people on the left have no limits to their depravity and will attack anyone and everyone in Trump's orbit. What Psaki said was unconscionable, and she should apologize to the Vances and to the American people for such vile remarks.

Actress Cheryl Hines said her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., suggested they pretend to be separated during the contentious 2024 presidential election, The Hill reported. Hines said Kennedy, who is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, worried that his wife would "take the heat" from the media and his opponents.

During the campaign, Kennedy initially ran to be the Democratic candidate beginning in April 2023. He was looking to unseat the incumbent then-President Joe Biden, but he received severe pushback from his own party.

By October 2023, Kennedy was running as an independent but would drop out of the race and join President Donald Trump's campaign with his agenda to make America healthy again. However, this pivot was not without its pitfalls, and one of them was how his wife would be treated.

"Some people were very upset that I was even married to Bobby. They were vocally coming at me because I’m married to Bobby. So Bobby felt like, ‘You shouldn’t be having to take that heat. So why don’t we just say we’re separated?’” Hines said in an interview with Fox News.

Their marriage

Hines was interviewed ahead of the November 11 release of her memoir Unscripted, where she shared about her marriage and the impact of the campaign. "What needed to happen — and what did happen — is we got closer together," Hines said.

"For a couple to say, ‘Maybe we should just say we’re not with each other anymore and our lives would be easier’ — it’s like, well, things have gotten to that point. That’s pretty dramatic and pretty extreme," the Curb Your Enthusiasm star later told Fox News.

"And that’s one of the reasons why I wanted to write the book … experiences that are very once in a lifetime," she added. It wasn't just political jousting or bad press that the couple had to worry about. In September 2023, a man with a gun pretending to be a U.S. Marshall was arrested in Los Angeles rally for Kennedy.

Given what some have called a family curse after Kennedy's father and uncle were assassianted, Hines was particularly concerned. "I was very fearful for his safety. As most people know, his uncle, John Kennedy, was assassinated. His father, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated while he was running for president," Hines recalled.

"So when Bobby ran for president, it was very stressful. For good reason. I mean, I saw somebody breaking into our house — watching him walk into the backyard — and I see the security guy coming at him with his weapon out. It’s 10:00 in the morning," she added.

Backlash

The physical threats were bad enough, but Hines has also been subjected to vicious media attacks because of her marriage. Perhaps RFK Jr.'s instincts to protect his wife were spot on, considering the treatment on a recent episode of ABC's The View last week.

Co-host Sunny Hostin attempted to paint Robert Kennedy Jr. as unqualified for his spot in the HHS because he isn't a doctor, though, as Hines pointed out, neither were many of the others who have held the job. "Bobby’s background, everything I have seen him do, he has dedicated his career to suing big corporations because of toxins that are — have been affecting people’s healthcare, people’s health, I should say," Hines said of her husband.

Robert Kennedy Jr. has been at the forefront of environmental lawsuits, particularly in cases where the harmful consequences have been particularly severe. Hostin attempted to criticize Robert Kennedy Jr.'s vaccine skepticism, but Hines countered that her husband merely wants to remove harmful substances from food and medicine.  "Even baby formula, we’re finding out there’s arsenic. There’s lead," Hines noted.

Being married to Robert Kennedy Jr. is no easy feat, considering the amount of hatred leveled at him from the people supposedly in his own party. He's also a member of Trump's administration, and that combination makes him and his family a target, no matter what his past politics were.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed back Sunday on ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl's comments about "No Kings" protests and the new Pentagon press rules, saying that "this is the modern Democrat party" at work spreading lies and hate. 

Karl attempted to take Johnson to task for calling the "No Kings" protests "hate America rallies," saying, "Just on this notion that these are 'hate America' rallies — and you not only talked about anarchists, Antifa advocates, pro-Hamas wing — you said this is the modern Democratic Party. But I remember not that long ago what you said after the murder of Charlie Kirk when you said that we should view fellow Americans, not as our enemies, but as our fellow countrymen."

Johnson said he was trying to warn the public about the "modern Democrat party," which definitely has its "hate America" contingents.

"Look at what's happening in New York," Johnson said, referring to the mayoral candidacy of Zohran Mamdani. "They're about to elect an open socialist Marxist as the mayor of America's largest city."

"Afraid to interact"

The exchange followed questions about the Pentagon's new press policy, starting out with Karl characterizing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth as being "afraid to interact with journalists who cover him."

"Fear is not part of the secretary of War’s make-up, OK?" Johnson shot back.

