Four sources close to the matter claim that top military brass is crafting plans to strike at Venezuelan drug traffickers at the source in the South American nation, NBC News reported. This would escalate action already taken by President Donald Trump's administration against the illicit drug trade that funnels its poison from Venezuela into the U.S.
Two of the sources were familiar with the specific discussions, while the other two had knowledge of the planning effort, suggesting that these strategic moves are indeed moving forward. All parties requested that the news outlet keep them anonymous, as these plans are not intended for public consumption.
The strikes would be targeted but represent another level of engagement as they would take place within Venezuela. There have already been three military strikes against Venezuelan boats that allegedly were carrying drugs and nefarious individuals that Trump said were dangerous to Americans.
đ¨Alert: Drone strikes against Venezuela Coming! According to an NBC News exclusive, the US is preparing options for military strikes against Venezuelan drug trafficking targets, with plans centered on drone strikes against El Presidente and his regime in Caracas. They assure⌠pic.twitter.com/gveDPTpReV
â US Homeland Security News (@defense_civil25) September 27, 2025
Sources indicate that although the White House hasn't made any official plans for attacks, the military campaign could be initiated within the next several weeks, based on current discussions. They would likely be drone strikes focused on the cartels' leadership and members, as well as the locations where these drugs are refined and manufactured.
This comes as Trump believes that Venezuelan President NicolĂĄs Maduro hasn't done enough to keep the cartels from exporting illegal narcotics to the U.S., which was the justification for the previous boat strikes. The attacks were successful, as evidenced by drugs found in the water following one particular strike, according to the nearby U.S. Embassy and officials in the Dominican Republic.
At this point, further military action is a theoretical possibility, but recent movements of military resources into the area suggest something bigger is on the horizon, Fox News reported. "Whether we see more consequential strikes will depend more on political calculations in Washington than on operational capability," said Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the international affairs think tank, the Atlantic Council.
"The administration could use the strikes as occasional shows of force, or it could escalate into a more systematic campaign. But the risk of doing so would be that we could destabilize Venezuela and spark an internal armed conflict with no clear endgame," Ramsey warned.
What begins as a strike against the drug trade could carry a "real risk of escalation" if Maduro believes his nation's sovereignty is under attack. It could also spark off a "cycle of retaliation" from the Venezuelan government, but that might be a risk Trump is willing to take to combat the growing drug problem.
As NBC News noted, a U.S. military official has noted that more than 4,000 personnel and eight warships have been deployed to the area. Several F-35 fighter jets have also arrived in Puerto Rico, suggesting that forces are preparing for an event in the region.
"You donât move that many resources down there without looking at all options," one source said. It's unusual to allocate such a significant number of military resources to one area while leaving others vulnerable without a clear plan. "You canât keep that kind of firepower in the Caribbean forever," the source said.
Moreover, Trump has a history of pursuing Maduro over Venezuela's role in sending drugs such as fentanyl and cocaine into the U.S. As Trump's first term was wrapping up in 2020, his Justice Department slapped the Venezuelan president with charges related to the Venezuelan drugs and gangs.
There's some suggestion that part of the objective in sending military assets and initiating drone strikes is to destabilize Maduro's power. This is an objective Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also supported, according to those close to the administration, and could serve Trump's purposes of keeping the U.S. safe while ousting a terrible leader.
Nobody is eager for war at this time, but cutting off the drug problem at its source by initiating some drone strikes seems like a risk worth taking. Venezuela is a nation overrun with drugs and crime that's run by a dictator, and regime change may be necessary to make life better for its citizens as well as Americans.
Former FBI Director James Comey faces a maximum of five years in prison if found guilty on charges stemming from allegedly making false statements to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and obstructing justice, News Nation reported. Comey testified before the committee on September 30, 2020, regarding the FBI's investigation into Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
A grand jury indicted Comey on Thursday, finding that he allegedly falsely denied that he "authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" about the 2016 case during the campaign. Trump was accused of colluding with Russia to help him win the 2016 election, a charge which later proved to be patently false.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the indictment with a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. "No one is above the law. Todayâs indictment reflects this Department of Justiceâs commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case," Bondi wrote.
