Commentary Culture Investigations

Too brief a stop in Music City.

Our friend Karl Rove is now on Substack. You’ll want to check it out.

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.

The extent to which the Platner fiasco is fracturing the left was on full display on CNN today. Former NPRer turned CNN This Morning host Audie Cornish interrupted Democrat panelist Meghan Hays, calling her out over what Cornish saw as an attempt at “smearing” other Democrat candidates — and in particular, radical Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.

Hays, who’s recently shown her distaste for the Democratic Socialists faction, had ripped into the Democrats behind Graham Platner’s disastrous Senate candidacy in Maine, blasting the lack of vetting and the men who continued to stand by him even after allegations surfaced. 

Hays didn’t mince words:

“This person was bad from the beginning, I have said it for months. He has no business being in the Senate, he has no business being on a campaign, and the fact that the Democratic Party stood with him after the first allegations, and the men of the Democratic Party stood with him is disgusting . . . These are the same consultants that are bringing you Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. They’re the same people who are bringing you other candidates who are not vetted. 

Cornish interjected to defend El-Sayed:

“Can I add something here? Abdul Sayed is not facing any kind of allegation of sexual abuse, and he’s also a former public health worker. I just want to put that — I want to make sure that we are not taking a very serious allegation and smearing it across the entire slate. Because I think that is a question that has come up time and time again about Trump. As we are talking today, a judge is trying to force the president to release payment that is due to her for a case that involved sexual abuse, and then, damages for defamation, saying she was lying about it.” 

CNN’s Cornish: Don’t Tar El-Sayed With the Platner Brush! pic.twitter.com/MzqoJHGAxQ
— Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) July 9, 2026

Cornish then declared:

“I’m watching all the cable shows, and it is a whataboutism waterfall of which men in which party are the ones that should be disqualified.”

Incredibly, Cornish kvetched about whataboutism immediately after, as you see above, pouring her own generous stream into that whataboutism waterfall!

Meanwhile, former Obama aide and ex-Bernie Sanders Jewish liaison Joel Rubin didn’t hold back, calling out Sanders for not merely endorsing Platner, but effectively creating his candidacy — and suggested he owes the party an apology for forcing such a flawed candidate into the system. 

Cornish tried to frame Platner’s issues as possibly just a “bad” campaign that wasn’t necessarily “malicious” or “malignant.” Hays and others weren’t buying it, labeling it a “fake candidacy” with nonexistent vetting — more pageant than process. Mike Dubke shot back: “I’m sorry, when you’ve got a womanizing Nazi, what could go wrong?”

Cornish’s effort to quarantine the scandal and protect El-Sayed rang hollow. While he’s not facing Platner’s specific sexual abuse allegations, El-Sayed bears a barrel of tar of his own. He endorsed “defund the police” in 2020 interviews, saying “We do need to defund the police.”  He subsequently deleted old tweets and claimed he “never, never called for defunding,” dismissing them as out of context. He accuses Israel of a “genocide” in Gaza, and claims that Israel is just as “evil” as Hamas.

El-Sayed has also actively campaigned with the odious far-left streamer Hasan Piker, whose toxic record includes antisemitic rhetoric and extreme statements that have drawn widespread condemnation. 

Being a “former public health worker” doesn’t magically erase all that. (Platner was an “oysterman,” after all.)

Maine Democrats are now scrambling to replace Platner via a convention, with fears his baggage could taint the eventual nominee. 

On CNN This Morning, host Cornish’s priority was shielding the broader Democratic slate and redirecting fire toward Trump. Viewers saw the anger from Hays — and the protective instincts from Cornish — in real time.

Here’s the transcript.

CNN This Morning
7/9/26
6:11 am EDT

AUDIE CORNISH: Like all Democratic political autopsies, this one is a vivisection. People are now looking at the strategist — who brought this guy into Maine? Who recruited him?

The Wall Street Journal did an interview with some of the folks behind that, back in June. I just wanna play a sample for you. This is reporter Aaron Zitner asking about the vetting process, which we all have questions about now.

AARON ZITNER: Did the vetting process turn up the tattoo that became so controversial?

DANIEL MORAFF: No.

ZITNER: The Reddit posts, did that turn up in the vetting process?

