FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic over an article published last week. The complaint, obtained by NBC News, names the publication’s parent company, The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC (AMG), and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick as defendants.
“Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the
FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete
with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy
Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office,” the suit stated.
The article leveled several serious allegations against Patel, citing
a “drinking problem” and erratic behavior, including “unexplained”
absences. Fitzpatrick reportedly relied on a wide array of “anonymous
sources,” allegedly including former FBI officials, intelligence
personnel, members of Congress, and hospitality workers.
One specific anecdote claimed Patel “freaked out” after being unable
to log into a computer system, allegedly fearing he had been fired by
the White House. While the incident was ultimately a technical glitch,
sources claimed it reflected Patel’s deep-seated anxiety regarding his
job security. In his lawsuit, Patel categorically denies these claims,
describing the computer incident as a “routine technical problem” that
was resolved quickly.
Furthermore, the suit alleges that the FBI had explicitly informed
the outlet and Fitzpatrick that the rumors of his impending termination
and “freak-out” were entirely fabricated.
“They are so demonstrably and obviously false, or easily refuted,
that it was at best reckless to publish them,” the suit added.
At its core, the article centers on Patel’s alleged alcohol
consumption, claiming that “excessive drinking” has hindered his ability
to perform his duties as FBI director. According to the piece, various
witnesses described him as engaging in frequent bouts of intoxication
that purportedly compromised his professional responsibilities.
“As discussed above, these claims about erratic behavior and
excessive drinking are fabricated, and Defendants were on notice of
this,” the suit stated.
In an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox News,
Patel, in
light of the allegations, touted the success of the FBI. “So if I’m not
doing my job, if I’m not working, then how is it that the FBI delivered
the safest America under President Trump’s leadership in the history of
our country,” he declared.
The document also pointed to past hit pieces on Patel by The Atlantic.
“AMG, through The Atlantic, has for months pursued a demonstrable
editorial campaign to damage Director Patel’s reputation and force him
from office,” the suit stated. “Numerous Atlantic pieces over the past
two years have characterized Director Patel as unqualified, dangerous,
corrupt, or mentally unstable,” it added.
All the sources cited by Fitzpatrick were anonymous, the piece reiterates.
“Indeed, Fitzpatrick could not get a single person to go on the
record in defense of these outrageous allegations, instead relying
entirely on anonymous sources she knew to be both highly partisan with
an ax to grind and also not in a position to know the facts,” it stated.
Fitzpatrick reported that many of her sources chose anonymity over
traditional whistleblower channels due to alleged fears of retaliation,
further claiming that Patel aggressively targets those he perceives as
“insufficiently loyal.” However, the lawsuit emphasizes that the FBI
formally warned the publication the claims were false prior to print — a
denial that Fitzpatrick acknowledged within the article itself.
“Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook,” Patel reportedly said in an FBI statement, per The Atlantic article.
The article also included a statement provided to Fitzpatrick by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“Patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous
administration did in four years. Anonymously sourced hit pieces do not
constitute journalism,” Blanche said.
Megyn Kelly’s April 20, 2026 interview with Rob Shuter pulled back
the velvet curtain on celebrity spin and the manufactured narratives
Hollywood feeds the public, and conservatives should pay attention.
Shuter, a onetime publicist turned gossip chronicler, didn’t come on the
show to flatter the industry — he came to expose how the machine really
works and who benefits from the myths.
Rob Shuter’s new book, It
Started With a Whisper,
is being sold as fiction, but anyone who’s
watched Hollywood knows fiction and fact are often interchangeable when
PR teams are running damage control. Shuter’s past work for big names,
including Jennifer Lopez,
gives him the credentials to say what he’s
saying, and that makes his revelations hard to dismiss.
On Kelly’s
show Shuter offered inside context about J.Lo’s high-profile
relationship with Ben Affleck and the way handlers craft breakup
statements and demand privacy while simultaneously exploiting publicity.
This is the playbook: generate headlines, shape the narrative, then
collect the rewards — all while lecturing the rest of America about
morals and restraint.
Americans should be skeptical of celebrities
who portray themselves as wronged innocents in public while their
entourages engineer every angle behind the scenes. Shuter’s book and
interviews make plain that Hollywood’s economy depends on scarcity of
truth and abundance of spin, and that’s corrosive to a culture that
values honesty and personal responsibility.
