President Donald Trump on Wednesday leveled a new threat against NATO
ally Germany, suggesting he could soon reduce the U.S. military
presence there as he continues to feud with Chancellor Friedrich Merz
over the U.S-Israel war against Iran.
Trump made the threat after Merz earlier this week said that the U.S.
was being “humiliated” by the Iranian leadership and criticized
Washington’s lack of strategy in the war. Trump has also repeatedly
railed against NATO for the alliance's refusal to assist the U.S. in its
two-month-old war.
“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction
of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next
short period of time,” Trump said in a social media post.
Merz had said earlier Wednesday that his personal relationship with
Trump remained “as good as ever,” but he had “had doubts from the very
beginning about what was started there with the war in Iran.”
During his first term in the White House, Trump also moved to cut
U.S. troops in Germany because he said the country spent too little on
defense.
In June 2020, Trump announced he was going to pull out about 9,500 of
the roughly 34,500 U.S. troops who were then stationed in Germany, but
the process never actually started. Democratic President Joe Biden
formally stopped the planned withdrawal soon after taking office in
2021.
The U.S. has several major military facilities in the country,
including the headquarters for U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa
Command, Ramstein Air Base and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the
largest American hospital outside the United States.
Merz met with Trump at the White House in March, just days after the
U.S. and Israel began their bombardment of Iran. At the time, Merz told
Trump that Germany was eager to work with the U.S. on a strategy for
when the current Iranian government no longer exists. Merz also
expressed concern that an extended conflict could do great damage to the
global economy.
His concern, like many other European leaders, has only grown as the
U.S. and Iran have yet to come to a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,
the critical waterway through which about 20% of the world global oil
supply had flowed prior to the start of the war. It has been effectively
closed since the conflict began on Feb. 28.
“We are suffering considerably in Germany and in Europe from the
consequences of, for example, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Merz
said Wednesday, hours before Trump posted his threat on social media.
“And in that regard, I urge that this conflict be resolved.”
Merz added that his government was "on good speaking terms" with the Trump administration.
Trump, for his part, has been full-throated in expressing his frustration with Merz.
On Tuesday, he wrote: “The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz,
thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn’t know what
he’s talking about!” Trump added that it was no surprise “that Germany
is doing so poorly, both economically and in other respects!”ofaro
reported from Berlin.
Man, there are times when you really, really want
photographs and/or video of an event to tell the story. Unfortunately,
that is not the case here, but we can still tell you what happened
Wednesday afternoon:
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was indicted Tuesday on two
counts related to his infamous “86 47” post,
Former FBI Director James Comey's first court appearance for his latest federal indictment ended on Wednesday without him making a plea.
Judge
William Fitzpatrick
informed Comey of the charges against him, saying
the two counts both carry up to five years in prison.
The first
count is making a threat against the President of the United States, the
second is interstate transmission of a threat against the President of
the United States.
There was no arraignment, and Fitzpatrick did
not set any conditions for Comey's release, aside from removing any
firearms from Comey's household.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche,
who took over the DOJ following the
ouster of Pam Bondi, strongly denied Wednesday that the charges came at
the behest of the president:
Acting Attorney Todd Blanche
stated that the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey is
"not an audition" for the top job at the Justice Department on
Wednesday.
Blanche made the statement during an interview with CBS
News, going on to say he was "absolutely, positively not" directed or
asked by President Donald Trump to pursue the indictment.
“I don’t
audition for this job,” Blanche told Garrett. “I’ve been the deputy
attorney general for over a year, OK? This is not an audition.”
“Of
course not,” Blanche added when asked whether Trump asked for the
indictment. “Absolutely, positively not, and there’s no suggestion that
that’s the case that happened, and the fact that we’re doing our work ––
this is not something that just happened in the past couple weeks. This
is something that has been investigated for nearly a year now, and the
results of that investigation is that a grand jury returned an
indictment.”
Those comments appear at the 4:18 minute mark:
A
grand jury has indicted former FBI director James Comey, after the
Justice Department claimed a photo Comey posted online of seashells
appearing to spell out “86 47” threatened President Trump. Comey denied
the accusation.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche told CBS
Mornings that the proof of the threat lies in “the fact that a grand
jury returned an indictment.”
