Conservative Blogger
Monday, July 13, 2026
Trump: I Spoke With Graham Before His Death
President Donald Trump said Sunday that Sen. Lindsey Graham called him just hours before his death to discuss advancing the SAVE America Act, saying the South Carolina Republican sounded tired after returning from Ukraine but otherwise appeared to be in good spirits. "What makes it even stranger is I got a call last night some time in the early evening, maybe in the sevens, and he called, and he said we're all set for the SAVE America Act," Trump said. "He was pushing the SAVE America Act like crazy." Speaking by phone on NBC's "Meet the Press," Trump said Graham's final call underscored the late senator's relentless work ethic and devotion to public service. Graham, who died Saturday night after what was described as a brief and sudden illness, had just returned from a trip to Ukraine, Trump said. "He said he just landed from Ukraine. That's a long trip to make. He sounded a little tired, but perfect," Trump said. "He actually said he was tired, but he wanted to pass the SAVE America Act, and I said, 'Well, we'll get it done, Lindsey. I'll get it done. I'll see you soon. We might even meet today.'" Trump said he received word of Graham's death several hours later. "It couldn't have been much longer. It could have been his last call. I don't know exactly, but I got a message at about 1:00 in the morning from one of the people in his office that he had passed away," Trump said. "I said, I can't believe it. He was like a member of the family to me. It's very tough, actually." The president said Graham had a unique ability to work across party lines and accomplish difficult legislative goals. "He was such an advocate," Trump said. "If he wanted to get something, and you know, he had a unique ability. He was able to deal with Democrats. If I had a problem, a real problem, I wouldn't often ask, but if I had a problem with a Democrat, he could work it out. He was a great politician, actually." Trump said Graham loved serving in the Senate and had been poised to win another term. "There was nobody like him," Trump said. "He loved being a politician, and he was going to win his election. He was going to win it big." While acknowledging Graham could be combative when pursuing issues he believed in, Trump said the senator earned widespread respect. "He was a tough cookie. Don't misunderstand," Trump said. "If he wanted to get something, if he thought he was right and had people against him, he could be very tough, actually, but he was a good person." Asked whether Graham had mentioned feeling ill during their conversation, Trump said the senator indicated only that he was tired from traveling. "He told me, 'You know, I feel good, but I'm tired,'" Trump said. "He was fine. I knew him well. He would let you know if he wasn't feeling well." Trump said Graham's death appeared to have come suddenly. "It had to be something like that that would just be a quick end," Trump said. "Other than being tired, he was fine." Reflecting on Graham's Senate career, Trump singled out the senator's impassioned defense of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings. "His moment on Kavanaugh was one of the classics in the history of the Senate," Trump said. "I think that saved Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court ascension." Trump also recalled how his relationship with Graham evolved after they competed during the 2016 Republican presidential primary. "We got friendly, and the friendship grew," Trump said. "He was an amazing advocate. I don't know how you find anybody like him." The president said Graham frequently visited the White House and served as a trusted barometer of Senate sentiment. "He was a great gauge, a temperature gauge, of the Senate," Trump said. "He was somebody that most Democrats liked, some didn't, but most Democrats liked, and just about all of the Republicans liked Lindsey." Asked about who should replace Graham in the Senate, Trump said he already has someone in mind but declined to identify the person, saying it was "too soon with Lindsey." "I have someone that I think would be great, but I don't want to say it now because it's too soon with Lindsey," Trump said. "I don't want to even talk about anybody." Instead, Trump praised South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, saying he trusted the Republican governor to make the interim appointment before voters choose a successor in a special election. "The governor is a good friend of mine," Trump said. "I endorsed him early on, and he endorsed me right from the beginning." Trump recalled that McMaster, then South Carolina's lieutenant governor, was among his earliest supporters during the 2016 Republican presidential campaign. He also pointed to his decision to appoint then-Gov. Nikki Haley as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a move that elevated McMaster to the governor's office. "By moving her, I got myself a