Republicans have asserted for several years now that Democrats have politicized and weaponized the justice system, with the reportedly slow-walked and years-long federal investigation of Hunter Biden being a prime example.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), during a campaign speech in Iowa on Tuesday, suggested that Hunter would likely already be in jail if he were a Republican instead of a Democrat, the Washington Examiner reported.
The event, held at Eternity Church in Clive, Iowa, a suburb of Des Moines, was the first full-fledged campaign event for the Florida governor since he launched his 2024 presidential candidacy last week.
"We have a bureaucracy that our Founding Fathers would find unrecognizable," DeSantis said, according to Fox News. "It is an unaccountable, weaponized, administrative state that unevenly wields authority depending on its targets."
"Two different sets of rules depending on whether you're a member in good standing of elite society or not," he added. "If Hunter were a Republican, he would have been in jail years ago."
Fox News reported that Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation since at least 2018, initially with regard to his dubious foreign business dealings and money laundering but now more narrowly focused on alleged tax law violations and making a false statement on a gun purchase form.
IRS whistleblowers recently emerged to assert that the Justice Department has interfered with and mishandled the years-long investigation in an effort to try to protect the son of President Joe Biden, however.
According to the New York Post, in addition to the remark about Hunter already being in jail if he were a Republican, Gov. DeSantis also took a few shots against President Biden and his chief competitor for the GOP nomination, former President Donald Trump, and the political establishment in Washington D.C.
"It is great to be back. And it’s great for me to report that our great American comeback starts by sending Joe Biden back to his basement in Delaware," DeSantis said to begin his speech. "I mean, he’s spent so much of his time as president on vacation, we might as well make it permanent."
With regard to Trump, DeSantis said, "At the end of the day, leadership is not about entertainment. It’s not about building a brand. it’s not about virtue signaling. It is about results, and in Florida, we didn’t lead with merely words, we followed up our words with deeds, and we have produced a record of accomplishment that we would put up against anybody in this country."
He also knocked Trump for failing to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci during the COVID pandemic and further argued that it would take at least two terms in a row to fix the nation's problems as he noted that the former president would be limited to just one more term if re-elected.
As for the D.C. establishment, Gov. DeSantis also appeared to take a swipe at House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) over the debt limit deal reached over the weekend, and said, "We now see Washington has now cooked up their latest ‘debt deal.’ And I can tell you this, our nation was careening towards bankruptcy before the debt deal, and it will still be careening towards bankruptcy after this debt deal."
"This is greenlighting $4 trillion in new debt in less than two years. It took us almost 200 years to get to $4 trillion in debt in the first place. It locks in inflated COVID-era levels of spending. And it keeps 98% of the 87,000 new IRS agents that Joe Biden instituted," the governor added.
There are some Democrats who cannot fathom the idea of former President Donald Trump being re-elected to a second term in office in 2024 and are seeking any possible tool that can be used to block him from even running again for the presidency, much less actually being elected again.
One such tool often cited in regard to Trump is a relatively obscure post-Civil War constitutional amendment that disqualifies from office any individual who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the federal government, and Democrats have shown a renewed interest in that effort, the Conservative Brief reported.
First enacted in 1868 and aimed squarely at former officials of the Confederacy, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in part, "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Known as the Disqualification Clause, the New York Post reported on Jan. 6, 2022 -- exactly one year after the Capitol riot -- that around a dozen Democratic lawmakers in Congress were exploring whether that provision could be applied to former President Trump in relation to his purported incitement of the Jan. 6 "insurrection" at the Capitol in 2021.
Meanwhile, left-wing political activist groups were simply looking for ways to apply the 14th Amendment clause to Trump and any of his supporters who participated in the protest over the disputed 2020 election results that devolved into a violent and destructive riot, namely by convincing election officials and legislatures in the states to take action to bar Trump or others from appearing as a candidate on a ballot.
Fast-forward another year to January 2023, and the Associated Press reported that a number of Democratic-led state legislatures -- including Connecticut, New York, and Virginia -- were considering legislation in that regard.
The Connecticut bill would prohibit anyone "convicted of sedition, rebellion, insurrection or a felony related to one of those acts" from running for or holding any public office in the state, while New York's bill would bar anyone "convicted of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States" from holding any civil office, and Virginia's bill would similarly "prohibit anyone convicted of a felony related to an attempted insurrection or riot from serving in positions of public trust."