It’s refreshing — and
frankly patriotic — when someone with real insider knowledge refuses to
keep quiet and instead calls out the games being played at our expense.
If conservatives want to reclaim cultural influence, we start by
exposing the hypocrisy: demand transparency from elite institutions and
stop letting celebrity PR firms set the moral agenda for hardworking
Americans.
Rob Shuter didn’t simply toss gossip into the ether; he
turned his experience into a cautionary tale that should make every
parent, voter, and taxpayer rethink where they get their values. Megyn
Kelly gave him a platform to do that, and it’s a reminder that honest
conversations about fame, family, and accountability still matter — even
in an industry that profits from their absence.
In a world where political campaigns and family dynamics intertwine
like spaghetti on a fork, we have Gavin Newsom’s wife serving up an
interesting dish of ideas that are certainly raising eyebrows. Now,
let’s dive into the whirlpool of her recent comments that have folks
scratching their heads and rubbing their temples in disbelief. It’s like
a roller coaster ride through a funhouse, where the mirrors are warped
and the laughs are a bit nervous!
So, here’s the scoop: Newsom’s
wife has been making headlines with her unconventional parenting
techniques. And by unconventional, I mean she has taken it upon herself
to ensure her sons embrace an alternate reality where dolls and female
protagonists reign supreme! Yes, folks, this means that when reading a
book featuring “he,” she switches it to “she.” It’s like a literary
magic trick that’s supposed to open up her kids’ minds, but it’s leaving
many of us wondering if she’s conjuring up a whole new genre of fairy
tales where the prince is always a princess. Surely, the more normal
alternative would be to let kids enjoy their stories without all the
rewriting—maybe mix a doll or two in with the action figures, but hey,
that’s just a thought!
To be fair, everyone wants their kids to
grow up open-minded and empathetic, but there’s a line between
enlightenment and outright confusion. It’s like teaching an old dog new
tricks by dressing him in a tutu instead of showing him how to roll
over! She may think she’s breaking down limiting narratives, but for
some, it feels like she’s throwing a smoke bomb to distract from what
really matters: allowing kids to be kids. Are we about to start a
petition for storytime where parents read the classics straight up, no
changes necessary? Maybe we should!
Now, she also mentioned that
there’s a lot to learn from same-sex couples in terms of communication
and care work. And sure, everyone could benefit from improved
communication, but it’s beginning to sound like she’s gearing up for a
TED Talk on radical inclusivity—right after her next performance at the
local comedy club. While it’s great to promote understanding amongst
different family structures, it’s equally important to keep a healthy
balance of perspective. I mean, not everyone is lining up to take
parenting advice from same-sex couples. A little understanding goes a
long way, but let’s not miss the bigger picture while we’re at it!
And
as the conversation twists and turns like a politician dodging
questions at a press conference, some folks are questioning if this kind
of openness is a boost for her husband’s campaign or a recipe for
political disaster. Can you imagine if she shows up to debate season
like, “Here’s why doll playtime is critical to family values!”? It’s a
high-stakes game where you either win the hearts of the people or find
yourself out in the cold, wondering why nobody can follow your train of
thought. Gavin might want to keep her off the campaign trail—unless he’s
gunning for the “Wildest Family Ideas of the Year” award!
In the
end, as we watch this political circus unfold, it’s a mix of laughter,
cringes, and an occasional “Did she really just say that?” moment. While
it’s great to keep conversations going about gender norms and parenting
styles, let’s hope that somewhere along the way, we don’t forget that
kids just want to play and enjoy their stories—without any rewrites or
rebranding. So here’s to keeping the humor alive in politics while we
try to make sense of it all!
President Donald Trump's low approval ratings in California will not
determine the outcome of the state's closely watched governor's race,
Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton told The Hill on Sunday.
Hilton said, "This election is going to be about the future of California and the fact that we're desperate for change."
Hilton, a conservative commentator
and former adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron, has
received Trump's endorsement but argued that state-specific issues —
including poverty, unemployment, and the high cost of living — are
driving voter concerns.
"That's entirely due to Democrat
policies after 16 years of one-party rule," Hilton said, adding that his
campaign will focus on offering "a completely new direction" for the
state.
Polling underscores the political challenges Republicans face in California. A survey
conducted last May by the Public Policy Institute of California found
that 29% of adults in the state approve of Trump, including 82% of
Republicans, 31% of independents, and just 6% of Democrats.