No one is above the law. Todayâs indictment reflects this Department of Justiceâs commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.
â Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) September 25, 2025
According to Fox News, Comey will be arraigned on Oct. 9 in front of District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. The criminal investigation began in July to uncover whether Comey had lied to Congress after Trump was embroiled in the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation.
Special counsel Robert Mueller looked into the investigation and found in March 2019 that there was no proof of any collusion or conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin. Armed with that information, Special Counsel John Durham was appointed to investigate the origins of the investigation that dogged Trump throughout the 2016 campaign and into his presidency.
As many suspected, Durham concluded that the FBI "failed to act" on doubts despite a "clear warning sign" that Hillary Clinton's campaign made the FBI the "target" of a scheme to "manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes" during the campaign. This all but proved the entire investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt that was used in an effort to keep Trump out of the White House.
Still, Comey claims that he is the victim of political targeting, having been allegedly held accountable for only a small part of the injustice. "My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldnât imagine ourselves living any other way," Comey claimed in a video post to Instagram.
"We will not live on our knees, and you shouldnât either," he went on. "My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and Iâm innocent, so letâs have a trial and keep the faith," Comey later concluded.
As Comey makes himself a martyr, the media dutifully reports his indictment as an example of Trump targeting his political enemies. However, as Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, expertly demonstrated in a post to X Friday, this is a blatant double standard from the press.
"I donât know if James Comey is innocent or guilty, but I do know that when the Biden DoJ indicted Trump aides Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, the WP and NYT treated it as straight news, not as Biden going after his opponents. But now, itâs all about Trump getting his enemies," Fleischer pointed out.
Contrast it with these headlines today: pic.twitter.com/NZC3OAwlbD
â Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 26, 2025
The media consultant shared screenshots of several headlines from the news outlets when then-President Joe Biden's administration started going after Trump's former aides and associates. In another post in the thread, Fleischer shared headlines from the story about Comey's indictment, where those same outlets called it part of his plan to "prosecute foes" and called Comey a "longtime Trump target."
The left tried to destroy Trump with investigations, prosecutions, and smears in the media thanks to people like Comey. If he's guilty, Comey deserves to serve every day of his sentence for what could have amounted to election interference and, at the very least, for trying to destroy Trump's reputation
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's administration couldn't withhold billions of dollars in aid from states that refused to enforce immigration law, Newsweek reported. Judge William E. Smith of the District of Rhode Island, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, sided with 20 Democrat-led states in his decision.
The Department of Homeland Security linked Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief funds to each state's compliance with illegal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit against this action was spearheaded by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and the attorneys general from the other states that reject border security and immigration measures.
"We are experiencing creeping authoritarianism in this country, and as a people we must continue to resist. Using the safety of Americans as collateral, the Trump Administration is once again illegally subverting the Congress, bullying the states to relinquish their right, ensured by the Constitution, to enact policies and laws that best serve their residents," Neronha charged.
"By threatening to withhold these congressionally allocated funds, used for projects like fixing highways and preparing for natural disasters, the President is willing to put our collective safety at risk," he added. Smith granted a permanent injunction to the enforcement of this rule.
According to the Boston Globe, the DHS guidance originated with a Trump executive order stating that "sanctuary" jurisdictions, which don't enforce immigration law, should be denied funding from federal agencies, including the DHS and FEMA. In February, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued guidelines for all agencies under her direction to hold states wishing to receive financial assistance grants to that standard.
The DHS doubled down in March by requiring states receiving grants to certify that they wouldn't administer any program that "benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration" currently or in the future. This triggered several states to file lawsuits challenging the DHS's authority to impose such guidance without a statutory basis.
The attorneys general from California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and all New England states except New Hampshire joined the lawsuit. FEMA and the DHS argued that the agencies were given Congressional permission to administer funds as they see fit, including homeland security grants.