The Democratic lawmakers who support such measures have pointed to the conclusions of the highly partisan congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol riot -- that Trump incited an insurrection -- as supporting evidence in their efforts to block the former president from ever being re-elected as president.
They have also pointed to federal charges of "seditious conspiracy" against some participants in the riot as well as a New Mexico court ruling that cited the 14th Amendment provision -- and was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court -- in ruling that former Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who was merely present at the protest/riot and did not engage in any violence, was forever disqualified from holding office in the state due to his actions.
More recently, the editor of Colorado Newsline, Quentin Young, published an op-ed that declared former President Trump guilty of inciting and engaging in an insurrection and asserted that there was no "dispute" that Trump was therefore disqualified from holding office by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps in recognition that Congress would not take any action to bar Trump from running for or holding office again, Young placed the burden of enforcing the 14th Amendment on the secretaries of state and top election officials of the several states and urged them to take steps to block the former president from appearing as a candidate on their respective ballots.
He further pointed to Colorado's Democratic Sec. of State Jena Griswold as a prominent leader of a state-led effort to do exactly that, though he acknowledged that it was easier said than done and would likely result in lawsuits either way -- whether from the right if Trump was disqualified from the ballot or from the left if he was not disqualified.
A similar cry came in an op-ed for The Nevada Independent, where legislators were considering a measure to prohibit "fake elector schemes" -- of which Trump is accused of conspiring to do to reverse the 2020 election results -- that would seemingly work hand-in-hand with the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from becoming the president again.
"We must use or create every legal tool possible to prevent similar attacks on our elections in the future. Senate Bill 133 addresses gaps in Nevada law to do just that. Constitutional disqualification is a century-old tool," the op-ed concluded. "Donald Trump continues to undermine our democracy by pursuing the presidency despite evidence of his disqualification, while promising to 'terminate the Constitution.' It is incumbent on all of us to educate our neighbors about old and new tools of accountability, and on government leaders to use them."
Fox News reports that the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) just rebuked the administration of President Joe Biden for not holding press briefings throughout the Memorial Day weekend.
The association, before the weekend, took issue with the lack of scheduled press briefings considering the then-ongoing negotiations between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) regarding the debt ceiling.
At the time of this writing, Biden and McCarthy have reached a deal on the debt ceiling.
But, this does not change the overall point of Fox's report, which is to highlight what has become a hallmark of the Biden administration: its lack of transparency.
Fox's report reveals that WHCA President and NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith tried unsuccessfully to get the Biden White House to hold press briefings on Friday and throughout the Memorial Day weekend.
In a statement provided to Fox, Keith said, "The WHCA board pushed hard for the White House to hold a briefing on Friday or potentially over the weekend given the intense interest in the high stakes debt ceiling negotiations and the risk that the US economy could go over a cliff."
Keith, however, goes on to say that the White House refused.
"The White House was not persuaded by our argument that the public deserves to see them answer questions," Keith said.
Keith concluded by pointing out the context: "Monday is a federal holiday, which means there could be four days in the midst of a political crisis, without a briefing."
The Biden White House has repeatedly faced criticism for a lack of transparency throughout the entirety of Biden's tenure as president, so this is not that surprising.
Also not surprising is how White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton responded following Keith's public statement, namely, by insisting that the administration is transparent.
"The briefing is one mechanism through which we share information with the press but not the only one," Dalton said. "The team is constantly available – 7 days a week – to answer questions from the press about developments in the news."
Dalton went on to attempt to show how transparent the administration has been regarding the debt ceiling issue. Noticeably, however, Dalton's response does not address Keith's chief criticism: the lack of Memorial Day weekend press conferences.
Accordingly, Dalton's statement comes off as unconvincing and even a bit desperate.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raid on a Florida Democratic lawmaker's home might just have something to do with the leaked videos involving former Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson.
The FBI search took place earlier this month, on May 8. It was of the Seminole Heights home of Tim Burke and Lynn Hurtak. Hurtak, a Democrat, is a member of the Tampa City Council, while Burke, her husband, runs a media and political consultant company called Burke Communications.