Karl criticized Hegseth's requirement that journalists agree to certain conditions to get access, as well as the fact that he has had only two press briefings during his tenure.

Dozens of journalists turned in their badges last week rather than comply with the new requirements.

"I can’t remember, and I don’t think you can either, a secretary of Defense who has been so transparent, out in the open, talking about priorities, principles and things," Johnson said in response.

The shutdown

Karl then swerved to the current government shutdown, demanding to know why Congress isn't in session trying to resolve it.

"The House did its job, exactly a month ago today on September 19. We passed the clean resolution," Johnson anwswered. "The Democrats have voted 11 times, except for three Democrats in the Senate, they voted 11 times to shut down the government and cease and halt those programs," Johnson said.

At one point he circled back to the "No Kings" protests, saying, "If President Trump was a king, the government would be open right now."

While in some ways, the press seems to be getting a little fairer in regards to how they're covering Republicans including Trump, the "No Kings" protests seem to have emboldened them to show their true feelings once again.

As my mom used to say, "This too shall pass." Trump is not a king, and everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not.

Amid years of scandal and suspicion regarding his ties to the late Jeffrey Epstein, a prominent member of the British royal family has just been forced to take what is surely a most regrettable step.

As Breitbart reports, Prince Andrew, son of the late Queen Elizabeth II and brother of King Charles, has announced that he will cease use of his royal titles and honors conferred upon him, including that of the Duke of York, in the culmination of a staggering fall from grace.

Formal statement issued

In what some believe is his anticipation of new, damning revelations about his past ties to Epstein by way of a posthumous memoir from alleged victim Virginia Giuffre, Andrew issued a statement last week informing the public of what he characterized as his decision regarding his titles and honors.

“In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family,” the announcement began.

The statement continued, “I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.”

Andrew added, “With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honors which have been conferred upon me.”

The royal concluded with a defiant note, declaring, “As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”

Explosive details still looming?

Giuffre’s upcoming book contains salacious allegations regarding her interactions with Andrew facilitated by Epstein, details that contradict the prince’s prior public denials, and suggest a far closer relationship than previously acknowledged.

According to NBC News, Andrew’s woes continue to mount, as Metropolitan Police in London are said to be “actively looking into” reports that the prince attempted to wrongfully obtain personal information about Giuffre in a bid to discredit her.

The Mail on Sunday was reportedly informed that Andrew sought assistance from his own police protection officer in probing Giuffre’s background, doing so in advance of the publication of an infamous photo showing him with his arm around the then-17-year-old girl, with Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell also seen in the shot.

“We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made,” a police spokesperson stated.

This and other revelations rumored to be imminent appear to have been the final straw regarding Andrew’s status, with the BBC reporting that the royal was under “enormous pressure” from his brother, King Charles, as well as the future king, Prince William, to abandon his titles.

Impact on immediate family revealed

Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, with whom he continues to reside, will no longer be known as the Duchess of York, though their daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, will retain their royal titles, as the New York Post explains.

For now, the disgraced pair will be permitted to remain in their home at Royal Lodge, which is subject to a long-term lease with the Crown Estate, though there have long been rumblings that King Charles – and perhaps also Prince William – would like to end that arrangement as well.

A disgraced Minnesota judge's petition to have his first name legally changed to "Judge" was denied by Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro, MPR News reported. The man, former Anoka County Judge John Dehen, retired from his position on Oct. 10 following a suspension from the Minnesota Supreme Court over misconduct.

Dehen filed for the name change in August, requesting that his given name be changed instead to Judge John Dehen. The case was assigned to Castro, who slammed the petition made "in bad faith and with the intent to mislead" the public.

"To permit a former district court judge, who has been suspended for abusing his position of authority, to regain the title he was stripped of, would make the administration of justice a practical mockery. The Applicant is not replacing his first name of John with Judge but is requesting that Judge be added before John so he can be addressed as 'Judge John Dehen,'" Castro said in his order.

"By using the name ‘Judge,’ the Applicant would be holding himself out as a judge, a position he held for 15 years, but no longer holds," Castro added. The judge also denied Dehen's request to keep the filing private, though his home address was redacted.

Apparent Misconduct

Last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Dehen for nine months and censured him after Dehen was accused of a "pattern" of prejudice, KSTP-TV reported. The recommended punishment from the state panel was originally a six-month suspension, but Minnesota’s high court felt his misconduct warranted a more severe penalty.