The judge disagreed, calling those conditions on funding "unlawfully ambitious" and "hopeleslly vague," Smith said in his 45-page ruling. âStates cannot predict how DHS will interpret these vague terms, yet they risk losing billions in federal funding for any perceived violation,â Smith wrote in his decision.
"Nor did DHS consider the public safety consequences of undermining state emergency budgets in this way. As a result, the conditions not only jeopardize statesâ fiscal planning but also threaten their capacity to protect public safety in the areas where federal and state cooperation is most critical," Smith said.
Smith decided that the rule couldn't be enforced "regardless of DHSâs arguments related to its authority to promulgate them because the contested conditions are both arbitrary and capricious under the APA and unconstitutional under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution," the judge wrote. Smith said that since the states would "suffer irreparable harm," the only remedy would be "injunctive relief."
However, that might not be the end of it for the Trump administration. As attorney Andrew Branca pointed out, the Trump administration has had much success getting these lower court rulings overturned at the Supreme Court.
"Trump is currently 19-0 at the Supreme Court this year alone, and has many more wins at the Court of Appeals level," the podcast host wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter on Wednesday. "Final judicial losses for Trump? ZERO," Branca added. He noted that the "anti-Trump, anti-Constitutional 'rulings' of these unelected, tyrannical, inferior, federal district court judges" often don't stand.
These lower court rulings are so frequently and consistently reversed either by the Court of Appeals or by SCOTUS that it's not worth the effort to cover them anymore.
Trump is currently 19-0 at the Supreme Court this year alone, and has many more wins at the Court of Appeals⌠https://t.co/XpEL6vLPdO
â Andrew Branca Show (@LawSelfDefense) September 24, 2025
The court's ruling means that the DHS rule is not enforceable at the moment, but a reversal on appeal could allow the Trump administration to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable through funding. Trump's agenda includes many avenues for tamping out illegal immigration, and this is just out of a plethora of options that are still on the table.
President Donald Trump and his administration are riding high after a string of Supreme Court victories in key cases, NBC News reported. The success has come in part from being particular about which issues to argue in front of the high court, which leans to a conservative majority of 6-3 among the justices.Â
The news outlet views Trump's choices as a careful strategy to accumulate as many wins as possible, and it appears to be working. So far, the administration has successfully argued 19 cases before the Supreme Court and has enjoyed a 16-case winning streak since its last loss in May, after another win this week.
"Theyâre ecstatic," a source close to the administration said of the impressive outcome. Of the emergency petitions the Trump administration brought to the Supreme Court, only two out of 28 were denied while four are still pending.
This comes as more than 300 active lawsuits are also pending against the Trump administration, while only a handful have been heard by the Supreme Court. "We are being very careful. Weâre dotting our iâs, crossing our tâs. But we prepare for loss, of course. We never just assume," a White House official told NBC News.
Trump's impressive record was illustrated in a bar graph by NBC News White House reporter Katherine Doyle just before Trump notched yet another win, allowing him to dismiss the Federal Trade Commissioner. "The White House has won 18 times at the Supreme Court since Trump took office and is on a 15-case winning run. The last loss was in May," she captioned the image in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
NEW: White House âecstaticâ after a long string of Supreme Court victories
The White House has won 18 times at the Supreme Court since Trump took office and is on a 15-case winning run. The last loss was in May.
W/ @lawrencehurley pic.twitter.com/qJwNMrOvXv
â Katherine Doyle (@katiadoyl) September 22, 2025
Trump's team, which includes White House counsel David Warrington, as well as former law clerks for the Supreme Court, said that these wins stem from a careful legal strategy. The orders filed are ones that they believe are solidly based in legal precedent, and also what the president thinks is most important to take on.
"We do take into consideration the fact that some things are more of a priority versus others, and most of what weâre appealing is a priority," the unnamed official explained. While the legal team expected to be sued over policy, they did not anticipate how many of Trump's executive orders would be blocked by lower courts.
"The Trump Administrationâs policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings," Abigail Jackson, White House spokeswoman, explained in a statement. "The President will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November lawfully, and the winning will continue!"
