Commentary Culture Investigations

“This Is Today’s Democrat Party,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned Thursday, sharing video of comments by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members revealing their plans for America.

In a post on X.com, Sen. Cruz shared a video posted by Canary Mission, an organization that “documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.”

“DSA members make it clear what their goal is: destroying America,” Canary Mission introduces its video on X.

In the video, DSA-San Francisco’s Hazel Williams calls for overthrowing the country through “revolutionary struggle”:

“Imperialism is, U.S. imperialism is not a thing that can be reformed away. It has to be overthrown through revolutionary struggle.”

DSA-Seattle’s Amy Wilhelm also called for overthrowing the U.S. – by ensuring its “entire failure”:

“Our goal ultimately is to facilitate our own entire failure in the ways that we can. Ultimately to overthrow our own empire.”

“The most important thing we can do is take that (American) empire down from within,” DSA-Los Angeles member Frances Gill says in the video.

DSA-Portland’s Sarah Anastasia Milner calls for building “a mass movement that can use the leverage of workers to hit the kill switch on American imperialism here within the American empire.”

According to Canary Mission’s website, Hazel Williams has called for the destruction of America as a leader in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and is a supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The website’s profile of Amy Wilhelm reports that she “has expressed support for Hamas terrorism, promoted hatred of the police, spread anti-Semitism and called for the destruction of Israel.”

Likewise, Frances Gill has “spread hatred of America and the police, promoted hatred of Israel and Zionists and engaged in anti-Israel activism, as a leader in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA),” according to Canary Mission.

Milner is listed as a member of DSA’s 2025-2027 National Political Committee (NPC) and has echoed the sentiments of Williams, Wilhelm and Gill.

This is today’s Democrat party. https://t.co/VvCtquIjvz
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) July 9, 2026

DC Police Produce 1,627 January 6 Bodycam Videos
Judicial Watch Obtains Records on Charlie Kirk Assassination Site
Case Closed? Judicial Watch Investigates Butler Assassination Attempt
Billions in FEMA Covid-19 Relief Went to ‘Large, Organized Fraud Schemes’

DC Police Produce 1,627 January 6 Bodycam Videos
Another victory in our search for the truth of January 6.
The Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department released over 1,000 hours of body-worn camera footage in 1,627 videos from the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol event. The videos were released because of an April 2026 court ruling in a DC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
The videos are available via our website here and http://www.judicialwatch.org/january6bodycam
We filed the DC FOIA lawsuit in June 2024 after the DC Police denied an August 2021 request for all body-worn camera footage recorded by police officers responding to the January 6, 2021, events at and around the U.S. Capitol (Judicial Watch v. District of Columbia (No. 2024-CAB-003453)).
Earlier this year, a local DC court dealt a major blow to government secrecy by ruling that the DC Police could not broadly blur and censor the footage. Rejecting DC Police’s claim that it could withhold faces and voices of everyone except law enforcement—and its assertion that producing the footage would cost more than $1.5 million—the court held that any privacy interests were minimal and outweighed by the overwhelming public interest in disclosure. The ruling cleared the way for this release of bodycam footage that documents one of the most consequential events in recent American history.
The release of these previously secret DC Police January 6 bodycam videos is the result of a hard-fought victory for transparency by Judicial Watch. We encourage citizens, law enforcement, Congress and media to carefully review these videos so they can see more of the truth about January 6.”
We have conducted a massive, independent investigation into the events of January 6.
In April 2026, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain records related to possible improper targeting of January 6, 2021, Capitol protesters, their supporters, and related nonprofits
In August 2025, we announced that the U.S. Air Force would finally provide full military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Babbitt was the only official January 6 homicide victim. The Biden administration had previously denied Babbitt and her family these honors in retaliation for being at the U.S. Capitol that day. This decision came on the heels of a massive, nearly $5 million Trump administration settlement to her family for wrongful death and other claims against the U.S. Government.
In July 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated January 6 prosecutions after Donald Trump was elected president in November 2024. The Biden administration, anticipating President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to issue pardons for January 6, 2021, defendants, is believed to have accelerated prosecutions in the final months of Biden’s term.
In March 2024, we received Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records from the Department of Justice in a FOIA lawsuit that show the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deployed personnel to Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.
In October 2023, we received the declaration of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021 that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.
 

Judicial Watch Obtains Records on Charlie Kirk Assassination Site
We obtained 64 pages of records from Utah Valley University through a Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) request detailing the university efforts to immediately pave over the site where Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk was murdered.
Utah State University Emergency Payment Request Form was placed with the vendor on September 11, 2025, one day after Kirk was assassinated. The invoice amount is $6,090.52 and the product description is “Clean up for shooting incident.” The name of the vendor is redacted.
On September 12, 2025, two days after Kirk’s assassination, the following text message exchanges took place:
Person 1: The cops just called me into the fountain. Area to get them some water. We’re not gonna need to cut out any sod. I don’t think I bet we can just wash it all down.
Person 2: Ok great news. Let me know and I’ll pass it along.
Person 1: Well, they’re done now. And there is still some stuff to cleanup. But I think we can get it cleaned pretty easy.
Person 2: Stuff as in blood?
Person 1: There’s still A [sic] Eight inch puddle ish
Person 2: Plugger
Person 2:
Person 1:
Person 1: Hell no
Person 1: You trying to splash stuff. The solution to pollution is dilution.
Person 2: Yea true. Just up the irrigation.
Person 1: I’ll just grab a hose and spray it, man
Person 2: Tonight?
Person 1:
Person 1: No, tomorrow. The FBI is still there. I guess.
Person 1 (writing on September 13): Lmk [let me know] when you wanna go
Person 2: By chance have any gloves
Person 1: Ehhh I’ll grab some
An individual involved in the paving work texts on September 14, “My guys are well trained in keeping quiet,” adding, “I think [redacted] is on it with your media folks.”
An individual texts on September 14, “UU has some barriers available… but they are bright red.” A second individual responds, “No thank you. Any other color.” The first individual replies, “I know. I thought the same thing .”
In response to our records request, Utah Asst. Attorney General Nichole Ferguson states:
With respect to the portion of the request seeking records related to the removal of evidence and/or materials from site of the assassination of Charlie Kirk,” UVU consulted the departments and personnel reasonably likely to have been involved in that work. Stacy Fowler, an assistant GRAMA Records Officer, consulted with the Utah Valley University Police Department (UVUPD) regarding this request and was told that UVUPD did not have control of the crime scene or involvement in the removal of evidence or materials from the site of the incident so they would not have responsive records … Because UVUPD did not participate in any aspect of the evidence removal process, a search of UVUPD emails and text messages was not conducted as it was not reasonably likely that the search would produce responsive records related to “the destruction and/or removal of evidence and/or materials from the site of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
We filed the GRAMA request on November 20, 2025, for:
All records related to the destruction and/or removal of evidence and/or materials from the site of the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025. Such records shall include but not be limited to UVU police/security personnel emails and text messages, reports, directives, contractor invoices and authorizations.
All records related to the paving operation that occurred at the site on the UVU campus of the Charlie Kirk assassination, including email and text messages between the university and contractors involved in the operation, estimates, invoices for the work, purchase orders, and all related records.
There is intense public interest in the political assassination of Charlie Kirk. These documents, some of which are unpleasant, add to the catalogue of public information about Charlie’s vicious murder.
 