MORAFF: The firm sent us a thing, and it had some of the posts. I said, none of this will or should stop him from becoming a US senator.

CORNISH: Sounds like there’s a lot more here than the tattoo, right? Which also was revealed by an ex-girlfriend. I saw you scribbling up a storm, Joel. So what are your thoughts here?

JOEL RUBIN: I, I can’t help it. Look, Audie, this is a fake candidacy. This was a fake candidate. There was no vetting process done, but that’s because they did it as a pageant. They brought in people to try to figure out who they could put in as their candidate to carry a message. 

And so, what Daniel Moraff is pointing out there is, no, we didn’t do vetting because we wanted political vetting. We didn’t care about the actual person himself. 

CORNISH: I know, but just sometimes because something’s bad doesn’t mean it’s malignant. I mean, is this just a bad campaign in the sense that it’s not done well, not a malicious one?

MIKE DUBKE: I, I’m sorry, when you’ve got a womanizing Nazi, what could go wrong? Right? That’s the original question here, and he proved it with his own text and ink on his body.

MEGHAN HAYS: But the fact of the matter is, is these are the same consultants that are bringing you Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. They’re the same people who are bringing you other candidates who are not vetted. Because they think that if you are online, and you are popular online, that you are going to win people.

And it is disgusting and gross. This person was bad from the beginning, I have said it for months. He has no business being in the Senate, he has no business being on a campaign, and the fact that the Democratic Party stood with him after the first allegations, and the men of the Democratic Party stood with him is disgusting. And the women are the only ones that stood up to him.

CORNISH: Can I add something here? Abdul Sayed is not facing any kind of allegation of sexual abuse, and —

HAYS: And he’s an unvetted, untested candidate.

CORNISH: He’s also a former public health worker. I just want to put that — I want to make sure that we are not taking a very serious allegation and smearing it across the entire slate. 

Because I think that is a question that has come up time and time again about Trump. As we are talking today, a judge is trying to force the president to release payment that is due to her for a case that involved sexual abuse, and then, damages for defamation, saying she was lying about it. 

So this has been — I’m watching all the cable shows, and it is a whataboutism waterfall of which men in which party are the ones that should be disqualified.

ANNA KRAMER: One thing I’d like to note too is that with the campaign moving forward now, our reporters have been, talking to folks about how there’s this fear that Graham Platner may sort of remain as a specter for the remaining candidates. 

And there’s this question of will the remaining candidates be tainted by association with him? Will whoever gets the nomination end up being someone who has to run away from his endorsement, even though he might want to endorse. 

CORNISH: The answer is yes. [Laughter]

I mean, Mike, Mike, I’ll just help you out here. The answer from my Mike is yes. 

HAYS: Did we not learn as children two wrongs don’t make a right? The Democrats don’t, didn’t want to vote for Donald Trump because of all these allegations They shouldn’t have wanted to vote for a Democrat in the same token. So how can we have it both ways?

RUBIN: I wanna pick up on what Meghan is saying. Look, I think the whole ethical problem here for Democrats is that we’ve been spending years saying we’re not going to do what the Republicans did. We’re not going to support a candidate who now is going to have to pay money to someone who he sexually abused.

But here we are essentially turning a blind eye to a candidate who– and I gotta say, as a Jewish person, it really bothers me that the Nazi tattoo wasn’t enough, that that wasn’t somehow disqualifying. 

And Senator Sanders, who I worked for as his Jewish director in 2020, you know, he pushed this candidate into the system. 

CORNISH: Right. 

RUBIN: This wasn’t an endorsement. This was a creation of Bernie Sanders, and I feel like he owes us all an apology for forcing a candidate like that into the system who obviously backfired. And now it may blow up the chances to get that seat back, which is a highly winnable seat for Democrats.

Texas’s agreement to stop providing preferential in-state tuition costs to illegal aliens was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, thwarting the legal bid by leftist organizations to restore the benefit to students who are unlawfully in the state.

In 2001, the Texas Dream Act became law, enabling illegal aliens to obtain in-state tuition discounts at public universities. Last year, however, the U.S. Justice Department sued Texas on the grounds that the Texas Dream Act violated federal law prohibiting illegal aliens from being provided benefits that are not available to all U.S. citizens.