The comments come ahead of a key
primary debate scheduled for Wednesday on KTLA-TV in Los Angeles, as
candidates vie to advance from the June 2 primary under California's
top-two system, in which the two highest vote-getters advance to the
general election regardless of party.
The race tightened following the withdrawal of former Rep. Eric Swalwell after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct.
A recent poll
by Emerson College found Hilton leading with 17% support among likely
voters, followed by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and businessman
Tom Steyer at 14% each.
Former Rep. Katie Porter and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra each polled at 10%.
California has not elected a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011.
Despite the crowded field, Hilton
dismissed the likelihood that two Republicans could advance to the
general election, citing what he described as the financial strength of
Democrat-aligned groups and candidates.
"You've got the massive financial
power of the government unions and their corrupt relationship with
Democrat politicians," Hilton said. "They will spend whatever it takes
to make sure that there's a Democrat in the top two."
Hilton
said he expects either Steyer or Porter to emerge as the leading
Democrat contender and warned that Republicans must consolidate support
to avoid being shut out of the general election.
This week seems to be rife with journalistic
malpractice from outlets either running with leaked and unsubstantiated
material that tries and fails to put Trump administration officials in a
bad light or works to erode and undermine our nation's institutional
bodies of governance.
The latest installment from The New York Times involves leaked memos from the United States Supreme Court, verified by more anonymous sources.
The
Times spoke to 10 people, liberals and conservatives, who were familiar
with the deliberations over the pivotal emergency order and who spoke
on the condition of anonymity because confidentiality was a condition of
their employment.
Amazing how one can fail so spectacularly on this basic tenet of integrity. God help us.
The
papers expose what critics have called the weakness at the heart of the
shadow docket: an absence of the kind of rigorous debate that the
justices devote to their normal cases.
After obtaining the papers,
The Times confirmed their authenticity with several people familiar
with the deliberations and shared them with a spokeswoman for the court.
The Times posed detailed questions to the justices who wrote the memos;
they did not respond.
Nor should they.
As RedState reported in February,
Chief Justice Roberts took action to secure the integrity of the
court's processes after the 2022 leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.
Two months later, if this latest tranche of leaked memos is any
indication, it hasn't worked. Between justices Sonia Sotomayor and
Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly criticizing their constitutionalist
colleagues, and the legacy media's breathlessly publishing unsourced and
leaked material, soon there will not be a Supreme Court left to
preserve.
Of course, the NYT has invented a
"shadow docket" scandal from the Court's use of emergency rulings,
particularly in the area of executive powers of the President of the United States.
Emergency orders based on abbreviated briefing and almost
no deliberation have now become commonplace, notably in cases arising
from challenges to presidential actions. Critics call this new way of
doing business the “shadow docket.”
How stunning and brave. The "critics" are also nameless blobs whose opinion holds as much credibility as these leaking anonymous employees.
The
New York Times has obtained those papers and is now publishing them,
bringing the origins of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket into the
light.
The 16 pages of memos, exchanged in a five-day dash,
provide an extraordinarily rare window into the court, showing how the
justices talk to one another outside of public view.
The
leaked memos were in reference to a 2016 emergency ruling against the
Obama administration on the Clean Energy Plan. From here, the NYT
created an entire narrative that blocking then-President Barack Obama's
aims to save the planet was not only terrible, but rooted in Chief
Justice John Roberts personal animus toward Obama.
However, the
same so-called shadow docket methods employed in 2016 have been used in
2025 to issue favorable rulings on President Donald Trump's use of
executive powers. And in the NYT's world, this is beyond the pale. The
paper further claims that Chief Justice Roberts has allowed this use of
shadow docket methodology to run amok, firing off emergency rulings
instead of going through the court's hallowed deliberative judicial
process.
Viewed through the outlet's TDS-riddled glasses,
everything is stupid, including Supreme Court decisions. This has become
incredibly tiresome.
At the time, the ruling seemed like a curious one-off.
But that single paragraph turned out to be a sharp and lasting break.
That night marks the birth, many legal experts believe, of the court’s
modern “shadow docket,” the secretive track that the Supreme Court has
since used to make many major decisions, including granting President
Trump more than 20 key victories on issues from immigration to agency
power.
From this, the NYT surmises that Roberts is on Team Trump. Quite a leap.