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has been instrumental in many of Trump's wins, including his crackdown on illegal immigration and efforts to slash government waste. Sauer is a fighter and was successful in pushing back against the lawfare against Trump, arguing at the Supreme Court on his behalf before he took office.
The cases previously leveled against Trump as an individual have now been directed against his policies, with lower courts blocking many of his executive orders. As Fox News reported, these nationwide injunctions have become a significant challenge to the Trump administration's agenda, as the Supreme Court chips away at them through favorable decisions for the Administration.
Meanwhile, the administration has remained intentional about which issues to fight back on and how, which Jonathan Adler, a professor at the William & Mary Law School, said is part of the game. "There are some cases that are very likely to be losers they havenât brought," Adler said.
"That suggests to me it has been very strategic," he added. Other significant cases could land in court, such as Trump's ability to impose tariffs, and former Federal Election Commission chairman and litigator Michael Toner believes they might break that winning streak. "Theyâve had a very good few months. But the real ballgame still lies ahead," Toner said.
The Trump administration is on point with its strategy so far, as evidenced by its winning streak. Regardless of how much his opponents attack him, Trump will continue to notch victories because he has a legal team that was trained by the many attacks leveled at him for many years.
The Department of Homeland Security will not comply with a newly enacted California law that bans federal agents from wearing masks while conducting their operations, The Hill reported. A social media post from the DHS on Monday emphatically stated that the DHS "will NOT comply with Gavin Newsomâs unconstitutional mask ban."
President Donald Trump's administration has begun conducting raids and deporting illegal immigrants just as he'd promised during the 2024 presidential campaign. In California, 27% of residents are foreign-born, a fact which likely spurs on Newsom's opposition as he makes a play for the White House in 2028.
On Saturday, Newsom signed the first-of-its-kind legislation banning masks for agents, including DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents carrying out immigration enforcement and other operations. The leftist governor charges that these agents are "hidden from accountability" and that masks deny "transparency" and block "oversight" by the public.
"Thatâs Trumpâs America, but thatâs not the America weâve grown up in," Newsom said during a news conference at a California high school while announcing the legislation. "And so we are pushing back," the governor promised.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, 5,000 illegal immigrants were arrested from June to August in the city of Los Angeles alone. Rather than focusing on the widespread nature of the problem and the ways the federal government is addressing it, Newsom is concerned about what the people who bring these criminals to justice are wearing on their faces.
Meanwhile, ICE agents have been forced to wear masks because of the increased threats against them. "At a time that ICE law enforcement faces a 1,000% increase in assaults and their family members are being doxxed and targeted, the sitting Governor of California signed unconstitutional legislation that strips law enforcement of protections in a disgusting, diabolical fundraising and PR stunt," the DHS, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, said in a statement on X, formerly Twitter.
To be clear: We will NOT comply with Gavin Newsomâs unconstitutional mask ban.
At a time that ICE law enforcement faces a 1,000% increase in assaults and their family members are being doxxed and targeted, the sitting Governor of California signed unconstitutional legislation⌠pic.twitter.com/8Me4OOP8t8
â Homeland Security (@DHSgov) September 22, 2025
The video accompanying the post featured a Fox News interview about the Trump administration's response to the issue. It began with Newsom and his taunting message after signing the legislation. "To ICE: unmask. What are you afraid of?" Newsom said in his remarks about the law.
Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin then explained that the situation has become dire due to the leftists' crusade against immigration enforcement. "Not only are they facing a 1000% increase in assaults against them, largely because of the rhetoric of these politicians likening them to the Gestapo or Nazis. This law, in fact, was called the No Secret Police [Act]." McLaughlin added.
McLaughlin believes Newsom is "giving permission" for people to attack agents with such rhetoric, and the new law equates the actions of government agencies with America's enemy in World War II. She also pointed out that just before announcing the legislation, Newsom's social media "issued a threatening post against Secretary Noem," she shared.
"It seemed very menacing and I think it was pretty disturbing to see," McLaughlin said about the post to X. Newsom's official press office issued the post stating, "Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. Youâre welcome, America."