Since federal law preempts state law, Texas officials immediately consented, agreeing to no longer provide the benefit to illegal aliens, prompting a lawsuit by groups seeking to invalidate the court-approved consent agreement. When that effort was rejected by a district appeals court, they appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

On Thursday, the Fifth Circuit upheld the consent agreement:

“The district court correctly denied intervention after concluding that they could not plausibly defend the preemption claim.”

….

“We AFFIRM the denial of the motions to intervene and dismiss the remaining claims for want of appellate jurisdiction.”

As a result, illegal aliens can no longer obtain in-state tuition rates that are far lower than those charged legal U.S. residents who don’t reside in Texas.

Under the Texas Dream Act, illegal aliens had been able to qualify for in-state tuition if they resided in Texas for at least three years, graduated from a Texas high school, and promised to pursue lawful status.

“Texas and the Trump DOJ just secured another major victory for the rule of law.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared Thursday, responding to the decision.

La Union del Pueblo Entero, Students for Affordable Tuition, Austin Community College, and Oscar Silva were the appellants seeking to invalidate the consent agreement between Texas and the Justice Department.

Given its political bent, CNN is no stranger to anti-ICE hit pieces. This Thursday, News Central finally covered the shooting of a Mexican immigrant by an ICE agent on Tuesday. Despite the facts appearing to justify ICE’s actions, CNN dodged the damning details to instead make ICE into the villains.

Anchor John Berman opened the segment with the following:

New this morning, a Texas family is demanding answers after a man was fatally shot on his way to work by an ICE agent. Lorenzo Salgado’s son says he is a Mexican immigrant who has been living in the United States for 35 years, with no criminal history.

 

Today’s News Central coverage of the Houston shooting. CNN conveniently obscures the immigrant’s illegal status, then casts doubt over the legitimacy of ICE’s official report about his vehicular assault. The media takes another clear story and turns it into a narrative piece. pic.twitter.com/VkqDnbqslb
— James Waterman (@jwatermaniv) July 9, 2026
 

CNN’s portrayal of the incident makes for a sympathetic story. From this, it seems like Salgado is a victim of unjust violence by ICE. That’s certainly CNN’s intent in opening their story like this. The real story isn’t so simple, however. The network skims over or discredits major parts of the event, intentionally omitting details to twist the story into an anti-ICE smear.

CNN never openly states that Salgado is an illegal immigrant. In fact, they even seem to imply the opposite by claiming that he has “no criminal history.” Instead of making his status clear, correspondent Ed Lavandera obfuscated the issue with a vague and nondescript mention of his legal status:

Salgado Araujo’s family says that their father had been here in the United States 35 years, had no criminal history, was in the process of obtaining his legal status to work legally here in the U.S. So they believe that he didn’t have any incentive to go to these lengths to evade arrest. 

Lavandera also downplayed the official reports by ICE, which made clear that Salgado had attempted to hit their agents with a vehicle. Instead, he primarily focused on the doubts around official reporting, doubts undoubtedly fueled by this exact kind of slanted coverage, in an effort to undermine the credibility of the accusations against Salgado:

A lot of uncertainty, a lot of distrust about what has been described, the official version of events that has been put out by ICE officials. ICE officials, as you mentioned, John, maintain that Lorenzo Salgado Araujo had used his vehicle as a weapon and that the ICE agent there on the ground fired at him in self defense. That is what ICE agents are saying. But as we mentioned, there’s been a great deal of distrust on that version of events. 

By downplaying these crucial facts about the incident, CNN was able to turn a story of self-defense into what seems like a brutal and unjustified killing. Like clockwork, the media continues to twist the facts in the reporting to signal the message they want to send. Even stories that harm the left’s narrative can be reshaped by networks like CNN, turned into propaganda pieces that favor their preferred narrative.

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

CNN News Central

July 9, 2026

08:22:49 AM Eastern

JOHN BERMAN: New this morning, a Texas family is demanding answers after a man was fatally shot on his way to work by an ICE agent. Lorenzo Salgado’s son says he is a Mexican immigrant who has been living in the United States for 35 years, with no criminal history.

[Cuts to video]

RONALD SALGADO: I saw my dad’s van, but no sign of him. I frantically called family, friends, loved ones to see if they can find any information. I saw a video posted on Facebook that he had been shot. I recognized him immediately, not from his appearance, but from his voice crying for help as he lay on the street, bleeding out.