In
the Trump era, he and the other conservative justices have repeatedly
empowered the president through their shadow docket rulings. By
contrast, the papers reveal a court wielding those same powers to block
Mr. Obama. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned that if the court failed
to stop the president, its own “institutional legitimacy” would be
threatened.
The court’s liberals pushed back, but compared with
their recent slashing dissents, they were not especially forceful,
mostly confining their arguments to procedures and timing.
[...]
Since
that breakneck February 2016 exchange, the emergency docket has swelled
into a major part of the court’s business, as the justices have
short-circuited the deliberations of lower courts. The decisions are
technically temporary, but are often hugely consequential.
Rulings
with no explanation or reasoning, like the sparse paragraph from that
February night, have become routine. The emergency docket is now a
central legacy of the court led by Chief Justice Roberts.
NYT finally came to this gobsmacking conclusion:
Read
a decade later, the memos suggest that none of the justices fully
appreciated what they were doing: embarking on a questionable new way of
operating.
So, Chief Justice Roberts and all the other justices at that time
were not only partisan hacks, but they failed to fully weigh the gravity
of their decisions. This comes off as elitist and patronizing on its
face.
The NYT did not miss a step, burnishing Obama's legacy while
painting Roberts' motivation in his ruling against Obama in the fact
that then-Senator Barack Obama voted against Roberts' confirmation to
the Supreme Court. What rank nonsense.
The president
was under enormous pressure to address the global climate crisis. He had
campaigned on that promise, then for eight years as the planet heated,
he failed to get major environmental legislation through Congress. With
his term about to end, this was his last chance to act.
The chief
justice was eager to assert his institution’s authority and to rein in
Mr. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, which he believed had
sidestepped a recent ruling.
How exactly does the NYT explain the egregious 2012 Obamacare ruling where Roberts created a tax from whole cloth?
True,
Chief Justice Roberts had cast the decisive vote in 2012 to save the
centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obama’s signature
legislative achievement. But that was approved by Congress.
Yes, that explains everything. Puddle-depth reasoning right here.
The
NYT does admit that Obama's second term was marked by him essentially
going rogue, from the Dreamers to the Iran nuclear deal, to his Clean
Power Plan, which was simply a climate change makeover of the entire
energy sector.
The chief justice
and some of his colleagues were watching warily, concerned the president
was going past what the Constitution allowed him to do on his own. In a
2014 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court warned Mr.
Obama that he needed to tread carefully in setting environmental policy
without congressional approval.
With the legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan rising quickly to
the highest court, and media outlets like the NYT carrying water for the
Obama administration on this signature climate legislation, according
to the NYT's reading of these memos, Chief Justice Roberts was decisive
in his actions to expedite a ruling.
On Feb. 5, the
internal correspondence obtained by The Times shows, the chief justice
circulated a blast of a memo, insisting that the court halt the
president’s plan.
His arguments were forceful, quick, and filled
with confident predictions. The court was going to give the case a full
hearing eventually, he forecast. At that point, the justices would vote
to overturn the Obama plan, he said, because it went beyond the
boundaries of the Clean Air Act.
For now, the chief justice
contended that the court had to act immediately because the energy
industry “must make changes to business plans today.”
“Absent a
stay, the Clean Power Plan will cause (and is causing) substantial and
irreversible reordering of the domestic power sector before this court
has an opportunity to review its legality,” he wrote.
It
appeared that Chief Justice Roberts surmised that, if the court was
able to do its normal deliberations, the court would ultimately rule
against the Clean Power Plan, so a stay was in order. Frankly, this is
the role of the Chief Justice, and the more conservative-leaning
justices backed his play. The more liberal justices, not so much, as
referenced by the response by Justice Elena Kagan.
Court
action at this point in the process would be “unprecedented,” she
added. She mentioned that she was inclined to find that the Obama plan
was lawful, but she said the thin briefing made it difficult for her “to
determine with any confidence which side is ultimately likely to
prevail.”
Justice Alito issued a salvo on the same day as Justice
Kagan, with neither of them addressing the other. Echoing the chief
justice’s sense of insult and suspicion about the Obama administration,
he wrote that the E.P.A. appeared to be trying to render the court
irrelevant.
Of course, the NYT continued to color their narrative, saying Roberts
distrusted the Obama administration; so, he used strong-arm tactics to
create what has become what they consider a dangerous precedent.
Over
just five days, the justices had decided the issue. Even as they
debated the Obama plan’s possible burden on the power industry, in the
entire chain of correspondence obtained by The Times, not a single
justice, conservative or liberal, mentioned the dangers of a warming
planet as one of the possible harms the court should consider.