According to Fox News, this prompted a formal threat response from the U.S. Secret Service. Agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi shared that the Department of Justice referred the matter to his agency, but that he was unable to comment on "specific protective intelligence matters" such as this.
"However, the Secret Service must vigorously investigate any situation or individual, regardless of position or status, that could pose or be perceived as posing a threat to any of our protectees," Guglielmi said. "Especially in a politically charged climate, such as this," he added. This threatening language from a high-profile politician came a little more than a week after conservative pundit and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was shot to death, which has put many on edge about political violence.
Newsom's law demonstrates a severe disregard for the safety of government officials tasked with carrying out law enforcement operations. What makes it worse is his rhetoric surrounding it that only adds to the heightened temperature of political discourse right now, and Newsom seems unable or unwilling to see the potential risks of that.
Retired FBI signature expert Wayne Barnes said after analyzing President Donald Trump's signature on a letter supposedly written to Jeffrey Epstein on his 50th birthday in the early 2000s.Â
Trump has consistently denied writing the letter, which was part of a book Epstein's friends put together for him, since the House Oversight Committee released it earlier this month after the letter was leaked to the press.
After looking at the letter, which had a suggestive message superimposed over a woman's body, Barnes said the first-name-only signature looked similar to the one on other personal letters sent by Trump to friends.
But there was one critical difference between Trump's Epstein letter and the others: the color of the paper.
Only the Epstein letter was on white paper. Every other letter Trump sent that bore his signature was on colored paper, Barnes said.
"Whoever created the dialogue page seems to have put a good deal of thought into it, but something was overlooked," Barnes wrote. "By far, the pages where Mr. Trump signs with his first name only, are outgoing letters where there is some coloration to the paper used. It is off-white or yellow-to-beige, but it never seems to be white.
"That means that if someone cut out an appliquĂŠ of the 'Donald' signature and tried to affix (paste or tape) it to a piece of white paper, the difference in color around the 'Donald' would stand out. So, the colored paper had to be photocopied onto a white page, so the trimming around the signature could take place and not be observed because of a different tone of the paper," he continued.
"This would mean that the ultimate color of the target paper used, on which to place the applique, would also have to be white, which is the case with the dialogue page in the birthday book," he added.
Why would a different colored paper make such a difference in whether Barnes thought Trump actually wrote the letter to Epstein?
Barnes explained,
Mr. Trumpâs standard is colored paper which, it is highly likely he would have used for any outgoing letter, no matter the recipient. It is just what he does. The creator of the dialogue page could not have made his creation appear 'real,' without it all appearing to be on white paper, which is against Mr. Trumpâs personal standard. It is unlikely that the culprit thought this far outside of the box, but as a professional investigator, it is in my wheelhouse to consider such things.
"A thorough investigation indicates it is highly unlikely that he penned (or with a felt-tip marker or Sharpie) or wrote his name beneath those dialogue lines and the drawing," Barnes concluded.
Barnes said it wasn't a case of someone "forging" his signature, but of fraudulently affixing it to the letter.
The result is the same--he doesn't believe Trump wrote the letter, but that someone photocopied the signature onto it.
Barnes is a 29-year veteran of the FBI and still testifies as an expert on cases during his retirement.
The fallout from the assassination of conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk has continued apace, now prompting the indefinite suspension of late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel from his ABC television show for his characterization of the accused shooter and of MAGA supporters more broadly.
Former President Barack Obama decided to weigh in on the networkâs decision, pointing a finger of blame at the Trump administration and implying its involvement in First Amendment violations, but, as Fox News reports, he drew a swift rebuke from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
As Newsweek explains, Obama took to X in the aftermath of Kimmelâs suspension, sharing an article written by David French for the New York Times, which warned of the purported First Amendment dangers it represented.
That post followed additional online commentary from the former president in which he implored media moguls to resist what he described as pressure from the Trump administration to engage in censorship.