[Cuts back to live]

BERMAN: ICE officials say they were conducting a traffic stop as part of a targeted operation. They claim that Salgado was trying to evade arrest. With us now is CNN’s Ed Lavandera. Ed, what’s the latest on all of this?

ED LAVANDERA: Well, John, it’s now been almost 48 hours since this shooting occurred on the streets of Houston early Tuesday morning, and there has still not been a full video of what transpired that captures all of it. And that is what investigators, or at least people working with Latino activist groups, as well as the family calling for people who might have anything to come forward to help explain how all of this unfolded. 

What we do have is video of the aftermath, where you see Lorenzo Salgado Araujo on the ground surrounded by ICE agents there, bleeding from his midsection. And that is what we’ve seen so far. The family says they simply just don’t believe that the version of events that ICE officials have put out so far. They point to what happened earlier this year with the two shootings in Minneapolis, where the description by ICE officials didn’t quite match up with what unfolded there. 

So a lot of uncertainty, a lot of distrust about what has been described, the official version of events that has been put out by ICE officials. ICE officials, as you mentioned, John, maintain that Lorenzo Salgado Araujo had used his vehicle as a weapon and that the ICE agent there on the ground fired at him in self-defense. That is what ICE agents are saying. But as we mentioned, there’s been a great deal of distrust on that version of events. 

Salgado Araujo’s family says that their father had been here in the United States 35 years, had no criminal history, was in the process of obtaining his legal status to work legally here in the U.S. So they believe that he didn’t have any incentive to go to these lengths to evade arrest. 

In fact, the family also says that it was unmarked vehicles that were pursuing Salgado Araujo and three other men inside that white truck that they believe that they were fearful that these that these—that they were being targeted for robbery. They were on their way to a— their construction work that they had done for so long. And it often happens where a lot of construction workers are targeted and their tools are stolen from their trucks. 

So they believe that that was what was in the back of their father’s mind and the other men that were in the other truck. We should also say that the three other men that were in the truck with Salgado Araujo have also been detained by ICE officials as well. John.

America’s hard left has a long tradition of concealing its extremism.

Early on Wednesday, the United States launched military strikes against Iran, after Iran struck three merchant ships  attempting to move through the Strait of Hormuz, as a statement from CENTCOM indicated, “Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.” Following a warning from President Trump, this was followed up by more U.S. attacks, but if you were watching CNN’s reporting of these later actions, you might have been led to believe that the U.S. and Donald Trump were to blame for the new round of violence.

The breaking news came in on CNN’s The Arena, where former Obama aide Jim Sciutto was hosting, and after reading only a portion of the CENTCOM statement explaining the reasons for the latest attacks, he made an outrageous claim, as he brought on White House Correspondent Alayna Treene.

SCIUTTO: U.S. Central Command confirmed that new military strikes are underway in Iran at the order of President Trump. Part of the CENTCOM statement says these strikes are designed to, quote, further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz….This is the second night in a row there have been repeated violations in both directions of this cease fire. 

Violations in both directions? Treene then added some much needed facts.

TREENE: I do want to read you a little bit more of this CENTCOM statement…. They say that they are conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom, as you mentioned, of navigation in the Straits. They said the U.S. Is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping.

After Treene wrapped up her report, Sciutto again felt the need to attempt to share the blame for the latest round of attacks.

TREENE: No question though that Trump is incredibly frustrated. I heard this in my conversations with White House officials today. He’s frustrated with the pace of these negotiations. He wants there to be more firmer commitments at this point…. So all of this leading to a very, very fragile moment in this cease fire and leaving these questions about what’s really going to happen. 

SCIUTTO: The fact is there’s more shooting than negotiating.

And whose fault is that? Sciutto didn’t say, so it must be Iran’s fault. Next up on CNN, The Lead with Jake Tapper, who did note CENTCOM’s full statement during his opening segment including the reason for the U.S. strikes, but left that context out, pinning it all on Trump, even suggesting that the strikes are a negotiating tactic by the President, as he welcomed in Victoria Nuland, who was Biden’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

TAPPER: The U.S. Military says it is launching new strikes against Iran, this at the direction of President Trump after earlier today, he threatened these strikes, calling the ceasefire over…. This morning  President Trump said that as far as he’s concerned , the cease fire is over, and now we see these new strikes. So is this an end to the ceasefire or is it possible that this is just a negotiating tactic and the ceasefire is still officially on?