The search, itself, has previously been reported. Hurtak had released a statement suggesting that the search had something to do with Burke's journalism.
But, what was not previously reported was the link between the search and the Tucker Carlson leaks.
The Times reports that it has "obtained a letter Thursday that a Tampa federal prosecutor sent to Fox News, which describes an ongoing criminal probe into computer hacks at the company, including unaired video from Tucker Carlson’s show."
These are the leaks that are referred to above. Since Carlson's unexpected departure from Fox News, several leftist news outlets have published the contents of the leaks - which include off-air comments - in an apparent attempt to damage Carlson's reputation.
The letter, itself, according to the Times, does not mention Burke or Hurtak.
But, the outlet reports that it has "confirmed with two people close to the investigation that the matter relates to the May 8 search at his Seminole Heights home."
So, is Burke behind the leaks?
Burke, after consulting with his legal team, decided not to release a public statement in response to the letter obtained by the Times.
According to the Times, "the letter specifically notes that Vice News and Media Matters for America are not accused of any wrongdoing."
Rather, the Times reports the letter as stating that the investigation "concerns illegal conduct by other subjects,” - "subjects [who] are not Fox News employees or affiliates."
This would appear to rule out Fox News as a source of the leaks. Some commentators had thought that the outlet, following Carlson's departure, leaked the material in order to damage his reputation. But, apparently, this is not the case.
This would also appear to rule out Burke as a source of the leaks. But, then, then the question remains as to why the FBI conducted a raid of his house in connection with the Carlson leaks. There are still many unanswered questions here.
Fox News reports that the U.S. House of Representatives this past week passed a resolution to block President Joe Biden from implementing his federal student loan handout.
The resolution, which was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), was passed by the House on Wednesday, May 24, by a vote of 218 to 203.
All House Republicans and two House Democrats voted for the bill, while the remaining House members voted against it.
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to reject a policy put forth by the executive branch - such as Biden's student loan handout.
It was last summer - before the 2022 midterm elections - that Biden announced his student loan handout.
The policy would cancel up to $10,000 in debt for each federal student loan borrower, unless the borrower is a Pell Grant recipient, in which case the policy would cancel up to $20,000 in debt per borrower. To qualify for debt forgiveness, a borrower only needs to be making less than $125,000 per year if single or less than $250,000 per year if married.
Altogether the policy is estimated to cost the federal government - and thus the taxpayer - upwards of $400 billion.
Biden and his administration rapidly attempted to move forward with the policy, but he was stopped in his tracks by several lawsuits.
Now, the student loan handout is before the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Biden has faced significant criticism for the student loan handout plan - including from some Democrats. The chief criticism stems from the fact that Biden is attempting to move forward with this student loan forgiveness policy using executive action alone. This is the precise reason why the courts have halted Biden's student loan handout.
Republicans, however, have also criticized the plan for other reasons.
Rep. Good, for example, said this after the House passed his resolution:
President Biden’s student loan transfer scheme shifts hundreds of billions of dollars of payments from student loan borrowers onto the backs of the American people. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues overwhelmingly supported my legislation on the House floor today.
For Good's resolution to succeed in canceling Biden's student loan handout, it will need to be approved by the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely because it is controlled by the Democrats.
Accordingly, it appears that the justices of the Supreme Court will have the final say on whether Biden can move forward with this policy. The justices are expected to rule on the legality of the policy at some point this summer.
Former President Donald Trump has been hounded and maligned by critics for years -- and now even faces criminal charges -- over an alleged affair in 2006 with porn star Stormy Daniels that he purportedly sought to keep quiet with a "hush money" payment and non-disclosure agreement in 2016 that she violated when she came forward publicly in 2018.
Now Daniels has said in a recent interview that she regrets ever saying anything about the alleged affair with Trump at all, as it feels to her like "it was just for nothing," the New York Post reported.
She expressed her concern that despite everything that has been said and done against Trump in relation to her, she fears that he ultimately will "get away with" never having to face any real accountability for his alleged crimes.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, appeared in-studio for an interview on "Good Morning Britain" while in the United Kingdom for a speaking engagement at Oxford University.
Asked about her expression of regret, Daniels said, "Nobody cares what the truth is anymore," and a moment later reiterated that "when you are showing people the actual facts and the evidence it just doesn't matter."