Some of the misdeeds Dehen was accused of included holding a remote hearing from the passenger seat of his moving vehicle, attempting to rehire his court reporter with double the salary he state allows, and injecting his opinions about illegal immigration to "influence his decisions" in guardianship cases for troubled youth.

"His actions wasted precious judicial resources and disrespected the rule of law and the administration of justice that he took an oath to uphold," the order from the Supreme Court charged. It also said Dehen "damaged the professional function of the Judicial Branch" and that he "exhibited little if any remorse" for doing so.

For his part, Dehen's testimony before the state panel included an admission that he had "poor judgment" when he decided to hold a hearing from his vehicle, but he would not budge on the guardianship decisions. Dehen claimed those were "merely an error of law" rather than ideological influences.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, instead finding that Dehen had weaponized his official position and that the only remedy was to censure the judge. The high court said it had a duty to "fulfill our obligation to ensure that the misconduct is not repeated again, and to deter others from similar behavior."

Troubling Pattern

In 2022, Dehen was disciplined privately after making threats during proceedings in a small claims lawsuit, MinneapoliMedia reported. Later, he was accused of using immigration status and lack of English proficiency while ruling on guardianship hearings.

“Just because you’re an immigrant doesn’t mean you’re eligible for an at-risk status,” Dehen told the initial panel investigating earlier this year. In at least three cases, other judges have either overturned Judge Dehen’s findings or ordered him removed entirely from at-risk juvenile cases.

Petitions in Minnesota for guardianship assignments for at-risk youth are seldom denied. In the county Dehen was presiding, he was responsible for all of them.

“He does what he wants to do and doesn’t accept disagreement,” Eric Magnuson, the former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court who anrgued the state’s case angainst Dehen, said. That hasn’t worked out so well for Dehen after all.

Dehen seems to do whatever he wants, perhaps believing that his position as judge gives him the cover to do so. Unfortunately for him, that’s not the way it works, and the judge will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court could limit the 1965 Voting Rights Act and alter the way congressional redistricting maps are created, according to The Washington Times. The case stems from a lower court's decision to mandate that Louisiana add a second majority-Black district, based on its overall population, rather than the geographic distribution of that population.

It's always been the case that the winning political party gets to draw the districting maps, including when it is advantageous to the party in power. However, Democrats have used the 60-year-old legislation as a way to push their own version of how the maps should be drawn, and it has become a way to discriminate.

This is what happened in Louisiana, as the arbitrary factor of skin color became the method by which to redraw the maps, thanks to a lower court's decision. That scheme may now be in jeopardy with the case before the conservative-leaning high court.

Some, including Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aruinaga, argue that the Voting Rights Act is reductive when it comes to race and that at least part of it is unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing," Aguinaga argued before the Supreme Court.

Racial Discrimination

Janai Nelson, an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that redrawing the maps to eliminate the new Black districts would be "a staggering" change to the way voting is made fair. "This is about race," Nelson said, arguing in favor of keeping the status quo.

"Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is laser-focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process regardless of party," she added. However, the justices have been hinting that Section 2 of the legislation may be on the chopping block, especially those appointed by President Donald Trump.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch pushed back on Nelson's assertion, noting that it sounds as if it is "sometimes acceptable for a federal district court to order a map that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race," he said. Similarly, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that Section 2 may be obsolete, or at least on its way to becoming so.

"This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time … but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint," Kavanaugh said. Democrats see it differently, of course, and Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson insisted that racial discrimination is the only way to fix racial discrimination.

"They’re so tied up with race because that’s the initial problem. That’s the beginning," Jackson said.

Rigging Elections

As per the usual arrangement, the left is doing mental gymnastics to explain how racial discrimination is actually a good thing because it suits their purposes this time around. As the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh pointed out in a post to X, formerly Twitter, Democrats are attached to the law because it has been a boon for them.

"Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again," Walsh wrote on Thursday.

"This is a huge, huge case," he added. The post included a photo of the southern states and how Democratic strongholds would be "wiped out" if the law was repealed.

There is no excuse for racial discrimination, even when it is ostensibly done to make things fairer for a downtrodden population. The only truly fair move is to treat people like individuals and not based on the color of their skin, but the left is simply incapable of doing so.

Several journalists chose to hand in their access badges and clear their work areas on Wednesday rather than sign onto the Department of War's new agreement on what can be shared from the Pentagon, Breitbart reported. Reporters have been given until Tuesday night to sign or leave, and several chose the latter.