great guy," Trump said. "Henry McMaster has been a really good governor, and a really good guy. ... He's going to do the right thing, I think." Trump said McMaster would make "a good decision" on the interim appointment but noted that South Carolina voters would ultimately choose Graham's successor in the November general election. "Ultimately, there will be an election," Trump said. "I have someone that I like, but I'm not going to tell you now because it's too soon." The president ended the interview by again praising Graham's contributions to the country, particularly his role in securing Kavanaugh's confirmation. "He's got so many legacies," Trump said. "He was somebody that loved our country, and he fought very hard for the country." © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
Downer Ending? Iconic Hollywood Studio Considering Ditching Tinseltown for Friendlier Waters
 |
Hollywood has been considered the king of the movie universe for over a hundred years now, influencing world culture, international filmmaking, and even the U.S. presidency (thinking of you, Ronald Reagan). In recent years, however, the Los Angeles district itself has faced struggles, with the one-party Democrat rule in L.A. and the rest of California makes life more and more miserable for companies trying to actually get things done and make a profit. Production in Hollywood has cratered as more and more studios film overseas or in tax-friendly film havens like North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Surprisingly, even deep blue states like New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have grabbed a share of Hollywood’s business. Now, after a lengthy and complicated takeover of Warner Bros., Paramount — a studio once a key pillar of the Golden Age of Filmmaking — is pondering following Tesla, Oracle, Hewlett Packard, and Chevron, among many others, and ditching the state. Why? California may file suit to block the merger as soon as Monday:
No decision has been made, according to the report, and it could be posturing to get a better deal. But the fact that something once unthinkable is even being discussed shows you just how bad the business climate is in the Golden State. State Attorney General Rob Bonta
has been threatening to sue to block the merger because he believes that it will harm competition, reduce jobs, and shrink consumer choice. What he’s really saying, though, is that California can’t afford to lose all that tax revenue (it costs lots of money to fund healthcare for illegal aliens), and they don’t plan on changing their business-busting ways, so he’ll try to stop the bloodletting with lawfare. And they might just be able to drum up some more Trump hatred as a bonus, as California Democrats love to do: Note that although Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison,
son of billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, has said he wants Paramount to keep politics at arm’s length and focus on business, he’s made a number of moves that make Hollywood leftists sad, like purchasing Bari Weiss’ Free Press and appearing with President Trump at events. Coincidence? Ellison is reportedly reluctant to leave his home state, and Paramount has made numerous concessions to Bonta in an effort to stave off his potential blocking of the deal. But they appear to have fallen largely on deaf ears:
California just keeps on California-ing. Last company to leave, please turn off the lights. |
Analysis: Democrats Have Too Many Senate Seats That Are Competitive
 |
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich dropped an interesting X/Twitter post early Sunday morning:
Now, I have consistently argued that the GOP has a clear edge when it comes to holding onto the Senate majority. This is because the Republicans have a 53 to 47-seat majority in the Senate, with 35 seats up in 2026. The Democrats need a net pick up of four seats to win control. But only two Republican seats – Maine and North Carolina – are in competitive states. The other 20 GOP seats are in states Donald Trump won by double digits. That almost never happens in Senate elections, let alone twice. In the 2025 Virginia elections, the Democrats won in a landslide, but they didn’t carry a single state legislative district where Trump won with that margin. This year, as Speaker Gingrich mentions, the GOP is doing far better than it should be doing in several Democrat-held Senate seats. This is presumably because, as the Speaker mentioned, the Democrats as a party have gone far too left on the issues, and especially in some of these specific seats, a particular Democrat candidate is too far to the left. Please remember - the Democrats cannot afford to lose even a single one of these Democrat-held seats, and even in the “blue wave” of 2018, they still lost a seat in a major upset in Florida. In this column, I will update some of these races: Georgia: Jon Ossoff / 50.61 percent D / Lean D Sen. Ossoff is one of the leading fundraisers in the nation, having raised $60 million so far and nearly $33 million on hand. Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA-10) has less than $2 million. One major positive thing for Collins is the state polling; the RCP average shows Ossoff up only 47.3 percent to 41.8 percent. And the Fox News polls that has Ossoff at 56 percent seems to be an outlier. Another major positive for Collins may come from the gubernatorial race, which may provide coattails and money (that bleeds over). The GOP has chosen a billionaire named Rick Jackson, who has already spent over $108 billion to win his party’s primary and runoff. Jackson is certainly going to keep spending and pushing out conservative talking points that could educate the voters for the Senate race as well. Meanwhile, the Democrats foolishly chose former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms as their candidate. Bottoms left electoral politics in 2021 when she unprecedently walked away from running for a second term as mayor – in a heavily Democrat city – because her “tenure was marked by turmoil as Atlanta, like other major cities at the time, grappled with the onset of the pandemic, social unrest and spikes in crime.” She is a very weak candidate. READ MORE: Rick Jackson Wins the Republican GA Governor's Runoff, Beating Trump/Kemp Endorsed Burt Jones Michigan: Gary Peters (retiring) / Lean D The Republican candidate, former Rep. Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost the 2024 Senate race, is stockpiling money and waiting for the Democrats to select their nominee. For the August 4 Democrat primary, radical Muslim Abdul El Sayed seems to have established a primary edge over the more moderate establishment Democrat, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI). State Senator McMorrow, the third candidate who was trying to run as the more electable crazy left-winger, dropped out of the race as her polling numbers steadily declined. If Bernie Bro El Sayed wins the primary, he will have to defend his history of crazed political positions/statements: a call to defund the police; saying “America deserved 9/11”; claiming the terror group Hamas, which hates Christians and has plenty of American blood on its hands, is a “lesser evil” than Israel; and his consistent Jew-bating. Unfortunately for him, he will be running in a much less Democrat-leaning area than the DSA nuts are running in, as Michigan has been won by President Trump. Minnesota: Tina Smith (retiring) / Likely D With Sen. Smith retiring, both parties have competitive August 11 primaries to decide whom their nominees for Senate will be. The Democrats are having a faceoff between Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN-02), a moderate establishment Democrat, and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, a Native American politician who is a Bernie Bro. Craig is the clear fundraising leader. The GOP has Michele Tafoya, an American journalist and sports broadcaster who has worked for ABC, NBC, CBS, and ESPN, having an edge over several semi-serious opponents. Tafoya is the only credible Republican fundraiser. In his X/Twitter feed, Speaker Gingrich referenced an internal Craig poll that shows Republican Tafoya is tied with Flanagan in a potential general election. “However, that tie comes only after language tying Flanagan to Minnesota’s fraud saga was invoked.” The key for this race is that despite what a public poll shows, Flanagan is probably a much weaker candidate than Craig, and if Flanagan wins, the GOP COULD take advantage. Flanagan is probably weaker because: 1) she is a Bernie Bro with crazy positions; and 2) (as the push poll mentions) she is tied to Gov. Walz and his scandalous record. However, Minnesota is still a state where the Democrats haven’t lost a statewide race since 2006, when the Republican incumbent governor barely held on among a “blue wave” with a plurality of the vote. And the Senate race is a federal race, which normally is more solid for the majority party in the state (here, the Democrats). New Hampshire: Jeanne Shaheen (retiring) / Lean D Recently, New Hampshire has shifted substantially towards the Democrats in federal races. However, Republican former Sen. John Sununu, the son and brother of popular Republican New Hampshire governors, who was ousted by Shaheen in 2008, is making a surprisingly strong comeback. Rep. Chris Pappas (NH-01), the Democrat who represents half of the state, only has a 46.3 percent to 43 percent RCP lead over Sununu. Sununu has also had good fundraising, although Pappas still has raised more money and doesn’t face a primary. Sununu is, however, very likely to win his primary over former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, as Sununu was endorsed by President Trump and has a solid lead over his opponent, in most polls with easily over half the vote. The Democrats understand how tough their Senate path is this year to win the majority. This is why they are constantly pushing propaganda to depress GOP turnout, playing the Indy Imitation Game, utilizing other electoral tricks, and ditching the Oysterfuhrer in Maine after his polling soured. Remember this. Don’t believe their lies. |