Case Closed? Judicial Watch Investigates Butler Assassination Attempt
There are still too many questions about the day in Butler, PA, when Thomas Crooks tried to kill Donald Trump. And we are still on the case, as Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, details.
In November, the FBI closed its investigation of the attempt by Thomas Crooks to kill President Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. But Judicial Watch has not stopped looking for answers. What exactly happened in Butler in July 2024 before, during, and after shots were fired? A full picture of the Butler shooting is critical to understanding the attempt on the president’s life—and perhaps preventing future assassination attempts.
Last month, we obtained 48 pages of heavily redacted documents from the FBI in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The documents provide context to the Butler shooting story. One document is an interview of the first medic to reach Crooks on the rooftop. She pronounced him dead and noted that a SWAT team officer “checked the shooter’s right pocket and discovered a gray remote device with numerical push buttons and an antenna.” Other documents sketch FBI actions in the days after the shooting.
Judicial Watch has been relentless in pursuit of facts in the Butler case. We obtained numerous documents from local and state sources.
One request resulted in the production of bodycam footage from the Butler Police Department on the day of the assassination attempt.
Another request produced two photographs of shooter Thomas Crooks and included law enforcement emails about “sniper elements” deployed to protect the president. The sniper elements will “provide overwatch for the rally and would work in conjunction with the secret service counter-sniper unit,” noted a senior law-enforcement source.
In another legal action, Judicial Watch fought vigorously for the disclosure of a tape of  a 911 call made by Crooks’ father. The tape “is another piece of the puzzle in the Butler assassination attempt on President Trump,” noted JW President Tom Fitton.
In July 2025, after the FBI ignored our FOIA request for all records related to Thomas Crooks, we sued in federal court. “No more delays and excuses,” Tom said. “The FBI should release what it has on the man who tried to kill President Trump.”
Nine months later, in April 2026, the FBI released 37 heavily redacted pages that noted local law enforcement warnings about an “unknown male acting suspiciously.” The documents arrived five months after the FBI closed its investigation and were the first records to be released by the bureau about the assassination attempt.
The FBI tells JW they are holding approximately 75,000 pages of documents related to the Butler shooting and reviewing only a few hundred a month for release. Why the delay?
“The American people deserve full transparency about Thomas Crooks, his contacts, and why key details about the case remain hidden,” notes JW’s Fitton. Our federal lawsuit against the FBI continues.
 

Billions in FEMA Covid-19 Relief Went to ‘Large, Organized Fraud Schemes’
Vice President Vance can’t move fast enough in his mission to root out fraud in federal spending. Our Corruption Chronicles blog lays out a corruption hotspot.
The famously incompetent government agency created by Jimmy Carter to provide the nation with disaster relief is involved in yet another scandal for doling out billions of dollars in Covid-19 aid that ended up being spent on fraudulent and wasteful causes that clearly did not qualify for the funding. It marks the latest of many transgressions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which received nearly $100 billion in supplemental appropriations plus additional disaster relief funding to support its doomed pandemic response and recovery effort. Instead, the agency, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), executed the cash giveaway without bothering to implement effective controls, resulting in “large, organized fraud schemes,” according to a recently published audit conducted by the DHS Inspector General.
More than $13.5 billion in pandemic recovery awards went to ineligible recipients and unallowable or unsupported costs, investigators found. The disaster relief money flowed to the illicit causes because FEMA failed to implement controls to ensure the funding went to eligible recipients, follow its own policies aimed at ensuring pandemic funding was used for allowable costs and maintain consistent data collection and management processes to inform decisions and allocate resources. For instance, FEMA’s Lost Wages Assistance (LWA) and Funeral Assistance programs awarded ineligible recipients around $3.7 billion in potentially fraudulent or duplicate payments because it relied on state workforce agencies for the management of the programs despite repeated warnings from the Department of Labor (DOL) and the DHS IG that self-certifications are high risk and may lead to improper payments. Adding insult to injury, FEMA did not require state workforce agencies to report LWA fraud, hindering the efforts of its watchdog to recover stolen funds and combat future fraud.
FEMA’s faulty process for reviewing funeral assistance expenses allowed the disbursement of duplicate payments to multiple parties for the same decedent, investigators found. The disaster relief agency also failed to follow its policies to ensure pandemic funding was used for allowable costs under federal law. “We identified approximately $8.2 billion in unallowable or unsupported costs and an additional $1.5 billion in over-obligated funding that could have been put to better use during the Covid-19 pandemic,” the DHS IG report states. FEMA was also slow to take action to recoup improper payments once they were identified and the beleaguered agency paid applicants beyond the maximum reimbursement amount. In a multitude of instances FEMA applied inconsistent document review guidance, resulting in payments for unallowable costs related to the funeral assistance program. This is why the agency watchdog summarized its latest probe in a sentence that reads: “Key finding: Ineffective Controls Led to COVID-19 Funding Being Susceptible to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.”
It marks the latest of several embarrassing lapses at FEMA in recent years alone. Earlier this year Judicial Watch exposed an outrageous program in which New York City spent tens of millions of dollars in FEMA funds over just a few months to house and feed illegal immigrants. Judicial Watch had to sue FEMA for the records because the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for payment and funding allocation files, internal communications and directives, as well as policy and procedural guidelines involving the migrant project. The records show New York City received $188 million under the Biden administration from a federal shelter program administered by FEMA and the money was spent on around-the-clock security staffing at a converted Manhattan office building used as a migrant shelter, and daily meal delivery to migrants housed in 33 hotels—including major chains such as Ramada, Best Western, Wyndham and Courtyard/Fairfield—across New York City.
FEMA was rocked by two other scandals last fall that were exposed in separate investigations. In the first numerous employees were fired for consuming pornographic content on government issued devices during work hours. The individuals had access to critical information and intelligence and were entrusted to safeguard Americans from emergencies—and instead they were consuming pornography, a statement issued by then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem read. In the second scandal a DHS probe revealed that under the Biden administration FEMA singled out conservative disaster victims and withheld aid to survivors who displayed signs and flags the agency’s liberal workforce disagreed with. The agency charged with helping people before, during and after disasters systemically refused to visit the houses of politically conservative victims, the DHS inquiry found. These examples are just a few on a lengthy list chronicling transgressions at FEMA, which merged into DHS after the 2001 terrorist attacks and has been failing the American people since Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana gulf coast two decades ago, killing more than 1,800 Americans and resulting in billions of dollars in property damage.
Until next week,
The post Judicial Watch Wins January 6 Videos appeared first on Judicial Watch.