She went on to say that she didn't feel "defeated" but she did feel that "I spoke my truth, but it was just for nothing. I just feel like if people don’t want to face facts and see the truth and make a change and let somebody get away with this, then you know what, I’d rather have had the time back with my family."
Daniels went on to claim that she is continuously "attacked" by Trump supporters -- as has been her horse, albeit without any elaboration on that assertion -- and further claimed that "they have gone after friends and family.
She did note that she "absolutely" intended to testify against Trump at his upcoming trial in Manhattan, but said, "If I could go back and do it over, I almost -- this is a really terrible thing to say -- I almost feel like humans aren’t really worth saving at this point. Like, what's the point? Truth doesn't seem to matter."
Asked later if she was "frightened" by Trump's apparent power, Daniels replied, "Yes, we all should be," but then clarified a second later, "I’m not frightened of him. He doesn’t scare me at all. I’m frightened of his sycophants and his followers."
"Aand it’s the tone that has changed since the first time around" in terms of the threats that she has received and how most of the attackers were initially anonymous but "now they’ve become bold. And they’ve changed -- their threats are more real" and they are using "real accounts" and "real phone numbers."
The Daily Wire reported that Daniels telling "Good Morning Britain" that she "absolutely" would still testify against Trump was similar to what she had told Piers Morgan in an interview last month when asked about the prospect of testifying.
Daniels said the idea was "scary" and "daunting, but I look forward to it" because "I have nothing to hide. I’m the only one that has been telling the truth, and you can’t shame me anymore."
She went on to suggest that not being called to testify might create a perception that her claims were unbelievable and said, "Having them call me in and put me on the stand legitimizes my story and who I am, and if they don’t, it almost feels like they’re hiding me."
House Republicans led by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) have been negotiating with President Joe Biden's White House on a possible bipartisan agreement to lift the nation's debt limit before a supposed default date of June 1.
On Wednesday, Speaker McCarthy indicated to reporters that he believed a debt limit deal was nearly within reach, with just a few details remaining to be haggled over, Breitbart reported.
He also appeared to chide reporters for having "underestimated" him and the unity of Republicans regarding actually reaching an agreement that a bipartisan majority of the House could vote in support of.
Speaking to reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon, Speaker McCarthy said his staff intended "to try to finish up the negotiations" with the White House on a debt limit deal within the next day or so but cautioned that "there’s several places that we are still far apart."
House Republicans passed a bill in April to raise the debt limit but made it contingent upon steep spending cuts and rollbacks of some of President Biden's initiatives in addition to various other reforms that Democrats reflexively balked at and initially refused to even discuss -- though now are negotiating over all of that and more as the default deadline approaches.
To be sure, any potential compromise with the White House will likely be rejected by some Republicans, but when asked about the prospects of keeping the House GOP unified in such a development, McCarthy pointed to prior wins and said, "You underestimated me the whole time. The one thing you should learn from me, I will never give up for the American people. … Can we get to ‘yes?’ Yes. We passed a bill."
Fox Business reported Thursday morning that an unnamed source familiar with the status of the ongoing negotiations said that a deal was within reach, potentially as soon as Friday, and that lawmakers who had left town for the Memorial Day weekend and congressional recess for the following week were on notice that they could be called back to the Capitol at any time for a necessary vote.
Another unnamed senior House GOP source told the outlet of the possible agreement, "We still have some things to resolve. We have to see if it’s final, final."
It was further noted that Speaker McCarthy had expressed optimism with regard to the negotiations on Wednesday and had told reporters that he had instructed his people to "work 24/7 to try to solve this problem."
Reuters also reported on Thursday that a debt limit deal was close at hand but that the two sides were still sparring over the details of about $70 billion worth of an estimated $1 trillion agreement.
"We knew this would not be easy," McCarthy told reporters Thursday evening and added with regard to the prospect of some members revolting over the terms of a compromise, "I don't think everybody's going to be happy at the end of the day. That's not how the system works."
Politico reported Thursday that a leaked memo rumored to contain details of a possible deal was circulating among House Republicans -- causing consternation among some hardliners -- that would lift the debt limit through 2024, impose caps on all spending bills, claw back unspent COVID relief funds, and possibly even include strengthened work requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients.