Why Dems Are Furious With Bernie Sanders
 |
The establishment, so to speak, ‘won’ on the Democratic side, although it wasn't their own doing: Graham Platner’s Senate bid in Maine is over, dismantled by a rape allegation from Jenny Racicot, a liberal Democrat who claimed the Nazi tattoo-wearing oyster farmer attacked her in 2021. Platner was already hit with allegations of domestic abuse that Democrats largely dismissed, but the rape allegation made by a liberal woman is apparently the final straw. This candidacy will be studied, as everyone knew this guy was trouble and a ticking time bomb. Also, all the unsavory details about him were dug up by Democratic opposition research. The GOP was holding its powder dry until after the July 13 deadline, when Democrats would be stuck with Platner on the ballot. With the Nazi candidate receiving the Aldo Raine treatment up north, the Democrats are now directing their anger toward the far-left wing, which has caused the chaos. That would be Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is trying to become the new kingmaker for a party that’s lost its way. His mixed record is now making him a target of the DNC’s fury, as the Maine race is likely to slip away from them—a must-win if they hope to flip the upper chamber. Rachael Bade has more:
That still doesn’t mean the socialist insurgency is over. Quite the opposite. This was one major battle they lost, but Colorado got hammered and sickled, with Melat Kiros defeating 15-term incumbent Diana DeGette in the June primaries. Again, this isn’t our problem, and the GOP shouldn’t do much to interfere in the ongoing Democratic Party civil war between the leftist and establishment factions, but the latter only has themselves to blame: they didn’t pivot when the brand was suffering, the anti-Trump cries aren’t unique, and when your approval ratings are that low, a fiery socialist will step in to fill the void. Will it implode? I think it will—the Left does well to hide their true agenda through all-encompassing messaging about affordability, but that can only last so long. |
The NYT Tried to Do Damage Control Over Their Whitewashed Graham Platner Story, But It's a Trainwreck
The New York Times is facing criticism for misreporting the Graham Platner story. They shifted their focus from the now-defeated Maine Democratic Senate candidate, who dropped out last week, to Lyndsey Fifield, moving away from the more serious allegations that Politico finally published on July 6, which ended Platner’s campaign. Jenny Racicot claimed that Platner raped her in 2021. Isn’t that the hook? Well, let’s get to what they said here. Felice Belman, deputy politics editor for the NYT, was interviewed about the process by Patrick Healey, assistant managing editor for standards and trust (via NYT):
So, we surfaced credible, well-sourced allegations about Mr. Platner’s treatment of women, and reported and published as many on-the-record details as we could confirm at the time. But some people criticized the story or wanted it written differently. Many Republicans wanted it to be tougher on Mr. Platner. Some progressives wanted it to discount one of the accusers because she is a conservative. Some critics thought we downplayed his treatment of the three women. How do you see all this reaction?
FELICE: Yes, we have been accused of publishing damaging information about Mr. Platner with the purpose of hurting his campaign. And we have been accused of withholding information with the purpose of helping him. Neither is true. Our job is not to take sides but to fairly report the facts.
[…]
This week, one of the women in our story, Jenny Racicot, was quoted by Politico and CNN saying that Mr. Platner forced her to have sex with him in 2021.
That allegation was not in our article. She told Politico that she had told The Times more details of that night off the record. We don’t talk publicly about information we get off the record. But can you talk about our approach to handling off-the-record information?
FELICE: Especially with allegations of sexual violence, people sometimes feel comfortable speaking to reporters off the record initially and then considering what they are willing to put on the record and make public. Their thinking on this often evolves over time.
As Jenny Racicot has said elsewhere, we published what she was willing to tell us on the record about that incident. Anything she told us off the record was not included in our story, and we did not share any off-the-record information with the Platner campaign.
[…]
The story described the political leanings of the three women. Ms. Fifield is a conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns; the other two are Democrats. Why get into their politics?