In
light of the entire climate boondoggle and Green New Scam being
dismantled and debunked in real time, Roberts could practically be seen
as Nostradamus for blocking the Obama administration's plans to destroy
America's energy sector. The NYT notes that this emergency decision
would be the last for Justice Antonin Scalia. Four days later, Scalia
would be found dead, leaving a vacancy in the highest judicial body that
would not be filled that year. Because it was an election year,
then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to advance
President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. Despite McConnell's
terrible legacy of late and ignominious retirement from the Senate,
McConnell will be forever remembered for saving the nation from a
lifetime Merrick Garland appointment to the court.
The NYT further
concluded that this emergency docket process is a bane to SCOTUS that
has contributed to the undermining of the judicial body.
And, yeah, it's all Trump's fault.
Since
then, even as the court’s approval ratings dropped, applications like
the one it confronted a decade ago have proliferated, swamping the
court’s ordinary work.
This is partly a consequence of a
gridlocked Congress and presidents willing to push the boundaries of
executive power, particularly Mr. Trump.
But it is also the result
of the justices’ decision to entertain emergency requests like the one
in 2016, warping procedures that had developed over centuries.
Perhaps someone could also point out to the brain
trust at the NYT that it is the Left's penchant for lawfare and the
activist judges who make these highly partisan and ideologically skewed
decisions that have resulted in the need for a method that expedites
reviews and judgments by the highest court.
Of all people, Justice Sotomayor admits as much.
In
an appearance this month at the University of Alabama, Justice Sonia
Sotomayor reflected on the unceasing flood of emergency applications.
There was some controversy this week about President Donald Trump
being critical of Pope Leo for being weak on crime and his remarks about
the U.S. military action in Iran.
The pope had made prior comments about immigration and the military
action against Iran that were critical of the Trump administration's
actions before Trump's remarks. But then the media seemed to be trying
to interpret a variety of remarks he made after Trump's criticism as an
effort to attack Trump and promote controversy.
As we reported
earlier, Pope Leo attempted to set the record straight, saying that the
media had been pushing a "certain narrative that has not been accurate
in all its aspects." Gee, it sure sounds like he's calling out the media
for how they've been reporting this.
The
pope said what came next was "commentary on commentary," trying to
interpret what he was saying. Translation? Trying to read anything he
said as an attack on Trump.
He said the remarks he made in
Cameroon that were prepared two weeks before, before any of the Trump
comments were then made to look like he was trying to "debate the
president" when he was not trying to do so, "which was not my interest
at all."
Yet multiple media outlets, including Reuters, interpreted that speech, in which he spoke about tyrants, as related to Trump.
This tweet was also cast as an attack on Trump by some, despite the fact that it was clearly hashtagged "Cameroon."
So
when it came down to it, when the pope was trying to draw attention to
the important issues that needed to be addressed with the problematic government of President Paul Biya, the media was ignoring that in favor of their "focus on Trump" fix.
The
Vatican had said fighting corruption in the mineral-rich central
African country would be one of the themes of Leo’s visit, and the
American pope didn’t hold back in addressing Biya and government
authorities in an address at the presidential palace.
“In order
for peace and justice to prevail, the chains of corruption — which
disfigure authority and strip it of its credibility — must be broken,”
Leo said. “Hearts must be set free from an idolatrous thirst for
profit.”
If you think about what the pope is saying, he's saying to the media
and the others involved: Don't try to manipulate my words for your
narrative about Trump.
Vice President JD Vance welcomed what Pope
Leo had to say and had the perfect response to his shooting down the
media narrative.
I am grateful to Pope Leo for saying
this. While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict–and yes,
real disagreements have happened and will happen–the reality is often
much more complicated.
Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he
should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the
moral issues of the day. The President–and the entire
administration–work to apply those moral principles in a messy world.
He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we'll be in his.
Good
for Vance, that's a great response. Let all sides call out the media
for always trying to manipulate the narrative. Vance recognizes that
yes, they may have differences on policy, and the Trump administration
has to do what is best for the country, regardless of what differences
the pope may have. The pope doesn't have the intel that Trump has on
threats from Iran, and as the Border Czar Tom Homan said, may not even
understand how the Trump policy on immigration is better, not just for
the country but for saving lives as well. He said he was willing to talk
with the folks at the Vatican and give them some facts.