Journalist Eric Daugherty shared photos of signs for major news outlets piled up near offices as reporters exited. "BREAKING: The Pentagon has just confiscated the badges of nearly every major media organization in the United States, barring their access, after they refused to sign on to Pete Hegseth's new security rules to guard sensitive information. Reporters were seen leaving," Daugherty wrote.

He quoted the Pentagon Press Agency's statement about the move. "Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America. It did this because reporters would not sign onto a new media policy over its implicit threat of criminalizing national security reporting and exposing those who sign it to potential prosecution," the Pentagon Press Association said

The Agreement

The credentialing agreement these journalists were asked to sign pertained to what should and shouldn't be made public as reporters are given an insiders view into the goings on at the Department of War. This is for the safety of the troops as well as the integrity of any given military action, officials said.

"The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is. This has caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country," Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth also slammed the actions of the reporters. "You would think that the Pentagon press corps, of all press corps, would be front and center across the board on wanting to give credit to the President for forging this kind of peace, and instead, what they want to talk about is a policy about them," Hegseth said.

"Maybe the policy should look like the White House or other military installations, where you have to wear a badge that identifies that you’re press, or you can’t just roam anywhere you want. It used to be, Mr. President, the press could go anywhere, pretty much anywhere, in the Pentagon, the most classified area in the world," Hegseth explained.

"If they sign on to the credentialing, they’re not going to try to get soldiers to break the law by giving them classified information. So it’s common sense stuff. Mr. President, we’re trying to make sure national security is respected, and we’re proud of the policy," Hegseth told President Donald Trump.

Mass Exodus

It appears that this change has led to a mass exodus of journalists from the Pentagon reporter pool for now. Outlets that withdrew their support included The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and CNN, while One America News said that it would sign the agreement.

The journalists claimed that such a policy exerts too much control on the press under the guise of national security. Steven Cheung, White House communications director, said that in reality "a few reporters on this wall have privately said they were bullied into participating in the walkout when they actually wanted to stay," Cheung posted to X on  Wednesday.

"They were physically confronted and threatened with retaliation if they didn’t join the protest," he charged. Whether that's true or not, it appears that the "in brief" form they were asked to sign outlined the proper procedure for navigating the building that houses America's military secrets, rather than editorial decisions.

The Department of War insists that it isn't about controlling the messaging or coverage, but rather ensuring that what's being reported doesn't jeopardize the mission as members of the media are privy to official information. Journalists believe that signing onto such an agreement would expose them to potential legal or professional problems in the future.

The press is right to demand as much transparency as possible from the government. However, they weren't concerned when Trump's predecessor was in the White House, so their objections ring hollow in this pure political spectacle.

Dan Kleban has dropped out of the race for U.S. Senate and endorsed fellow Democrat and Maine Gov. Janet Mills in the challenge to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R) in next year's election, The Hill reported. The Maine Beer Co. co-founder made the announcement Tuesday that he would be one fewer candidate in a crowded primary. 

"Today, I am suspending my campaign for U.S. Senate and enthusiastically endorsing Governor Janet Mills. Right now, our country is at a crossroads," Kleban said in a video statement shared to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.

"Susan Collins is not doing what’s right for the state of Maine, and hardworking Mainers are literally paying the price—housing, health care, groceries, and electric bills are all too high and getting worse. I believe Governor Mills will win next year and put Mainers first by addressing these pressing issues," the beer brewer added.

Challengers

It was only last month when Kleban threw his name into the running, and now he's dropped out and made way for Mills. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the governor entered the fray on Tuesday, marking another big name to run in the Democratic primary.

Mills was a favorite for Senate Democrats hoping to capture votes from a majority of the people in Maine. With a term-limited governor who won more than half of the statewide vote both times she ran for the state's top executive, Democrats are hopeful they can flip the seat from red to blue.

Others vying for a crack at the Senate seat include Graham Platner, a veteran and oyster farmer, and Jordan Wood, who was the chief of staff to Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA). However, it seems that Mills has the upper hand among the current candidates as early analysis suggests that the seat becomes in play with the governor on the ballot.

According to NPR, the Democratic Party's chances of picking up more seats in 2026 are slim, so they are pinning all their hopes on the 77-year-old who made a name for herself by opposing President Donald Trump. In February, Trump threatened to pull funding from states that would continue to allow men to play in women's sports despite a federal ban on the practice.