On its website, the PBS News Hour has a fundraising pitch claiming “Independent journalism takes investment.” That’s a hoot! It’s apparent on most nights that the News Hour is not at all “independent,” but sounds like MS NOW, like a publicity wagon for Democrats. Take anchorman Geoff Bennett’s wiffle-ball interview with Rahm Emanuel, a potential 2028 president candidate.

The first question was open-ended: “In your speech to Israelis, you said the relationship between the U.S. and Israel needs a new direction. What more, in your view, needs to change?”

The second question wasn’t actually a question, it was a “say more” prompt: “This 23-state solution, normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab League tied to Palestinian statehood, say more about why you think that would be more successful than the two-state diplomacy that has failed for decades.”

This answer is the worst one, that somehow the Arab League has failed three times to get the Palestinians to accept peace with Israel, but Emanuel is somehow hopeful that maybe it won’t be refused a fourth time. Keep hope alive? That’s the “realistic” foreign policy? 

The third question, another tee-ball: “You said that Israel’s conduct in Gaza has been reckless and careless with Palestinian life. What should the U.S. have done differently while that war was under way?”

Then came the gentle Democratic Party inquiry:

On PBS News Hour, Geoff Bennett the Butler cues up Rahm Emanuel to suggest the collapse of support for Israel in America isn’t a Democratic Party problem, it’s a Netanyahu problem. He’s crashed the car. He’s wrecked the relationship. pic.twitter.com/QvV6vEZYfb
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) July 10, 2026
“As you well know, support for Israel has fallen sharply among Democrats. This is especially true among younger voters. How do you see this shift showing up politically in the midterms and beyond that in the 2028 election?” Emanuel insists this isn’t a Democratic Party problem, that they have a burgeoning pro-Hamas faction. No, it’s Netanyahu’s fault. He “crashed the car.” He wrecked the alliance. 

Does anyone think Bennett is someone the Democrats bite their fingernails in anxiety before coming on PBS? Or is he just a soothing news butler? 

Only the fifth question acknowledged the Hamas mass murder in 2023:

BENNETT: It strikes me we should make clear as part of this conversation for folks listening that Israel, yes, suffered the deadliest attack in its history on October 7. It still faces existential threats from Hamas and Hezbollah and from Iran.

Many Israelis believe that the world has lost sight of that. How do you navigate criticism of Netanyahu and Israel’s policies while still recognizing the extraordinary security threats that country faces?

Emanuel said yeah, sure, “they’re not wrong about the security challenges” — when you have people who explicitly state they want an end to Israel — but as always, “diplomacy is the right tool.” Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Obama and Biden solved the Palestinian problem — which is why diplomacy works? Who is having trouble accepting reality? Surely, PBS is on that list. 

Amid its fight to renew the broadcast licenses from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its owned and operated affiliates, ABC’s Good Morning America probably thought it was fulfilling a public service on Thursday in calling out a (supposedly) viral trend of moms becoming hooked on marijuana to relieve stress, but its “both-sides-ing” negated any positive public service.

In one of three teases, co-host Robin Roberts boasted of a story on “the moms who say marijuana makes them better parents” and then, in the others, co-host Michael Strahan touted the “high on parenting” trend from “Garden Moms…racking up millions of views” arguing “pot helps them parent.”

Only then did Strahan say chief medical correspondent Dr. Tara Narula would weigh in on “what parents should know about the risks.”

“We’re back now with our GMA Cover Story on moms turning to marijuana because they say it makes parenting easier. They call themselves garden moms and they’re increasingly open about it online,” Strahan began.

Yesterday, ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ had a full story giving oxygen to this supposed TikTok trend of moms becoming stoners, smoking marijuana to deal with the stresses of motherhood.
While the second half was incredibly critical of the trend, the framing at the on-set did… pic.twitter.com/CtrK6oGCo3
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 10, 2026
Narula teed it up as a move “a growing number” of women view as akin to “turn[ing] to that glass of wine after putting their kids to bed.”