FELICE: We wanted to be forthright with readers about the political views of people making accusations against a political candidate. For instance, we noted that Ms. Racicot agreed with many of Mr. Platner’s policies. We included Ms. Fifield’s background in conservative politics, including whom she had worked for and when, and that she wasn’t connected to the campaign of Mr. Platner’s opponent, Senator Susan Collins.
Our reporting showed that their accusations were serious and credible, which is why we ran the article.
Okay, but this house of cards comes tumbling down quickly. First, Fifield has posted at length on Twitter about how she was treated through this process, namely, why she was the focus. Second, Racicot is mentioned in the Times’ piece, but she added that she felt her side was glossed over. Third, Fifield gave the New York Times plenty of contacts to corroborate other acts of alleged abuse by Platner, including sexual assault. Nothing. Politico ran with Racicot’s story, and CNN corroborated everything Fifield told the NYT, who had told her they were unable to do so.
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) July 12, 2026I am eternally grateful to @alligordon_ @jaketapper for restoring my reputation and helping me prove that I have told the truth (with evidence) every step of the way.
I will never understand why the NYT reporters did what they did. The last month has been a living hell. And now…
— The Free Press (@TheFP) July 10, 2026Who is Graham Platner?
He is a “dangerous, charismatic, charming, delusional narcissist,” said Lyndsey Fifield, an ex-girlfriend of Platner’s who has accused him of physical abuse.
“That’s who he was when we dated, and that’s who he is still today—not contrite, not reflecting,… pic.twitter.com/a1U66Q8qQq
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) July 6, 2026This is, by the way, a major embarrassment for the @nytimes.
Racicot already talked to them, and was so disappointed that she went to @politico and @CNN. Because the NYT made Lyndsey and her politics the story instead of Platner, and let his comms team shape the whole thing. https://t.co/AICXfIaAAh
They also leveraged Racicot’s then off-the-record story to get Lyndsey to go on the record, intimating to her she’d be the least of the accusations in the article and then hung her out to dry. Not only is Jenny great for speaking, but her move may discourage that kind of… https://t.co/iG7cBJ6s2m
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) July 7, 2026
Once again, the NYT whitewashed their article to shield a Nazi, and the way Fifield was treated was so terrible that it led Racicot, who backed Platner’s agenda, to come forward.
Either the NYT is stupid, incompetent, or both. All the work was done for you guys; you just had to dial the numbers and review the information provided. Why didn’t you do that?
We all know the answer, you fake news clowns.
Fifield has said her piece multiple times, but here's a refresher:
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word…
I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?
Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?
The editors said it was too much, they explained.
The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.
Second part:
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) July 7, 2026I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.
It was by design.
The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite…
I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.
It was by design.
The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite talking to two of my friends.
I gave them the contact information for five friends.
They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse but would be able to affirm our relationship timeline, events, etc.
They simply did not call the other three.
I also gave them the names of all my former roommates who remembered him stalking our row house (which was about 5 houses down from his) and waiting for me to return. I gave them screenshots of messages between these roommates and I discussing it.
I gave them the names of other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town and diary entries talking about it - all time marked.
I told them that during pre-marital counseling I had spoken to my ex-fiance about the abuse because I had to explain to him why I reacted with such terror any time he lost his temper. They said oh NO we don't need to bother HIM (or my priest). Besides, I had written about it in my diary in detail, they reassured.
As the weeks dragged on I stopped trying to give them evidence because the amount I had already given them seemed to overwhelm them and I thought it meant they clearly had more than enough to verify my every claim.
My friends might not have known the details of the abuse, but they affirmed that yes, I had told them that he was abusive—long before he ran for Senate.
Besides, they assured, my part in their reporting would be small. I thought my details would only serve to affirm Jenny and the other anonymous woman.
Jenny and I - having never met or spoken - both shared with these reporters terrifyingly similar details of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and cycles of abuse/love bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story did as well.
But tell me again how they “could not corroborate.”