The Maine governor took Trump to court over the issue and won, which she touted in her campaign launch video shared to X. "I've never backed down from a bully and I never will. Donald Trump is ripping away health care from millions, driving up costs, and giving corporate CEOs massive tax cuts. And Susan Collins is helping him. My life’s work has prepared me for this fight—and I'm ready to win," she captioned it.

Democrats are hopeful

In the launch video, Mills shared footage of a confrontation with Trump that all but guarantees full Democratic support. In fact, the entire thrust of her candidacy comes from her promise to square off with the "bully" Trump in the hopes that Democrats can once again be successful as the opposition party.

"My life's work has prepared me for this fight, and I'm ready to win. This election will be a simple choice: Is Maine going to bow down or stand up? I know my answer," Mills said in the video.

"When I was a little girl growing up in Farmington, my father always said you have to stand up to bullies. You can't let them have their way, or they'll never stop. And I think that's what's going on in Congress right now ... Congress is not standing up to him. Susan Collins is not standing up to him," Mills added.

If Mills wins the primary and goes on to become the senator for Maine, she will be 79 by that time, and Trump will be heading into the last half of his presidency. This fact is sad as Democrats are running their same playbook and believing that opposing Trump is all they have to do to get elected.

Democratic New York Rep. Josh Riley was briefly forced out of his own town hall meeting by an anti-Israel protester who shouted him down for nearly six minutes, the Daily Caller reported. The Oct. 6 incident occurred in Riley's upstate New York district, which has been a battleground for both Republicans and Democrats.

The problem for Riley and other Democrats is that support for Israel has been tanking since the beginning of the war with Gaza, a little over two years ago. Although Hamas was initially the aggressor in the conflict, sympathies among leftists in particular are increasingly with the Palestinian people.

As a politician who supports giving aid to the Israeli military, Riley was singled out by the people in New York’s 19th congressional district as being part of the problem. The Caller shared a video posted to YouTube of the exchange.

The accusations

The people in Riley's district confronted the freshman lawmaker at the State University of New York's Sullivan campus over the unpopularity of continuing the war.  "Seventy-five percent of Democratic voters are against you, the United States, giving arms to Israel," a woman shouted at Riley as the lawmaker was trying to speak.

"Why are you voting for arms to Israel?" she added. Riley said he would answer the question, but he admonished the gray-haired woman for being disrespectful in her approach and told her she would need to be more polite about it to get a response.

"Just answer it. People are dying. Americans do not want to support genocide," the woman shouted back at a stunned Riley. She also mentioned that Riley and other House Democrats participated in an August visit to Israel, sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which has ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"I would love to answer your question," Riley pushed back again at the woman, which prompted another man in the crowd to interject. "You’re filibustering!" a male protester yelled at Riley.

"You’re supposed to listen to your voters!" the woman again interjected. Flustered, Riley replied to the woman, "I'm trying to." The woman left the room, and Riley continued with his event in the question-and-answer segment of the town hall.

Radical leftist

There was a time when being a radical leftist meant there was no reason to fear public disruptions or attacks, as their ire was reserved for Republicans with the "wrong" viewpoints. However, those incensed about the support for Israel in the war with Hamas have caused Democrats to turn on their own, including Riley.

In August, a Quinnipiac poll revealed that nearly 75% of Democrats opposed sending military assistance to Israel, meaning that just about any move that sides with Israel will outrage the Democratic base, even in a "leans left" jurisdiction like Riley's. He is no centrist Democrat, either, as the 44-year-old has repeatedly proven his leftist bona fides.

For instance, Riley opposed allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to wear masks and has supported a system to confer citizenship on illegal immigrants who have not broken the law (except the law against entering the country illegally, of course). He also purchased $15,000 worth of shares in a "women-owned, queer-led" distillery in Washington, D.C., which sells liquor branded Dissent Gin and Fascist Tears Vodka, according to the New York Post.

So far, early polling for the 2026 race still indicates that the district skews for the Democratic Party, but support for Riley could wane if this issue persists. The good news is that, as CBS News reported, President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire between the two sides, potentially fostering peace and taking the issue off the table by the time the 2026 midterm elections roll around.

Regardless of the issue, it's quite fitting that Riley was heckled by the same unhinged leftists that Democrats court and support. It's about time one of these leftists gets the same treatment from their own that's usually reserved for right-wing commentators and politicians.

Patriot News Alerts delivers timely news and analysis on U.S. politics, government, and current events, helping readers stay informed with clear reporting and principled commentary.
© 2026 - Patriot News Alerts