Earlier that same day, Axios reported that House Democrats were equally dreading a potential deal as much as default, as they understood they would likely have to accept at least some substantial concessions demanded by Republicans, with one unnamed Democratic lawmaker saying, "While Democrats know they will have to eat a turd sandwich, the Republicans will have to put some Nutella spread on it first."
As for the possibility that some conservative House Republicans might refuse to accept a compromise agreement, Politico reported separately on Wednesday that the White House estimated that they may have to convince anywhere from 50-100 centrist and moderate Democrats to vote for a deal they may not like, if only to avoid default and not leave the president standing alone after negotiating an agreement.
In a pleasant, albeit temporary boost in viewership for the struggling network, CNN enjoyed near-record ratings when it hosted former President Donald Trump for a controversy-sparking town hall-style event on May 10.
As predicted at the time, however, the high would not last, and CNN's viewership ratings are actually worse now than they were before the Trump event, Breitbart reported.
That is most likely due to an exodus of previously loyal left-leaning CNN viewers who were outraged at the network for providing a platform for the hated former president to speak and be heard.
On May 11, Axios reported that the Nielsen TV ratings showed that CNN had drawn 3.3 million total viewers for its Trump town hall, which was just shy of the network's record of 3.4 million total viewers for a 2020 town hall-style event with then-candidate Joe Biden.
The Trump town hall event also drew more than 780,000 viewers in the key demographic of adults aged 25-54 that are targeted by advertisers, which is roughly four times more than regular host Anderson Cooper typically draws in that primetime hour.
Overall, the event also delivered a boost to the hours following the event with Trump as many viewers stuck around to watch the network's analysis and discussion of what the former president had said, even as it sparked an incredible backlash among some Democratic viewers and even some of CNN's own employees.
That boost was short-lived, though, as Newsweek reported less than a week later that CNN's ratings had plummeted back below the pre-town hall numbers, even dropping all the way to fourth place among cable news channels behind conservative network Newsmax.
Looking one day prior to the Trump town hall, CNN had averaged around 589,000 viewers in the primetime hours of 8-11 pm, but just three days later -- two days after the Trump event -- that primetime average had fallen to just 335,000.
Yet, if CNN thought that their ratings would bounce back to normal after some of the controversies of the Trump town hall had cooled off, they were sorely mistaken.
The Daily Mail reported that for the week that ended on May 19, the first full week following the Trump event, CNN's viewership remained low with a total daily viewer average of just 429,000 -- less than half of the 976,000 who watched MSNBC and around 1 million viewers less than Fox News.
That outlet further noted that, rather than just a short-term fluke, last week's primetime ratings for CNN also continued to fall just shy of those of Newsmax -- which has itself enjoyed a slight boost of likely former Fox News viewers who abandoned that network after it cut ties with former top-rated host Tucker Carlson.
The viewership numbers for CNN cited by the Daily Mail appeared to be somewhat more generous than what Breitbart had determined in its own review of the last full week after the Trump town hall event.
That outlet revealed that, in the weeks prior to the Trump event, CNN had averaged around 494,000 total primetime viewers with an average of 111,000 in the key demo, but in the full week after the event those figures had fallen to averages of 400,000 and 94,000, respectively.
Breitbart's John Nolte quipped in conclusion, "CNN believed it could destroy Trump, but as of right now, it looks as though Trump destroyed CNN. Leftist viewers will never forgive CNN for allowing Trump to look that good, and leftist viewers have all kinds of alternatives."
President Joe Biden, who would be 86 upon leaving office if elected to a second term in the White House, is widely viewed by a majority of the American people as being both too old and too diminished in terms of his physical and mental health to continue serving as president.
That view is reportedly shared by at least some of Biden's fellow senior citizens in his oft-mentioned hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, according to the Western Journal.
Notably, that includes some seniors who voted for the current president in the prior election but now feel as though somebody younger -- albeit not named Kamala Harris -- ought to be the one in charge of leading the United States.
Media outlet The Messenger recently went to the predominately Democratic town of Scranton and specifically sought out senior citizens to ask for their thoughts on the continued presidential ambitions of the individual who is arguably the area's most famous former resident, President Biden.