“They’re using it during the day, but healthcare providers caution not so fast,” she added.

Narula and her team next had a number of soundbites from one such user, “Texas mom of two and content creator Rachel Gibbs,” who insisted she and other potheads are “using this as a tool” and “not…to escape,” “be bad moms,” or “get away from our kids”

If you’re having to provide all those qualifiers, that’s a safe sign you know what you’re doing is wrong.

“Texas mom of two and content creator Rachel Gibbs says cannabis doesn’t check her out of motherhood, but rather helps her to check in and quiet the static in her head,” Narula added.

Narula gave Gibbs ample space (alongside two other TikTokers) to sing the praises of doing hard drugs (click “expand”):

GIBBS: It almost, like, turns the background noise off. I’m not zoned out. I’m not in the fridge all day long. I’m not just, like, sleeping on the couch. My kids aren’t running around. Like, that’s — that’s not it.

NARULA: And she says its impact on parenting her three and five-year-old kids has been tremendous.

GIBBS: I can get down to their level. I have more patience. It’s calmed the nerves down. It’s calmed the fight or flight. It’s now in — freeze and let’s work it through together. Like, we’re on the same team.

NARULA: Rachel is far from alone.

TIKTOK USER AMYZWRLD: I know a lot of people hold shame, and I’m here to take that out of it. Gardening makes me a better parent.

TIKTOK USER TESS_UHHHHH: You already know coffee and coffee time, baby.

Naraula says the trend is known by the hashtag “CanaMoms or Garden Moms” with Gibbs also relaying “she uses cannabis four to five days a week” with “hard rules around its use.”

Gibbs provided more assurances pot use is something that can be done responsibly with children a short walk away: “If I am using cannabis, there is another adult home. I’m never driving under the influence ever. We do not ever have, like, actual cannabis out around our children. They do not see it.”

It was only at this point did Narula pivot to pointing out the litany of negatives and dangerous outcomes for marijuana use.

In particular, an APA official noted that, a mother may think it’s calm at home, but something such as a sudden medical emergency involving a child could impair their ability to seek help (click “expand”):

NARULA: While more than 64 million Americans have used cannabis in the past year, approximately three in 10 people who use cannabis have cannabis use disorder. Addiction specialists suggest it shouldn’t be thought of as a harmless alternative to alcohol. It also carries health risks, potentially affecting mood, memory, attention, and heart health among others.

APA COUNCIL ON ADDICTION PSYCHIATRY CHAIR DR. LIEF FENNO: Alcohol and marijuana both impair reaction time, they impair decision making, and if, you know, someone is taking charge of the care of a young child or some children, they may need to engage in life-saving care, make emergency decisions, operate a motor vehicle safely, and the regular use of marijuana before engaging in those behaviors can — can impair your ability to do so.

Back live, Strahan provided more positive framing: “[W]hat does the science say about marijuana’s ability to help moms focus and free themselves of self-stress and anxiety?”

Narula dismissed it:

[T]he doctor we interviewed was very clear in saying medicine is — cannabis is not medicine…The most, latest research study we have is actually from this past year that looked at cannabis in its relationship to mental health disorders, and it was a big review, 50 studies that were out there, and they did not find any benefit in terms of anxiety, PTSD, or psychotic disorders.

Narula further pointed out that, “in high doses, cannabis can actually cause anxiety, paranoia, psychosis” and [c]hronic use can lead to depression, alterations in your sleep, where you’re sleeping more, and so, then we think about cardiovascular risks. So many people don’t know about this, but we in the cardiology world talk about it, there is actually a link between cannabis use, no matter how you use it, smoking or eating it with heart attack, stroke, heart failure, and arrhythmia.”

Roberts joined Strahan in trying to turn the focus back towards some sort of positive conclusion (click “expand”):

ROBERTS: Yeah, okay, so the mom was watching right now — moms are watching right now, and perhaps they’re — they’re curious. What do you want them to know?

NARULA: Yeah, I think the biggest things we talked about the risks are moms, but let’s talk about the risk to kids. So, the American Academy of Pediatrics says you should not be using in front of your children, because that normalizes substance use.

STRAHAN: Mmhmm.

NARULA: You don’t want to be smoking, because they could get exposed to secondhand smoke. You want to keep the edibles and gummies and things locked up and out of reach, and then the biggest issue is what you heard in the piece, which is, does it impact their decision-making, impair judgment, reaction time, if they’re driving a car?

STRAHAN: Yeah.

ZEE: Yes, exactly.

NARULA: The doctor we interviewed made a great point, which is if you were leaving your kid with a daycare worker, or a nanny, or a teacher who had just used, would you feel comfortable with that? So, questions to ask.

ROBERTS: Mmhmm.

STRAHAN: And if you have to question it, most parents, of my opinion, say no to.

Closing out the segment, weatherman Sam Champion declared: “Eye-opening. I got to say that was one of those conversations you weren’t expecting, but really good combo!”