SEN RICK SCOTT: Americans work five days a week, why can’t the Senate?
 |
Did you know the US Senate has only been in session 79 days (about 40% of the time) so far this year? And so far, we haven’t passed anything to secure our elections, reduce inflation, cut spending, or prevent another Democrat shutdown. Well, what isn’t shocking is the fact nothing has gotten done while we only work 2.5 days out of the week. It is crazy. At the slow rate we are getting stuff done, we should be working 7 days. Let’s just take a status update: The Senate has yet to deliver on several of our key promises to the American people this year, including securing our elections through the SAVE America Act. TRUMP HOLDS WASHINGTON HOSTAGE OVER SAVE ACT AS MIDTERM CLOCK TICKS ON GOP CONTROL As I noted in a recent letter to my Senate colleagues. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents overwhelmingly want voter ID for elections and only Americans to be able to register for elections, the main components of the SAVE America Act. Yet the Senate still hasn’t passed it — or even agreed on how to proceed on it. To fix this, we need to change how we do business. The job of a Senator used to be to arrive in Washington to debate, vote on, and accomplish all our agenda items before we allowed ourselves to go home. Sadly, that’s no longer the case. In recent decades, under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, the Senate has worked less and less, and Americans felt the consequences of the legislature’s lack of urgency. Right now, we take fewer than 10 votes a week. We arrive late Monday to vote and leave as soon as possible on Thursday afternoon. The Senate is rarely in session on Fridays and almost never works over the weekend — even when pressing deadlines approach on issues critical to the safety, security, and stability of the American people. And it’s not just election security that is at stake. We still need to fund the government to prevent another open-borders Democrat shutdown. We need to cut spending to reduce interest rates and inflation that are wreaking havoc on American budgets. America is the greatest country in the world. We have the strongest economy because of the workers who bust their butts every day to do their jobs, provide for their families, and achieve the American Dream. I think the Senate should demonstrate the kind of work ethic we depend on from the American people to keep our economy running. We have so many policies to enact before election day this November. If we still have work to do, then why do we only show up 2.5 days a week? Our situation is not a failure by any one party or individual, it’s a problem that’s been getting progressively worse for decades. Congress is decreasingly productive every year because we leave to go home on Thursday when there is still work to do. I’m sure we would all love to be home with our families as much as possible — every American probably feels that way — but that’s not the job we all asked our constituents to elect us to do. It’s certainly not the job that I promised the people of Florida. I told them I’d work as hard as I can to help them achieve the American Dream, stay safe, and live free. Time is short. Getting all of this done before November would mean staying in Washington until we figure out how to deliver it. It would mean sitting down and working together to find solutions, instead of throwing up our hands and going home. We can’t take "no" for an answer, and we can’t stop just because it’s hard. To that end, I will be going directly to the Senate floor over the coming weeks to bring up policies that I ran on when I asked Floridians to vote for me. Let’s fix the problem. Let’s stop flying home on Thursday after lunch, start voting more, and make good on our promises. That’s what the American people deserve. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. RICK SCOTT Republican Rick Scott represents Florida in the United States Senate. He is a former Florida governor. |
Mamdani Office Scheduled Iran Sit-Down, State Dept Shut It Down
 |
New York City is supposed to be the place where diplomacy happens at the United Nations — not a place where city officials schedule surprise sit‑downs with diplomats from hostile regimes without telling the people who actually run U.S. foreign policy. Yet that is exactly the mess we were asked to swallow this week after City Journal reported a planned meeting between the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs and Iran’s U.N. ambassador was abruptly canceled after federal officials stepped in. The reported meeting and who was involvedCity Journal says screenshots showed Ana MarÃa Archila, Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs, scheduled a meeting with Iran’s Permanent Representative to the U.N., Amir‑Saeid Iravani, at Two United Nations Plaza. The story reports the meeting was called off after the U.S. State Department contacted the mayor’s office and “clarified acceptable conduct.” Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s team told reporters the session “did not and will not take place,” and the mayor says he was not informed ahead of time and called it an “error.” Why the State Department intervention mattersThis isn’t about etiquette. The Mayor’s Office for International Affairs is meant to coordinate with the U.N. and foreign missions on city matters — not to negotiate or open back‑channel conversations with governments the United States is actively at odds with. With U.S.–Iran tensions high this year, a New York City official arranging a sit‑down with Tehran’s U.N. rep without clear federal sign‑off was reckless at best and dangerously naive at worst. If federal diplomats have to tell city officials what not to do, that should be embarrassing for the mayor’s office — and alarming for New Yorkers. Treason talk versus the lawOn social media, some commenters and partisan sites leapt from “canceled meeting” to “treason” and arrest fantasies. That’s politics-for-clicks, not law. Treason under U.S. law is narrowly drawn and very hard to prove. There’s no public evidence anyone was arrested or charged here — only a canceled meeting, a City Journal scoop, and the State Department’s rumored intervention via an unnamed official. Righteous fury is great for cable TV, but it does not turn a scheduling error into a federal crime. Accountability, transparency, and what should happen nextMayor Zohran Mamdani owes New Yorkers answers. We need to see the calendar entries, emails, and the approval chain that let this meeting get scheduled in the first place. The State Department should also be clear: did it issue written guidance to city offices about contact with diplomats from countries involved in hostilities? This whole episode is a test of competence. If city officials want to play at diplomacy, they must follow rules, inform the people who protect national security, and stop creating crises that federal officials have to clean up. |
CNN Disowns Commentator's Claim He Spoke to Senator McConnell
The latest media circus around Senator Mitch McConnell’s hospitalization has a new act: CNN quietly telling the public that a pundit’s claim about speaking to the senator “reflects his experience and is not CNN reporting.” It is a small but telling moment in a larger story about who gets to speak for the news and how fast rumors fill a silence. The clarification from CNN should make skeptics raise an eyebrow — and make newsrooms check their own playbooks.
CNN’s clarification and the Scott Jennings claim
Scott Jennings, a CNN political commentator and former McConnell aide, posted that he spoke with Senator McConnell for roughly 20 minutes. That claim spread quickly. CNN then told a reporter that Jennings “is not a full‑time employee or journalist for the network” and that his account “reflects his experience and is not CNN reporting.” Translation: if you heard it on social platforms and saw him on air, don’t assume the network verified it. That is an important distinction — and one the network should have made sooner and louder.
Why this matters: media credibility and double standards
When a commentator attached to a major network makes a claim about the health of a top senator, audiences naturally assume the network has vetted the claim. CNN’s clarification reveals the gap between appearance and accountability. Conservatives have long complained that legacy outlets blur the line between opinion and reporting; this is a textbook example of why that complaint sticks. If a network lets a commentator function like a reporter, it should own what that commentator says — not disown it after the outrage machine starts revving up.
Information vacuum, rumors, and the need for transparency
Part of the problem here is absence of clear information from official sources. Senator McConnell has been hospitalized since mid‑June and his office has offered only limited updates, saying he “continues to improve” and is working with staff. That vacuum invites speculation — and invites bad actors to fill it with sensational claims, from “brain dead” rumors to unverified videos. Responsible media should push for facts, not amplify hearsay. And Republican leaders who say they spoke with the senator should be pressed to confirm details responsibly, not treated as tabloid fodder.
What should happen next
Networks should publish clear rules on how commentator statements are labeled and verified. CNN’s quick distancing is a start, but it shouldn’t be the end of the conversation. Senator McConnell’s office owes Kentuckians more clarity about his ability to serve, and newsrooms owe readers clarity about what is verified and what is pundit spin. Until both sides do better, wild rumors will keep filling the silence — and the public will pay the price for sloppy reporting and secretive staffing. That’s the real story here, and it’s one both parties should answer for before trust erodes further.
Sunday, July 12, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Byron Donalds has clearly had enough. The Florida Republican didn’t hold back speaking to reporters earlier this week, bluntly stating that...
-
Iran has sentenced a prominent singer and seven of her bandmates and colleagues to 74 lashes after the group livestreamed a music perform... -
We've seen the rise of radical leftists within the Democrat Party over the near term, with it becoming more glaringly obvious since De...