Obama wrote, âAfter years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesnât like.â
He continued, âThis is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent â and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.â
In response to Obamaâs comments, Leavitt fired back swiftly and surely, countering the former presidentâs implication that the Trump White House forced the issue on Kimmelâs suspension.
The press secretaryâs response came during an appearance on Fox Newsâ Saturday in America, hosted by Kayleigh McEnany
âWith all due respect to former President Barack Obama, he has no idea what heâs talking about.â Leavitt declared.
Stating emphatically that Trump had no role in Kimmelâs temporary removal from the airwaves, Leavitt added, âAnd how do I know that, Kayleigh? Because I was with the president when this news broke in the United Kingdom,â adding that the commander in chief âhad no idea this was happening.â
Leavitt did not stop there, stating, âIt was a decision that was made by ABC because Jimmy Kimmel chose to knowingly like to his audience on his program about the death of a highly respected man when our country is in a state of mourning. That was a decision that he made, and he is now facing a consequence for that decision and for that lie.â
Bolstering the assertion that Kimmelâs suspension was a corporate-driven decision and not the coerced government action Obama claimed was a statement issued by Nexstar Media Group, owner of hundreds of ABC affiliates across the country.
âMr. Kimmelâs comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,â the company declared.
Sinclair, the countryâs largest ABC affiliate group, took things a step further by not just declaring its intent to preempt Kimmelâs program but also demanding that the host issue a formal apology to the Kirk family and make a substantial financial contribution to Turning Point USA.
Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said former Vice President Kamala Harris is "going to have to answer for" her silence when then-President Joe Biden's mental decline became apparent, NBC News reported. Harris's forthcoming book, 107 Days, about her short-lived run as the Democratic presidential nominee, revealed how she stood by as Biden decided to run again despite his apparent issues.
Shapiro appeared on Stephen A. Smith's Straight Shooter on Sirius XM on Thursday and was asked about it by the host. The Pennsylvania Democrat said that Harris should have come clean" about her concerns rather than waiting until her tell-all book.
In the book, Harris asked herself, "Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness," she admitted about her decision to stay quiet. "The stakes were simply too high. This wasnât a choice that should have been left to an individualâs ego, an individualâs ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision."
The Pennsylvania governor was angry that Harris kept mum while such a vital fact went unsaid until after the election, when it no longer mattered. "I haven't read the former vice president's book, and she's going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly," Shapiro told the host.
"I can tell you that I wasnât in the room, but when I was confronted with engaging with the former president, in looking at it simply from the perspective of, how is he doing in Pennsylvania? Could he win Pennsylvania?" Shapiro said.
"Because, I think, Stephen, you understand, if you canât win Pennsylvania, itâs pretty darn hard to win the national election. And I was very vocal with him, privately, and extremely vocal with his staff about my concerns about his fitness to be able to run for another term," Shapiro continued.
"I was direct with them. I told them my concerns," he added.  Smith also asked the governor, who was the odds-on favorite to be Harris's running mate, whether he would consider a 2028 presidential run. Shapiro said he was happy to be where he is for Pennsylvanians, but that  "we are at an inflection point, and I am troubled by what I'm seeing in this country, and I'm concerned about what I'm seeing in my party and I know that I have a voice that needs to be heard in that process," the governor said.
"How that voice ultimately gets heard, how it manifests itself, what I ultimately do, well we'll see," Shapiro went on. "I don't think that's a decision that one can make sitting here right now," he added. The governor said he loves America, but that he wants to see it move in more of a "common sense direction" than it is now.
Shapiro sounds like an excellent choice for vice president, but Harris ultimately went with the very oddball and unlikeable Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who admitted to being a "knucklehead" during the vice presidential debate. According to Fox News, the choice came down to Harris's decision to go "with her gut," which once again proved that her instincts were all wrong.
The choices were Shapiro, Walz, and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. Ultimately, Shapiro was eliminated because he might outshine Harris, as noted in the book "2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America" by Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Dawsey, The New York Times reporter Tyler Pager, and The Washington Post's Isaac Arnsdorff. Fox News shared an excerpt of the book outlining the decision.