“That is not the Department of Justice charging James Comey with a crime,” he added.
Comey,
as we’ve reported, proclaims total innocence and argues that even as
the former director of the top law enforcement agency in the world, he
had no idea what “86” (kill) “47” (the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump) meant. Sure, I see seashell formations like that all the time — as in never.
Some legal experts have questioned whether the charges will stand up to First Amendment claims, but as our Rusty Weiss reported earlier Wednesday, Blanche feels very strongly that the DOJ has a solid case. RedState will keep you posted.
The drumbeat over at The New York Times is
relentless — if, for some reason, you went over to their site or picked
up a newspaper to peruse their coverage, you’d see that almost every one
of their stories about the Iran conflict is doom and gloom and imagines
that we’re going to meet a very dark fate. They prove daily, however,
just how out of touch they are with the average American, and the
numbers tell the tale:
A new national survey from the Harvard CAPS/Harris
Poll suggests that a majority of American voters support President
Donald Trump's handling of the escalating tensions with Iran, with
strong backing for recent military and diplomatic actions and a broad
belief that the United States is winning the conflict.
A central theme emerging from the poll is a widespread perception that the United States holds the upper hand.
If
you can get 74 percent of voters to agree on anything, that would be
considered a huge win. But that’s exactly what the poll showed in this
case:
Seventy-four percent of voters say the U.S. is
currently winning over Iran, while 54% believe the country has the
advantage in negotiations.
Trump noticed:
Harvard Harris Poll: Strong Majority back President Trump on Iran Nuclear stoppage.
According
to the poll, conducted April 23-26, 2026, among 2,745 registered
voters, 52% of respondents support U.S. military airstrikes on Iran,
while 54% say those strikes were justified.
The findings indicate
that more than half of voters approve of direct military measures,
reflecting a willingness among the public to endorse force in response
to ongoing hostilities.
Support for Trump's diplomatic decisions also remains high.
The survey found that 78% of voters believe Trump was right to agree to a temporary ceasefire with Iran.
At
the same time, 57% approve of the administration's decision to impose a
blockade on ships heading to Iran, signaling majority support for
combining military pressure with strategic restraint.
The poll also highlights strong public backing for continued pressure if Iran refuses to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Although there were certainly some concerning numbers for Trump and the Republicans — respondents were not happy with the economy, and amazingly, a majority think it was better under Biden(this writer shakes his head in astonishment, remembering the 9.1 percent inflation rate under Ole Joe) — but the midterms are not a done deal as the Democrats and the media would lead you to believe.
The Harvard Harris poll results:
THE RACE FOR CONGRESS IS A DEAD HEAT WITH VOTERS EVENLY DIVIDED BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
Oh,
and here I thought we didn’t even need to show up to vote, because it’s
already been predetermined, and the Democrats are sure to wipe out the
slim GOP majorities in the House and Senate. Except, not so much: Dems
and Republicans are a dead even split at 50-50.
With all the manic redistricting
going on in both red and blue states, it’s anybody’s guess how this
will play out in real-time, but it’s way too early for the GOP to just
throw in the towel and buy into the media narrative. Turnout will be the
key, and it’s up to all of us to get to the polls and convince everyone
we know (who leans right, anyway) to get their butts off the couch and
make a difference come November.
Surveys are just surveys and
aren’t great indicators of what will actually happen on election day,
but they do give a valuable barometer of where voter sentiment lies.
This Harvard Harris poll proves that the American public is not nearly
so dissatisfied with the Iran effort as the leftist pundits would have
you believe. It’s been 47 years that we’ve allowed this despotic,
terroristic regime to torment the world, and it’s way past time we ended
their evil reign.
Most Americans agree.
Editor's Note:For
decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now,
Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz should be drug tested over his remarks about the recent federal raids
in his state targeting fraudulent businesses that operated with
impunity under his watch. This isn’t an achievement you can take credit
for, Tim. Get back to your stable.
FBI Director Kash Patel criticized him,
but so did Vice President JD
Vance, who is leading the national effort to address the widespread
fraud and corruption that has grown especially in blue states. Also,
let's not forget that it was the incredible work of Nick Shirley who
brought this to light and effectively ended Walz's attempt to secure a
third term as governor.