This has absolutely nothing to do with negotiating and Tapper must know that. He then asked the question which led to Nuland’s Democrat take on the status of the war.

TAPPER: It seems like we’ve been involved in a full scale war for quite some time, even during this so-called ceasefire.

NULAND: And by the way, a war that we are losing, Jake. The President has never gotten us back to the status quo anti, which was a Strait of Hormuz that was open to navigation without fees or tolls, and that Iran did not control.

Tapper then played a clip of Trump from earlier today, where he was asked why there hasn’t been more progress made in talks with Iran.

TRUMP CLIP: They’re dealing with very fine people. They’re dealing with Steve Witkoff. They’re dealing with Jared Kushner and JD Vance, and they’re dealing with Marco (Rubio) and Scott (Bessent),they’re dealing with great people. But I don’t know. I think they’re a little loco. They’re a little crazy.

Pathetically, Trump calling Iranian leaders loco and crazy, didn’t sit well with Tapper.

TAPPER:  I don’t know if I would say loco or crazy, but I mean, they believe in some pretty extreme theological beliefs.

Maybe Tapper would have preferred deranged and dangerous, as he refers to Trump. Regardless, both Tapper and Sciutto’s coverage of the U.S. response, to Iranian attacks on ships, left a lot to be desired. 

According to Comedy Central’s The Daily Show host-of-the-week Ronny Chieng, Graham Platner had to end his Senate campaign after being credibly accused of rape and sexual assault because nobody would vote for him except the woman who would have been his opponent: Sen. Susan Collins. In order to make such a claim, Chieng simply assumed the evidence against Planter is as strong as the evidence against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was, but that is simply not true.

After playing a part of Platner’s announcement video where he insisted that withdrawing from the race does not mean he is admitting the allegations against him are true, Chieng retorted, “Okay, I mean, it is a little suspicious. It’s like being at a party where the toilet’s overflowing and all of a sudden, I’m like, ‘Okay, everyone, I have to leave immediately. No one read into this, please!’”

 

Ronny Chieng claims Graham Platner had to drop out because “the only person in Maine who might still vote for him is Susan Collins” as he put up a picture of Collins next to Brett Kavanaugh pic.twitter.com/s0GMqW1Y1w
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 10, 2026
 

Moving on to Collins, Chieng added, “Obviously, Platner had to drop out once there was credible sexual assault allegations. I mean, at that point, the only person in Maine who might still vote for him is Susan Collins.”

As Chieng was talking, The Daily Show’s graphics team put a picture of Collins side-by-side with a picture of Kavanaugh, but Chieng never elaborated. Instead, he moved on to mocking those who recruited Platner, “The question is, how could this happen? How could the people in Maine have picked this guy to run in the first place?”

Chieng probably chose not to elaborate because the evidence against Platner is overwhelming, but the evidence against Kavanaugh was much weaker. Platner had multiple accusers with multiple people verifying their version of events from something that happened relatively recently. Christine Blasey Ford, on the other hand, could not even get her friends to verify her story from the 80s. Kavanaugh does not have the history of fetishizing rape that Platner does that points to a wide personal problem.

For a long time, Democratic Party hacks tried to defend their support for Platner by claiming the GOP’s defense of people like Kavanaugh means morality does not matter in politics anymore, only power does, but the difference between Platner and Kavanaugh is night and day, and The Daily Show cannot rewrite history.

Here is a transcript for the July 9 show:

Comedy Central The Daily Show

7/9/2026

11:03 PM ET

RONNY CHIENG: Okay, I mean, it is a little suspicious. It’s like being at a party where the toilet’s overflowing and all of a sudden, I’m like, “Okay, everyone, I have to leave immediately. No one read into this, please!” Obviously, Platner had to drop out once there was credible sexual assault allegations. I mean, at that point, the only person in Maine who might still vote for him is Susan Collins. The question is, how could this happen? How could the people in Maine have picked this guy to run in the first place?

An appeal to the Supreme Court for more delay would be futile.