To see the relevant ABC transcript from July 10, click here.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 64 pages of records from Utah Valley University through a Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) request detailing the university efforts to immediately pave over the site where Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk was murdered.
Utah State University Emergency Payment Request Form was placed with the vendor on September 11, 2025, one day after Kirk was assassinated. The invoice amount is $6,090.52 and the product description is “Clean up for shooting incident.” The name of the vendor is redacted.
On September 12, 2025, two days after Kirk’s assassination, the following text message exchanges took place:
Person 1: The cops just called me into the fountain. Area to get them some water. We’re not gonna need to cut out any sod. I don’t think I bet we can just wash it all down.
Person 2: Ok great news. Let me know and I’ll pass it along.
Person 1: Well, they’re done now. And there is still some stuff to cleanup. But I think we can get it cleaned pretty easy.
Person 2: Stuff as in blood?
Person 1: There’s still A [sic] Eight inch puddle ish
Person 2: Plugger
Person 2:
Person 1:
Person 1: Hell no
Person 1: You trying to splash stuff. The solution to pollution is dilution.
Person 2: Yea true. Just up the irrigation.
Person 1: I’ll just grab a hose and spray it, man
Person 2: Tonight?
Person 1:
Person 1: No, tomorrow. The FBI is still there. I guess.
Person 1 (writing on September 13): Lmk [let me know] when you wanna go
Person 2: By chance have any gloves
Person 1: Ehhh I’ll grab some
An individual involved in the paving work texts on September 14, “My guys are well trained in keeping quiet,” adding, “I think [redacted] is on it with your media folks.”
An individual texts on September 14, “UU has some barriers available… but they are bright red.” A second individual responds, “No thank you. Any other color.” The first individual replies, “I know. I thought the same thing .”
In response to Judicial Watch’s records request, Utah Asst. Attorney General Nichole Ferguson states:
With respect to the portion of the request seeking records related to the removal of evidence and/or materials from site of the assassination of Charlie Kirk,” UVU consulted the departments and personnel reasonably likely to have been involved in that work. Stacy Fowler, an assistant GRAMA Records Officer, consulted with the Utah Valley University Police Department (UVUPD) regarding this request and was told that UVUPD did not have control of the crime scene or involvement in the removal of evidence or materials from the site of the incident so they would not have responsive records … Because UVUPD did not participate in any aspect of the evidence removal process, a search of UVUPD emails and text messages was not conducted as it was not reasonably likely that the search would produce responsive records related to “the destruction and/or removal of evidence and/or materials from the site of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
Judicial Watch filed the GRAMA request on November 20, 2025, for:
All records related to the destruction and/or removal of evidence and/or materials from the site of the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025. Such records shall include but not be limited to UVU police/security personnel emails and text messages, reports, directives, contractor invoices and authorizations.
All records related to the paving operation that occurred at the site on the UVU campus of the Charlie Kirk assassination, including email and text messages between the university and contractors involved in the operation, estimates, invoices for the work, purchase orders, and all related records.
“There is intense public interest in the political assassination of Charlie Kirk. These documents, some of which are unpleasant, add to the catalogue of public information about Charlie’s vicious murder,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
###
The post Judicial Watch: University Releases Documents on Clean Up of Charlie Kirk Assassination Site appeared first on Judicial Watch.

With news that casual dining chain Cracker Barrel had pretty much recouped its losses after it abandoned its $100 million rebrand gaffe last year, MS Now regular and political mush mouth Donny Deutsch admitted the obvious: DEI sucks as a business model.

Deutsch joined the July 8 edition of Morning Joe, where he addressed Cracker Barrel stock skyrocketing into orbit. The chain — caused backlash amongst consumers in 2025 for abandoning its traditional ole southern “Uncle Herschel” leaning on a barrel logo for a rebrand that looked like the print for a raggedy carpet you’d plop on your front porch for guests to wipe their feet.

The ad expert waffled around and of course tried to blame President Donald Trump’s comments on the rebrand for Cracker Barrel’s stock option going belly-up: “Cracker Barrel went for kind of a modernization. They changed their logo. They changed their menu items to contemporaries. Donald Trump said something about it, and business went terrible. They dropped by 8%.” The stock has since soared 100 percent on the year.

Very cute, Deutsch. Business sucks? Blame a Trump Truth Social post! It couldn’t possibly just be that customers had enough with self-absorbed lefty C-suite personalities taking beloved brands and yeeting them into the dumpster of sociopolitical experimentation, right? After all, even Deutsch himself pointed out that the Cracker Barrel CEO, Julie Masino, “has since come out and said, ‘You know what? I screwed up. Mea culpa. I kind of got fired by America’ — not literally fired, but — and now she’s gone back and put Uncle Herschel’s breakfast in. They’ve gone back to the old location.” 

Watching @DonnyDeutsch waffle around admitting DEI sucks for a business model is pretty comical. pic.twitter.com/ZoSprKwRXw
— Joe Vazquez (@JV3MRC) July 9, 2026
Where in the buttermilk pancakes does being “fired by America” imply Trump was liable for a company paying the price for self-inflicted brand suicide?

But don’t expect being forthcoming to be a strong suit for the same guy who flailed in 2023 that the GOP was the “lug nut, nut job party” while in the same vein arguing Democrats’ obsession with spending trillions in tax dollars (e.g. Inflation Reduction Act, the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package) made them “the party of competence.” 

In 2021, Cracker Barrel launched its “Diversity and Inclusion Strategy,” which “included an effort to ‘better identify, recruit and advance strong, racially and ethnically diverse talent,'” according to WMAL. Equally cringe was the company’s move to encourage employees to join one of eight in-house identity groups, including LGBTQ+ Alliance, Hola, and Women’s Connect.

Ditching the iconic logo was clearly the last straw for the customer base, and the company was confronted with either depoliticizing their business acumen or risking further market punishment. The leadership chose the former, and the market awarded them for it. 

But Deutsch has proven to be too afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome over the years to comment on pretty much anything without shoehorning Orange man bad! into it.

As the Media Research Center and NewsBusters warned the Federal Communications Commission last month, ABC’s so-called “bona fide news program” The View engages in electioneering to promote Democratic Party candidates over Republicans. On Friday, they wrapped up the week with a struggle session as they tried to figure out which Democratic politician to support for president in 2028. Things got so heated that it devolved into a shouting match and suggestions of putting down minorities.

Near the top of their discussion, when it was still civil, co-hosts Sunny Hostin and Joy Behar pitch 84-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Hostin argued that his platform was more relevant than ever as the elder socialist would lead the younger generation (Click “expand”):

HOSTIN: His policies are more relevant now than ever before because we are experiencing this affordability crisis. You know. We need our healthcare to be better. We need our schools to be better. We have the erasure of history going on. So. I think the platform he has always, I think, put forward is very attract to Gen-z, younger voters.

JOY BEHAR: And relevant.

HOSTIN: And quite frankly relevant, because it’s Medicare for all, housing as a human right, justice for workers and small businesses, elevate public education –

BEHAR: Education!