That
would be a great way to take it from here. And maybe now the pope might
be more open to understanding that the media narrative about things
like the Iran action and immigration might not be as he might think when
he sees how the media has behaved here.
We cannot collaborate with Democrats. Period.
They’re insane, motivated by the overeducated, wealthy, white,
nose-pierced, and blue-haired radicals that form the core of their
political base.
They’re held hostage by activist crazies. That’s why we
need to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate and accomplish as much as
possible, give our members something to energize their supporters at
home, and stop the Democrats’ use of illegal aliens to boost their
political power. We need to pass the Save America Act.
At the very least, we can ensure that only Americans vote in our
elections. Plus, whatever economic action items that were deemed DOA due
to the 60-vote threshold.
If we don’t act and Democrats retake
Congress, the list of atrocious policy points here is staggering. Look,
not everything will get passed, but imagine the disastrous Biden agenda
on steroids. Here’s what the Left is cooking up, based on what
Democratic operative James Carville said on the Policon podcast.
Grant statehood to Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, so that the Democrats can unlock 4 extra seats in the Senate.
Pack the U.S. Supreme Court from 9 Justices up to 13 Justices, adding another 4 Left-wing Justices to the court.
Reopen the U.S.-Mexico border and grant mass-amnesty to every single alien currently inside of the United States.
His advice to Democrat politicians: “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
They know the census is approaching. They see how blue states may
lose electoral votes, and the possible weakening of the Voting Rights
Act could significantly advantage Republicans.
Being the better person doesn’t score us brownie points. Nuke the filibuster, John Thune. Look what’s coming if we lose.
Bill Maher had former Obama White House Chief of
Staff Rahm Emanuel and former Biden National Security Adviser Jake
Sullivan as guests on his show Friday night. So, bear with us here, but
the Eric Swalwell fiasco was brought up, and the HBO host did not hold
back: he clearly never liked him. Swalwell appeared on Real Time a
couple of times, and Maher said that his ‘creepdar’ increased with this
guy. Ask his staff, he never liked him. Yet, Maher is still learning the
ways of the corrupt media. He seemed shocked that he was protected by
the media and that his tendencies were an open secret.
💥NEW:
Bill Maher on Eric Swalwell: "We had him on a couple of times. Ask my
staff: I never liked him. I don’t have good gaydar — but I got creepdar.
I always thought this guy was a f*cking creep. I never liked him." pic.twitter.com/QCMWJoU0hw
“Ask
my staff: I never liked him. I don’t have good gaydar — but I got
creepdar. I always thought this guy was a f*cking creep. I never liked
him,” he said.
Swalwell saw his entire career collapse last
weekend when multiple women leveled allegations of sexual misconduct and
rape against him. He withdrew from the California governor’s race last
Sunday and resigned from Congress two days later, just hours after
another woman accused him of raping her in 2018. Democrats claim they
knew nothing. That’s simply not believable, especially for Nancy Pelosi,
who had Eric in her inner circle.
No one knew? Of course they
did. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) virtually spilled the beans in a
disastrous presser this week, where the Arizona Democrat said he had
heard he was flirty in years past.
Also, Bill, you almost have
it: Swalwell was protected by the media because he attacked Trump. He
had a purpose. When he ran for office and faced scrutiny, which brought
out stories of alleged sexual assault and misconduct, he was thrown to
the wolves. And Democrats tried to drag Reps. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX) and
Cory Mills (R-FL) into the mud with their own baggage. If Swalwell was
the price to be paid, so be it. This is politics, and nothing, not even
friendship, outweighs ambition or the desire to gain an advantage in a
fight.
The media will always protect Democrats. Welcome to the party, pal.
President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. Navy has seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman.
Trump said on Truth Social on Sunday that the 900-foot-long ship
attempted to run a blockade and ignored warnings to stop. He added that
the United States responded by striking the vessel’s engine room.
The ship is now in U.S. custody and has a long history of sanctions violations.
President Donald Trump Truth Social post
In a separate post, the president slammed Iran for firing on European
ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday,
saying the U.S. is offering a
fair deal he hopes they take.
Trump warned that if they don’t take a deal, they will be brought down fast.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(725x410:727x412)/jennifer-lopez-ben-affleck-Kiss-Of-The-Spider-Woman-screening-2025-100625-5d0a6422eaff440490c445575e5dabc1.jpg)