A Vance spokesperson reached out to
Townhall, saying, “The Task Force has had unprecedented success in
eliminating fraud across the United States. The President’s War on Fraud
is working, as the task force and the entire Trump Administration
continue to work tirelessly to expose Fraudsters who have scammed the
American people out of billions of dollars.”
Mr. Vance later had the perfect analogy for Walz's idiocy here:
This
is like the arsonist trying to claim credit for the work of the fire
department, because Tim Walz let this fraud happen under his watch,
whether he was complicit in it directly himself or just turned a blind
eye towards it.
We really did not get much help at all from the
governor's office. Where we did actually get some help was from some
state local law enforcement officers who we assigned to the federal task
force because the state government wasn't doing anything. So all credit
goes to people on the ground, the Federal officers, the state officers,
who are working to uncover this fraud.
Recently,
this task force uncovered over $22 billion in suspected fraudulent loans
that were protected by the Biden administration (via Fox Business):
The
U.S. Small Business Administration referred 562,000 suspected
fraudulent loans totaling over $22.2 billion to the U.S. Department of
Treasury for collections.
"From Day One, the Trump SBA has worked
tirelessly to crack down on billions in pandemic-era fraud that the
Biden Administration forgave or ignored," SBA Administrator Kelly
Loeffler told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"After extensive
review, and with the strong support of the White House Anti-Fraud Task
Force, we are taking our most decisive action yet to end a Biden-era
scheme that protected over 560,000 borrowers tied to more than $22
billion in suspected pandemic-era fraud," Loeffler added.
The
loans, largely stemming from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and
the COVID Economic Injury Disaster loan program, were flagged for
suspected fraud during former President Joe Biden's administration but
never sent to Treasury for collections, the SBA said in its statement.
Yeah, we need more federal raids, folks. This gravy train must be derailed.
The Supreme Court didn’t kill the Voting Rights
Act yesterday, but they might as well have. They left it in a persistent
judicial vegetative state, severely limiting how Section II can be
applied to the drawing of congressional districts based on race.
The case—Louisiana v. Callais—concerned a congressional map that was
struck down for violating the VRA. Its redraw was later challenged as
unconstitutional based on the creation of a majority-black district. The
Court ruled 6-3 that this was unconstitutional. Now, Section II wasn’t
gutted, but it essentially was, as the liberal dissent written by
Justice Kagan stipulated. The entire South is now open to be redrawn,
and Louisiana isn’t wasting any time. Gov. Jeff Landry has already
canceled the upcoming primaries so his state can redraw its districts
(via WaPo):
Louisiana
Gov. Jeff Landry (R) told Republican House candidates Wednesday that he
plans to suspend next month’s primary elections so state lawmakers can
pass a new congressional map first, according to two people with
knowledge of the calls.
The move follows a Supreme Court decision
earlier in the day that found Louisiana had unlawfully discriminated by
race when it created a second majority Black congressional district
under legal pressure. The ruling positions Republicans to gain one or
two seats in the midterms as they fight to hold their narrow majority in
the House.
The 6-3 decision limited a key provision of the
landmark Voting Rights Act and could lead to other Black Democrats
across the South losing their House seats. Most states are unlikely to
be able to redraw districts in time for the November midterm elections,
but Louisiana could be one of the exceptions.
Landry’s
announcement to suspend the May 16 primary could come as early as Friday
— one day before early voting is to begin, according to people familiar
with his plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
private conversations.
The appellees for Callais have asked the Court to strike down the current Louisiana map later today.
Breaking;
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) plans to suspend the May 16 primary
elections so lawmakers can redraw the congressional map Per Washington
Post pic.twitter.com/08nHlbRvV1
The
application notes that the Legislature is considering pushing back
election deadlines to draw a new map, but that jurisdiction must first
be returned to the district court to approve such a map or impose its
own.