HOSTIN: – green new deal, women’s rights, support LGBTQ+ rights. I mean, I think his platform is the Democratic platform to move forward.

BEHAR: But that list that you just gave, the right-wing at the moment is calling that communism. Basically.

HOSTIN: Well, it’s not!

 

More electioneering from The View; ABC’s “bona fide news program.”
While dressed like a Victorian queen for some reason, Sunny Hostin pitches Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Party’s 2028 presidential candidate:
SUNNY HOSTIN: His policies are more relevant now than ever before… pic.twitter.com/10SwT3EkH5
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 10, 2026
 

Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin proved, yet again, that her position as the “conservative” at the table meant absolutely nothing. Instead, she took part in the struggle session by pitching Kamala Harris again. “But my hot take of the moment is the most likely person to be the Democratic nominee is Kamala Harris,” she declared.

“She was great, but she didn’t win one time, what makes you think she’s going to win again?” Behar scoffed.

Things started going down hill from there as Behar shouted over Farah Griffin to her list of Democrats she would vote for. Farah Griffin joked about them just being “generic white [men]” and that’s exactly what Behar delivered:

FARAH GRIFFIN: I find it hard to believe that based on the money she raised, the name I.D. she has, and I don’t think the party would pass over her for a generic white man.

BEHAR: I like Jon Ossoff, he’s 39 years old. I like Josh Shapiro, 53 years old.

FARAH GRIFFIN: I love Josh Shapiro. That’s the problem.

BEHAR: Gavin Newsom, 58. And J.B. Pritzker, 61.

 

Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin pitches Kamala Harris for a round two presidential run and professes her love for other Democrats.
Joy Behar scoffs and proceeds to list off several Democratic white men she’d like to see become president over Harris:
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN:… pic.twitter.com/JMO2aACxBs
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 10, 2026
 

The real shouting match began when pretend independent co-host Sara Haines interrupted Behar’s list to push her generic white guy +, Pete Buttigeig. The rest of the cast started shouting at her for proposing something so stupid and telling her she wasn’t living in “reality” with them (Click “expand”):

HAINES: What about Pete Buttigieg?! What about Pete Buttigieg?! Wes Moore. There are some people that are just like –

(…)

BEHAR: We all love Buttigieg. Are they vote for a gay guy?

HAINES: I am not going to break the party down based on ‘they won’t vote for gay white man – woman – I think identity reduces the charisma of the character, the person in front of us.

BEHAR: You’re not in reality about the country!

HAINES: Guess what. Guess what.

FARAH GRIFFIN: I don’t think that’s reality.

HOSTIN: That isn’t reality.

HAINES: No, because guess what – no –

FARAH GRIFFIN: I wish that’s what we did.

HOSTIN: I wish that that was what this country was about.

[Crosstalk]

HAINES: – sitting around President Obama won and said ‘we’re so ready for a black president. No, he blew it out of the park and everyone was like, there we go.

Screaming at Haines on behalf of the more extremist wing of their party, Hostin, who only she’s American politics through a prism of race, lashed out at America and suggested that little has changed in 250 years:

Yeah, and you know what?! And after President Obama you know what we got?! We got Trump! We got a whitelash against a black president! That’s what we got and this country – I wish this country after 250 years were beyond identity but we are not. And we need to be realistic and as a Democratic Party we need to win! We need to get this country back on!

 

The View cast clashes over Sara Haines pitching Pete Buttigieg for president. They all flaunt their hatred for America.
Sunny Hostin treats the “bona fide news program” as a Democratic Party strategy session talking about them as part of the party:
HAINES: What about Pete… pic.twitter.com/Nl53fNUcg8
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 10, 2026
 

The charges of putting down minorities came from fake Republican co-host Ana Navarro and they were directed at Behar. “Joy, I hate it when I hear you say that it’s got to be like a white man because I then feel it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and I don’t want that,” she decried.

Behar tried to defend herself, but Navarro tacitly admitted that The View understood that they had influenced how people voted:

BEHAR: I’m not that powerful, Ana.

NAVARRO: No, yeah. But you got – You know, millions of people watch us on a daily basis and you are a feminist. You have fought to break glass ceilings.

HOSTIN: She’s also a realist.

NAVARRO: I know but what I’m saying I’m not going to tell little black children or little Latino children or little girls that they can’t run and become president one day.

 

Watch as The View gets into a shouting match over Democrats electing white men for president. Ana Navarro says The View has the power to influence people to run or not:
ANA NAVARRO: Joy, I hate it when I hear you say that it’s got to be like a white man because I then feel it… pic.twitter.com/hcJoRDLz9K
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 10, 2026
 

Navarro continued to grill Behar on why her list only proposed white men (Click “expand”):

BEHAR: I’m not saying that. I’m saying we are in a burning building right now. That’s all I’m saying.

NAVARRO: That only a white man can save us from it?

BEHAR: I’m talking about winning. What is this country going to do? What are they really get down to it.

HOSTIN: And what is this country really prepared for?

BEHAR: That’s all. The future, it belongs to every child, every color, every nationality. Great.

NAVARRO: But what you’re saying is what, the only people that can save us from the burning building is a white man?

With Navarro still fuming from her argument with Behar, Farah Griffin reminded them the other side of the aisle would need to put up their candidate too, who she predicted would be Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“He’s forgotten he’s Latino. Not saying a damn thing while people are getting deported,” Navarro sneered.

 

Ana Navarro says Marco Rubio has “forgotten he’s Latino” and whines about him not speaking out against the deportation of illegal immigrants:
FARAH GRIFFIN: We’re not running against Donald Trump in the next election and I think the most likely Republican candidate is Marco… pic.twitter.com/X9RAYweceD
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 10, 2026
 

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

ABC’s The View
July 10, 2026
11:05:41 a.m. Eastern

(…)

SUNNY HOSTIN: His policies are more relevant now than ever before because we are experiencing this affordability crisis. You know. We need our healthcare to be better. We need our schools to be better. We have the erasure of history going on. So. I think the platform he has always, I think, put forward is very attract to Gen-z, younger voters.