When Harris interviewed Shapiro, she thought "the two were not a perfect match" as running mates. "He came across as overly ambitious, pushing Harris to define what his role would be. He also conceded it would not be natural for him to serve as someoneâs number two, leaving Harris with a bad impression," the book claimed.
Meanwhile, Walz had the "deferential" attitude that Harris sought while also "showing no interest in himself" and "flatly denied any interest in running for president." This was a mistake for a myriad of reasons, but especially because Walz was meant to appeal to the male voters.
Harris and the rest who were around Biden knew that something was wrong with him, but let it slide for way too long. Harris is finally owning up to the truth, but Shapiro is correct that her credibility has been tarnished over this, and it has likely doomed her political career.
Actor Charlie Sheen claims former President Bill Clinton once made a pass on a girlfriend the actor was dating while filming the 1987 flick Three for the Road, Fox News reported. Sheen made this revelation in his new memoir, The Book of Sheen, which was released last week.
The alleged encounter between Clinton and Sheen's then-girlfriend Dolly Fox occurred while Clinton, a notorious philanderer, was governor of Arkansas. The 60-year-old Wall Street actor said that he was invited to the governor's mansion along with co-stars Kerri Green and Alan Ruck.
Sheen shared a version of the story with Fox News' Jesse Watters on the day the book was released. "Bill Clinton was EYEING my GIRLFRIEND," Watters said in the caption of the post to X, formerly Twitter, of the interview.
đ¨ NEW: ACTOR CHARLIE SHEEN says he was "BORN DEAD" and NOW HEâS SPILLING HIS GUTS⌠AND NOT HOLDING BACK đ¤Ż
"You have to STOP living"
"Bill Clinton was EYEING my GIRLFRIEND"
"I started SMOKING because of JOHNNY DEPP"
"OJâs RIGHT HAND is REALLY LETHAL" pic.twitter.com/HkY1utVLug
â Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) September 10, 2025
Clinton's lasting legacy is marked by his escapades with then-intern Monica Lewinsky, but that relationship is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the rumors surrounding the former president's wandering eye. Sheen's story would have taken place several years before Clinton disgraced the Oval Office, but it tracks with what many others said about Clinton.
"It was pretty surreal as Gov. Clinton gave me a pair of red and white Razorback shoes, intentionally tacky and modeled after the mascot of Arkansasâ sports teams," Sheen said of the gift at the time. However, it wasn't the shoes that really stuck with Sheen.
"I was answering a reporterâs questions when Ruck overheard Clinton whisper to one of his aides: âFind out what you can about the brunette.â The brunette was Dolly, and to this day Alan swears it was an exact quote,'" the Two and a Half Men star said.
"I felt bad for Dolly to be objectified and skeeved out like that, but still had to take some pride in âBubbaâ fancying my gal," Sheen quipped. "Alan gave Dolly the rundown in the bar later on that same night," he added.
"To her credit, she laughed and was actually flattered," Sheen said of Fox. If Sheen is accurate in his remarks, this would have been five years before Clinton became president and almost a decade before the Lewinsky scandal showed that side of Clinton for all of America to see.
Clinton was 49 when he began his relationship with the then-22-year-old Lewinsky during his first term as president. However, the scandal would finally come to light in 1998 and, for better or worse, make Lewinsky and her evidence-stained blue dress notorious in the eyes of the public.
After Clinton admitted to the "inappropriate relationship" he had with Lewinsky after telling a different tale under oath, the House of Representatives charged Clinton with obstruction of justice and perjury. The Senate later acquitted him, but Sheen said he knew of Clinton's "behavior" long before the story broke because of what happened with Fox.
"Clearly, the behavior that transformed a harmless intern a few years later into a household name had been in play long before her blue dress became famous. It was quite the moment in time to be ringside for that slice of creepy history," Sheen boasted.
"Years later in rehab, while watching the Lewinsky hearings play out, I shared the ClintonâDolly story with my fellow âhabbers.' I was still pretty faded on detox meds, and no one believed me. I literally said out loud to the group huddled around the TV, âItâs kool, Iâll put it in a book one day and you can all go f--- yourselves.â (And here we are.)," Sheen claimed.