The outlet spoke with several seniors playing bingo at a local senior center, including Ike Mielo, 82, who voted for Biden in 2020 but has no plans to do so again in 2024, and said, "You start to lose your mind after a certain age. I see myself, you know. I think we need a younger guy."
Another senior who previously voted for Biden but is unlikely to do so again is Barbara Petroski, 86, who said of the president, "He's making a good front and everything, but I just don't think he has the capabilities anymore. And four more years? I just don't think he's going to have the brain power."
She noted that she'd prefer to vote for former Vice President Mike Pence but would consider supporting Biden again if matched up once more versus former President Donald Trump, who at 76 is also too old in her view, and added, "There comes a time when you have to step down. And it's hard to concede to that too, you know."
They were joined by retired Republican Frank Miller, who is in his 60s and expressed concern not so much for Biden's age but who his immediate successor would be, Vice President Kamala Harris. Pointing to a local newspaper while eating at a diner, Miller said, "I don't want to pick this up in the morning and see that President Biden has passed away overnight and now Kamala Harris is our president."
In reference to the increasing evidence of Biden's diminished state, he added, "I don't blame Mr Biden at all for it. It's just nature. … I really do think that another term would not be in his best interest. If it was my dad, I wouldn’t want him to do it."
To be sure, The Messenger found plenty of senior citizens in Scranton who downplayed President Biden's advanced age and expressed their continued support for him, which would seem to align somewhat with a burgeoning trend in polling that Politico reported on in April.
Though not always the case in every poll, the outlet noted that the cohort of voters aged 65+ seemed to be the one portion of the electorate that consistently gave Biden the highest level of approval and support -- a stark change from the past two decades when Republicans seemed to have a lock on that particular segment of the voting population.
That could bode well for Biden's re-election bid, and there is some evidence to suggest that his campaign will attempt to exploit the perceived boost in support for the president from his fellow seniors.
However, an early May poll from ABC News/The Washington Post found that, overall, 68 percent thought President Biden was too old for a second term while only around a third of Americans thought he had the mental sharpness and physical fitness to continue serving as president.
Among senior citizens, that included 62 percent who said he was "too old" and, predictably, even higher numbers who thought the same among younger blocs of voters.
Fox News reports that at least 10 people are dead and several others are injured following an ambush-type attack that occurred in Baja, California.
The incident took place on Saturday during Cachanillazo, a two-day all-terrain off-road vehicle rally that is held in Baja every year.
The ambush occurred at 2:18 p.m. local time, when the racers paused by a gas station along the Transpeninsular Highway in San Vicente, Ensenada.
It appears that Mexican drug cartels were involved.
While participants were stopped at the gas station, a group of individuals emerged from multiple gray vans with long guns and began firing at the participants.
The ambushers then got back in their vehicles and fled the scene.
The damage was done, and some of it was caught on video, which can be found on social media. ABC News reports:
Video purportedly of the shooting was posted on social media, showing off-road vehicles lined up along a road and capturing the sounds of screams and numerous rounds of gunfire. Several people who appeared to have been shot were seen in the online footage lying on the ground.
Several entities - including state police, the Marines, and the Mexican Red Cross - responded to the scene.
At the time of this writing, reports are indicating that at least 19 people were shot during the attack. And, of those 19, at least 10 of the individuals have died.
Mexican journalist Alfredo Alvarez, who was at the scene, reports that the ambush involved Mexican drug cartels. Specifically, Alvarez writes that the shooting was a confrontation between members of the Arellano Felix Cartel (CAF) and the Sinaloa Cartel.
Local outlets have reported that the ambushers were targeting a member of the CAF cartel. And this member, who was killed in the shooting, was being investigated by the U.S. government for drug trafficking.
Several details about the incident remain unclear. An investigation has been ordered by Baja California State Attorney General Ricardo Ivan Carpio Sanchez, according to Ensenada Mayor Armando Ayala Robles.
Thus far, it does not appear as though any arrests have been made.
The racing event took place roughly 90 miles south of the southern border, where illegal immigration has been taking place at record rates during the administration of President Joe Biden. The latest surge has followed Biden's recent decision not to renew Title 42 - the Trump-era public health policy that was used to rapidly expel illegal immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.