JOY BEHAR: And relevant.

HOSTIN: And quite frankly relevant, because it’s Medicare for all, housing as a human right, justice for workers and small businesses, elevate public education –

BEHAR: Education!

HOSTIN: – green new deal, women’s rights, support LGBTQ+ rights. I mean, I think his platform is the Democratic platform to move forward.

BEHAR: But that list that you just gave, the right-wing at the moment is calling that communism. Basically.

HOSTIN: Well, it’s not!

(…)

11:07:13 a.m. Eastern

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But my hot take of the moment is the most likely person to be the Democratic nominee is Kamala Harris. In every poll she is still — it’s usually her and Gavin Newsom neck and neck.

BEHAR: I have a list here!

[Crosstalk]

FARAH GRIFFIN: She’s usually ahead. Let me just finish.

BEHAR: I have a better list. I love her. She was great, but she didn’t win one time, what makes you think she’s going to win again?

FARAH GRIFFIN: I find it hard to believe that based on the money she raised, the name I.D. she has, and I don’t think the party would pass over her for a generic white man.

BEHAR: I like Jon Ossoff, he’s 39 years old. I like Josh Shapiro, 53 years old.

FARAH GRIFFIN: I love Josh Shapiro. That’s the problem.

BEHAR: Gavin Newsom, 58. And J.B. Pritzker, 61.

HAINES: What about Pete Buttigieg?! What about Pete Buttigieg?! Wes Moore. There are some people that are just like –

BEHAR: Wes Moore is good.

HAINES: Wes Moore is phenomenal and this is one of the things I love about him —

BEHAR: We all love Buttigieg. Are they vote for a gay guy?

HAINES: I am not going to break the party down based on ‘they won’t vote for gay white man – woman – I think identity reduces the charisma of the character, the person in front of us.

BEHAR: You’re not in reality about the country!

HAINES: Guess what. Guess what.

FARAH GRIFFIN: I don’t think that’s reality.

HOSTIN: That isn’t reality.

HAINES: No, because guess what – no –

FARAH GRIFFIN: I wish that’s what we did.

HOSTIN: I wish that that was what this country was about.

[Crosstalk]

HAINES: – sitting around President Obama won and said ‘we’re so ready for a black president. No, he blew it out of the park and everyone was like, there we go.

HOSTIN: Yeah, and you know what?! And after President Obama you know what we got?! We got Trump! We got a whitelash against a black president! That’s what we got –

[Applause]

-and this country – I wish this country after 250 years were beyond identity but we are not. And we need to be realistic –

HAINES: You need a great candidate.

HOSTIN: – and as a Democratic Party we need to win! We need to get this country back on!

(…)

11:10:11 a.m. Eastern

ANA NAVARRO: Joy, I hate it when I hear you say that it’s got to be like a white man because I then feel it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and I don’t want that.

BEHAR: I’m not that powerful, Ana.

NAVARRO: No, yeah. But you got – You know, millions of people watch us on a daily basis and you are a feminist. You have fought to break glass ceilings.

HOSTIN: She’s also a realist.

NAVARRO: I know but what I’m saying I’m not going to tell little black children or little Latino children or little girls that they can’t run and become president one day.

[Crosstalk]

BEHAR: I’m not saying that. I’m saying we are in a burning building right now. That’s all I’m saying.

NAVARRO: That only a white man can save us from it?

BEHAR: I’m talking about winning. What is this country going to do? What are they really get down to it.

HOSTIN: And what is this country really prepared for?

BEHAR: That’s all. The future, it belongs to every child, every color, every nationality. Great.

NAVARRO: But what you’re saying is what, the only people that can save us from the burning building is a white man?

[Crosstalk]

FARAH GRIFFIN: We’re not running against Donald Trump in the next election and I think the most likely Republican candidate is Marco Rubio, a Cuban American so keep that in mind too.

NAVARRO: He’s forgotten he’s Latino. Not saying a damn thing while people are getting deported.

(…)

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday allowed a Florida lawsuit accusing the American Academy of Pediatrics and other defendants of misleading the public about transgender procedures to proceed. 

Florida’s lawsuit, filed in December 2025, alleges that the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with the World Professional Organization of Transgender Medicine and the Endocrine Society, violated Florida laws prohibiting deceptive and unfair trade practices and racketeering. 

Among its lawsuit’s specific claims are that these organizations misled the public about the evidence for the efficacy of transgender medicine and falsely argued that puberty blockers were reversible:

“Defendants have made false and misleading representations and omissions about the safety, reversibility, and efficacy of sex interventions in Florida and St. Lucie County in particular through many mediums, including their websites, publications, and public statements, and through their members.

“Specifically, Defendants continue to falsely advertise that: (1) there is credible evidence demonstrating that sex interventions mitigate gender dysphoria and suicidality, (2) puberty blockers are fully reversible, and (3) their guidelines are ‘evidence-based.’”

The lawsuit also alleges that these organizations prey upon the vulnerable for profit:

“Defendants’ reprehensible and immoral actions capitalize on the mental distress of children—as well as the natural affections and fears their parents—to help their members sell lucrative surgeries and drugs that irreversibly mutilate and chemically alter children’s bodies without providing any credible medical benefit.”

In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sued the Florida Attorney General in federal court, denying the original allegations, and alleging in turn that the original suit was purely political in nature and an attempt to deny it of its first amendment rights:

“Unable to prevail in the marketplace of ideas, the AG is abusing the powers of his office to impose state-sanctioned medical orthodoxy.”

….

“In filing the Retaliatory Action, the AG crossed from permissible political activity into unconstitutional, coercive use of state power against AAP.”

Northern Illinois Federal District court last June placed an injunction against the Florida legal proceedings, pausing them until AAP’s federal suit was resolved. On Wednesday, the 7th Circuit lifted the injunction, allowing Florida to proceed in its original lawsuit.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier celebrated the decision on X: 

“CA7 Saw right through the Chicago-based district court’s attempt to stop our lawsuit against AAP for their deception on the safety of mutilating procedures on kids and removed every barrier the court tried to put up.”