Judging from what others have said about Clinton for decades, there's a very good possibility this alleged incident with Dolly Fox happened the way Sheen described. Sheen has his own tarnished history to apologize for, but his revelation about Clinton is one that only adds to a legacy of "creepy" behavior from the now 79-year-old Democrat.
Two-time Super Bowl champion and former Dallas Cowboys linebacker D.D. Lewis passed away at the age of 79 this week, the New York Post reported. Lewis, an All-American at Mississippi State, spent his entire 13-year NFL career with the storied franchise.
A Tennessee native, Lewis was a standout player at Mississippi State beginning in 1965. Just two years later, Lewis was named a first-team member All-American and received the SEC's Defensive Player of the Year.
His professional career was equally as accomplished. In 1968, Lewis joined the Cowboys as a sixth-round draft pick and went on to play in all but four games in the regular season throughout his career, except for 1969, when he served in the military.
The Cowboys won the big game in 1971, but Lewis would have his standout season in 1975, during which his two interceptions helped lead Dallas to a victory over the Los Angeles Rams in the NFC Championship. Dallas lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers that year in the final matchup, but the Cowboys would go on to another Super Bowl victory just two years later.
Lewis was especially revered by Mississippi State University and was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2001 for his contributions to the sport. The university honored Lewis in a lengthy post to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday, outlining some of his many accolades.
"Mississippi State University mourns the passing of MSU Ring of Honor inductee and Super Bowl Champion Dwight Douglas Lewis. D.D. Lewis was a three-year letterman for the Mississippi State football squad, starring at linebacker from 1965-67. During his time in Maroon and White, Lewis was named All-SEC (1966 and 1967); SEC Defensive Player of the Year (1967); All-American (1967)," the post said.
"Lewis was selected with the 159th overall pick in the sixth round of the NFL Draft by the Dallas Cowboys in 1968. Lewis went on to play 13 seasons in the league, all with Dallas. He appeared in five different Super Bowls and became the second Bulldog to ever win the big game after winning Super Bowl VI in 1972," the university went on.
"He then followed it with his second ring at Super Bowl XII in 1978. Lewis became just the second Bulldog player to be inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame after earning the induction in 2001. He is also a member of the MSU Ring of Honor after being inducted in 2011," the post from the university concluded. It included photos of Lewis at different stages of his career.
Mississippi State University mourns the passing of MSU Ring of Honor inductee and Super Bowl Champion Dwight Douglas Lewis.
D.D. Lewis was a three-year letterman for the Mississippi State football squad, starring at linebacker from 1965-67. During his time in Maroon and White,⌠pic.twitter.com/vS14XCyrbm
â Mississippi State (@msstate) September 17, 2025
Lewis had several career highlights during his time with the Cowboys. He held the Cowboys record for playing in the most playoff games with 27 appearances, according to Fox News. An obituary on the team's website said Lewis was "one of the most underappreciated players in franchise history."
This was partly because he was a backup for Chuck Howley until he notched two fumble recoveries during the 1973 season. He would go on to be picked as one of Tom Landry's "Doomsday Defense" players as a top linebacker and make his mark on the team in Super Bowl XII with a key sack in the game against the Denver Broncos. The Cowboys beat the Broncos 27-10.
Despite such an impressive career, Lewis never received honors such as becoming an All-Pro selection or playing in the Pro Bowl, but he did receive the honor of being named ot the Silver Anniversary Team for the Cowboys in 1984. His contributions were numerous, but many remember Lewis as the one who uttered the most famous quote about the Cowboys' Texas Stadium venue that is still repeated today.
Before the new stadium was built, the old Texas Stadium had a dome with a portion left open. "Texas Stadium has a hole in its roof so God can watch his favorite team play," Lewis said to reporters.
The football legend made his mark on the sport. Lewis's legacy will live on in the record books and replays, but there is no replacement for the quiet greatness Lewis brought to the field and beyond.