So, I want to get this straight, because I’m a little confused. We’re
supposed to respect federal judges who are appointed for life and not
subject to any kind of outside pressure by design. We’re supposed to
allow our democracy – yes, I know it’s a constitutional republic, but
let’s not be anally retentive about these things – to have a built-in
veto by people we didn’t vote for and can’t, as a practical matter,
remove. Our only protection against them running rampant with their
personal prejudices and peccadillos is their own character. But what if
they don’t have any character? What if they do whatever they damn well
please? Do We the People just have to take it? Because that’s not going
to happen. If it’s a choice between serfdom with Article III – no, Ilhan
Omar,
that is not Article One Hundred Eleven – and liberty without
Article III, adios Article III.
If and when the judiciary dies, and it’s not looking so great right
now, the cause of death on the certificate is going to be suicide.
Now,
I’ve been in front of a lot of federal judges during 30 years as a
lawyer, and the big difference between federal judges and God is that
God doesn’t think He’s a federal judge. There are some good ones out
there, some stunning mediocrities for such a prestigious post, and some
insane ones who really let their incredible power go to their heads. And
it is an incredible power, with an incredible lack of accountability.
But under our Constitution, properly understood, that can work. It gives
them the ability to stand up for the Constitution against partisan
pressure. Of course, the problem is that far too many are Democrats who
stand up for partisan pressure against the Constitution. Like so much of
our Constitution, it requires character to function. It requires a
judge to look at the facts and the law and decide the case according to
them, even when that decision runs against what he, she, or whatever
weird pronoun the Democrat appointee prefers. Sometimes, as a judge, you
have to rule against what you want. And leftists aren’t good at that.
In
fact, leftists
are actively against that. The Constitution
envisions a
system where rights, responsibilities, and procedures are clearly set,
and you apply the facts to those, and the result is what the result is.
Sometimes, you lose. Leftists can’t abide by that because they can’t
lose. Leftism is the highest morality, the only morality, and anything
that helps leftism is necessary, proper, and essential. You can’t be a
leftist judge and rule against a leftist position. It’s inconceivable
because the purpose of the law is not to create fair outcomes. The
purpose of the law, like every other tool, is to increase leftism. When
you understand that, you understand everything you need to know about
why the courts are collapsing upon themselves.
For example, not long ago, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
made a
ruling in some case involving transsexual weirdness where she explained
that a state had no right to deny to kids (or rather, their Münchausen)
what she characterized as medical care and what normal people
characterize as mutilation. Then, in another case, this one involving
psychologists not being allowed to treat people for transsexual
weirdness, she explained that it was essential that the government be
able to decree that you couldn’t get medical care to cure your
transsexual weirdness. It was a total 180-degree change, and it didn’t
matter to her. At all. Similarly, they eagerly embraced California’s
redistricting, but the three liberal judges decided Texas couldn’t do
the same thing.
To function as intended, the Constitution requires
the consistent application of legal principles to different fact
patterns. This provides equal justice. The ruling should be the same
whether a party is right-wing, left-wing, or no wing at all. But
consistency, and therefore justice, has nothing to do with legal
analysis to a leftist. The law exists to enforce and promote leftism,
that’s all. You have no rights. There are no procedures. There is only
leftism.
Look at what’s happening in Virginia with that shriveled,
sour apple doll woman governor’s gerrymandering power grab. There are
very clear provisions in the Virginia Constitution and its law about how
you go about acting on a constitutional amendment, and there’s no real
dispute that the Democrats failed to abide by. Oh, they claim they did,
but they know they didn’t, and everybody knows they didn’t, and the fact
that they didn’t is utterly irrelevant to them. A trial court enjoined
the referendum result, and the case was before the Virginia Supreme
Court this week. Again, there’s no real dispute over the facts. It
wasn’t enacted in accordance with the rules, so it shouldn’t stand. But
it’s going to stand. The Virginia Supreme Court is absolutely not going
to enforce the rules because enforcing the rules would get in the way of
what the leftists want, which is for the gerrymander to succeed. And
so, it will, the law be damned.
And it’s happening in all these dumb district court rulings. You need
to understand that when they rule against Donald Trump, there’s no
legal basis for it. It’s not even close, which is why these
pronouncements from the judges with the Star Wars names in all the
commie venues like the Northern District of Tatooine keep getting
overturned. Look at the ballroom case. There’s a thing called standing.