“This is a huge win for states’ rights and parents’ ability to protect their child!” Indiana Attorney General Todd Ritka agreed in a separate post on X.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart welcomed former special counsel Jack Smith and former FBI acting director Brian Driscoll to Wednesday’s episode of The Weekly Show podcast. After lamenting all things Trump, DOJ, and FBI, Stewart would tell his producers, “Those guys have balls.”

Towards the end of their lengthy conversation, Stewart lamented the backlash to the idea that the DOJ is supposed to be independent from the president, “You know this idea of a unitary executive and a president as much more forceful as a king, you know, until that changes it’s very difficult to rebalance this because now we are going to be much more so, and DOJ being, you know, under that, the auspices. It’s going to be much more difficult to do it until we rebalance the branches again and it’s, right now, it’s—it feels like we’re in an outsized pre-Watergate mindset.”

 

Jon Stewart laments to Jack Smith “you know this idea of a unitary executive and a president as much more forceful as a king, you know, until that changes it’s very difficult to rebalance this because now we are going to be much more so and DOJ being you know under that the… pic.twitter.com/BQuuHkQluT
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 10, 2026
 

Smith responded by comparing people like the three of them to abolitionists and other historical activists:

Yeah, I mean, I would say one thing about that is that when you think about, like, how change comes about, like, you look at the times in our history, right, where something really bad happened and we got better, whether it’s abolishing slavery, woman suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, right? They—there were moments when no one knew if what they were going to do was going to make a difference, and they did it anyways, right? You don’t think about the likelihood of success. You just think ‘I’m going to be on the right side of history. I’m going to behave in a way that’s going to make my kids proud, my parents proud,’ and you just do that and you don’t worry about consequences.

Smith would ramble on for some time before Stewart wrapped things up:

Well, I can’t think of three bigger heroes than the three of us. All right, just you two, damn it! Jack Smith, former special counsel. Brian Driscoll, former FBI agent, who in 2025, was the acting director of the FBI. Thank you so much for spending the time and pointing out the great stories of the integrity of the people in the rank and file of law enforcement and of our Department of Justice and all those things. We have to keep highlighting the good work by the good people and those that continue to stand up against corruption in all of its forms, and so I appreciate you both being here for that.

After Smith and Driscoll signed off, Stewart reacted to the whole interview by telling his producers, “Those guys have balls. You know what, can I say something? When I’m hanging out with guys like that I’m literally like, ‘So you guys want to do shots? What do you want to do? Want to go to a Giants game? What do you want to do?’”

Stewart and Smith want to portray the current Trump administration’s approach to the DOJ as monarchical, but Smith became the poster child for overzealous prosecutors even before he began trying to prosecute Trump himself. Ironically, Stewart actually talked about the Bob McDonnell case earlier in the episode but still lamented Smith’s 8-0 defeat.

Here is a transcript for the July 8 show:

Comedy Central The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

7/8/2026

JON STEWART: And it does feel like we’re moving—you know this idea of a unitary executive and a president as much more forceful as a king, you know, until that changes it’s very difficult to rebalance this because now we are going to be much more so, and DOJ being, you know, under that, the auspices. It’s going to be much more difficult to do it until we rebalance the branches again and it’s, right now, it’s—it feels like we’re in an outsized pre-Watergate mindset.

JACK SMITH: Yeah, I mean, I would say one thing about that is that when you think about, like, how change comes about, like, you look at the times in our history, right, where something really bad happened and we got better, whether it’s abolishing slavery, woman suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, right? They—there were moments when no one knew if what they were going to do was going to make a difference, and they did it anyways, right? You don’t think about the likelihood of success. You just think I’m going to be on the right side of history. I’m going to behave in a way that’s going to make my kids, proud my parents proud’—

STEWART: Right.

SMITH: —and you just do that and you don’t worry about consequences. I think, in terms of a mindset for our society, 99 percent of the time, I think most people know the right thing to do. They really do. The problem becomes when they factor in the consequences for doing the right thing because then people if the consequences are too high, they start rationalizing ways where they don’t quite have to do that—

STEWART: Sure.

SMITH: —and maybe, they can do something short of that.

As Brian said if we start taking a mindset of “It’s our country. We own the problems. If you want a solution you gotta be a part of it.” 

I feel like that happens and if that becomes our national dialogue and integrity is a more central part of it some of the things you’re talking about, we can elect people who will not do those sort of things I mean I have a big concern I don’t want to have a situation where we’ve had these abuses and that becomes a new normal for any party, right?

STEWART: Right.

SMITH: —and we’ve seen that other times.

STEWART: And the key remembers it doesn’t have to. That it is—

SMITH: Correct.

STEWART: —like you say—

SMITH: Correct.

STEWART: —action against this corruption is necessary and the courage to take action against that corruption is all of our responsibilities.

SMITH: Absolutely

STEWART: Well, I can’t think of three bigger heroes than the three of us. All right, just you two, damn it! Jack Smith, former special counsel. Brian Driscoll, former FBI agent, who in 2025, was the acting director of the FBI.

Thank you so much for spending the time and pointing out the great stories of the integrity of the people in the rank and file of law enforcement and of our Department of Justice and all those things.

We have to keep highlighting the good work by the good people and those that continue to stand up against corruption in all of its forms, and so I appreciate you both being here for that.

SMITH: Thanks for having us, Jon. Really appreciate it.

STEWART: Very cool.

BRIAN DRISCOLL: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

STEWART: Alright, bye guys.

Those guys have balls. You know what, can I say something? When I’m hanging out with guys like that I’m literally like, “So you guys want to do shots? What do you want to do? Want to go to a Giants game? What do you want to do?”

What Vigeland is saying is that a politician’s character doesn’t really matter as long as he robotically pulls all the right levers in office.