You can’t sue when you don’t have skin in the game, where you are not
going to suffer a real, cognizable injury of some sort unless you are
given relief by the court. What was the standing in this case? Who was
going to suffer a real injury from Donald Trump building a ballroom?
According to this judge, it was some woman walking her dog who might
have looked at it and not liked it. If this were a thing, any one of us
could sue Obama for that weird library that looks like the building is
infected with some sort of brutalist Peyronie’s Disease.
But it’s
not a thing. It’s ridiculous. Similarly, there is the bizarre notion by
another judge that the Congress of the United States acted
unconstitutionally by refusing to appropriate funds to support baby
killing. That’s certainly an interesting and innovative notion, and of
course, it has nothing to do with the Constitution, but the Democrats
hate fetuses, so it’s OK.
We have the judge who allowed the
ridiculous case brought by that kook in New York, accusing Donald Trump
of molesting her 30 years ago, without a witness, like he would ever
have given her a second glance. Or you have the judge who allowed the
unprecedented civil suit against him in New York. Then there’s the judge
who allowed the unprecedented criminal case against him in New York;
those garbage convictions will soon be overturned on appeal. The pardons
of the J6 political prisoners were well justified by the outrageous and
disgraceful conduct of the judges in allowing ridiculous charges
against them, in failing to change venue when they faced grotesquely
biased juries, in disallowing bail, and in general, railroading them.
So we’re back to the big question – why have judges? If judges are
simply going to be independent actors who substitute their own personal
belief system for the law in making their rulings, why do we have them
at all in a democracy? What is the point of adding this extra layer
between our elected representatives and the enforcement of the law? What
justification is there for having judges if they’re just unaccountable
people doing whatever they want? How is that democracy?
Well, it
isn’t, as everyone can see, which is why Article III is going to go away
if Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t rein in these clowns on the
federal bench, and if the states don’t rein in their own. Remember, all
judges can do is rule. They can’t enforce. They don’t have any guys with
guns. That’s the executive, and if there’s a critical mass of public
support for the executive to ignore the courts, the executive is going
to ignore the courts.
And that critical mass of public support for
ignoring the courts is being created by the courts themselves. People
aren’t going to put up with being told “No” based not on law, but on
whim. People will accept losing if they think the process is fair. They
won’t accept losing if they think the process is rigged, but rigging is
exactly what leftism is all about. Leftism is, by definition, rigging
the system to create an outcome that leftists want. We’re not going to
do that. And if the judiciary wants to keep existing, it had better
figure that out before the American people find it guilty of failure.
The Virginia Supreme Court denied a motion filed by Democrat Attorney
General Jay Jones
asking for an emergency stay on a lower court’s order
that blocks the certification of results from the recent redistricting
special election in the state.
On April 21st, Virginia voters narrowly approved a Constitutional amendment
allowing Democrat legislators to redraw congressional district maps
ahead of the midterm elections, with the measure passing in a 51%-49%
vote.
The proposed map seeks to eliminate four out of the five
Republican-held seats, giving Democrats 10 out of the 11 Virginia
congressional districts.
According to court documents, Judge Jack Hurley of the Tazewell County Circuit Court, on April 22nd,
placed an injunction on the certification of results of the election as
well as any actions that would give effect to the proposed amendment —
ruling that the amendment process was unconstitutional.
That same day, Jones posted a statement to X about the court’s decision.
“My office will immediately file an appeal in the Court of Appeals.
As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge
should not have veto power over the People’s vote. We look forward to
defending the outcome of last night’s election in court,” the attorney
general said.
The Virginia Supreme Court officially denied the motion for a stay on
Tuesday, just days after it was filed on Friday, effectively
maintaining the current block on redistricting certification.
This decision is part of a complex legal landscape, as the court also
heard oral arguments this past Monday for a separate challenge
regarding the special election.
According to reports, a final decision on that specific case is still
pending, leaving the ultimate legality of the special election and the
amendment process unresolved.
These legal battles in Virginia are unfolding against a broader national backdrop of redistricting efforts, most notably in Florida,
where Republicans are moving to secure an additional four seats. As
both parties maneuver for every possible advantage, these state-level
outcomes will play a major role in the fight for control of the House of
Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections.
Jimmy Kimmel’s tasteless “expectant widow” quip about First Lady
Melania crossed a line that sensible Americans know should never be
normalized on network television.
Late-night hosts have a job to make
people laugh, not to stoke division or ghoulish speculation about our
leaders’ lives, and Kimmel’s crack was neither clever nor harmless.
The
timing made the joke worse — it came days before a frightening shooting
incident near the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and the Trumps
understandably demanded accountability from ABC. When a punchline lands
alongside real threats or violence, networks shouldn’t shrug and pretend
context doesn’t matter; viewers deserve better judgment from executives
who sign the checks.
Rob Finnerty was right to call out Kimmel on
Newsmax, bluntly asking why a man who traffics in anti-Trump bile still
collects a prime-time platform on ABC.
Conservatives aren’t asking to
silence comedy — we’re asking for basic standards and fairness: if the
left wants to weaponize late-night as a political megaphone, the rest of
the country should at least know the networks won’t turn a blind eye
when that weaponization risks real-world consequences.
This isn’t
an isolated spat; Kimmel’s career is littered with repeated jabs at
conservatives while corporate bosses look the other way, and the double
standard is obvious to anyone paying attention. If the networks tolerate
bullying when the target is a Republican president but howl when the
shoe’s on the other foot, they reveal their own bias and contempt for
millions of Americans who simply want fair treatment.
ABC and
Disney executives must decide whether they stand for free speech or for
partisan performance art that corrodes civic life — and the public
should be allowed to judge them accordingly. If networks insist on
turning late-night into a permanent political hit parade, conservative
viewers will respond with their clicks, subscriptions, and dollars until
advertisers and owners finally choose the side of common sense and
respect for ordinary Americans.
has already made a bold,
unmistakable move in the Jimmy Kimmel
firestorm that should reassure
shareholders and patriotic Americans uneasy with Hollywood’s double
standards. Confronted with a national uproar over a late-night joke,
D’Amaro didn’t hide; instead Disney’s leadership signaled it would
engage with regulators and defend the company’s standing while
navigating a politically charged backlash.
The sequence could not
be clearer: Jimmy Kimmel aired a parody routine on April 23 that mocked
First Lady Melania Trump, an episode that was followed days later by an
attempted attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and a furious
public reaction from the president and first lady demanding Kimmel be
fired. That perfect storm of sensational late-night provocation and
real-world violence invited scrutiny, and conservatives have every right
to demand accountability from networks that cloak political activism in
the guise of comedy.
What really turned this from a cable dust-up
into a corporate crisis was the federal government’s involvement: the
Federal Communications Commission moved to open an early review of ABC’s
broadcast licenses, putting real regulatory pressure on Disney to show
it meets the legal obligations of a public broadcaster. When regulators
start sniffing around licenses, boardrooms pay attention — and D’Amaro
had to act not as a left-wing culture cop, but as a steward of a
multibillion-dollar public company.
Disney’s official posture —
blunt, businesslike and legally minded — was the kind of response this
moment demanded. Company statements made clear Disney believes its
stations comply with the law and is prepared to defend that position,
while the new CEO quietly absorbs a test that would have humbled a less
steady hand. That restraint, paired with a willingness to engage
regulators, is the precise opposite of the spineless capitulation to
outrage politics many in the media elite expect from Hollywood.
From
a conservative perspective, this is a welcome advertisement for a new
corporate ethos: hold entertainers to standards, defend shareholders,
and don’t let partisan comics weaponize platform power without
consequence. Americans don’t want their family-friendly brands turned
into megaphones for personal political attacks, and when a CEO acts to
protect the company’s integrity, that’s a move worth applauding.
If
Josh D’Amaro follows through — putting principle and profitability over
reflexive kowtowing to liberal talent — Disney could set a precedent
that finally forces Hollywood to choose between politics and profits.
Hardworking Americans watching this episode want leaders who defend free
expression but also defend decency and corporate responsibility; so
far, D’Amaro’s handling looks like the kind of decisive leadership this
company desperately needs.
