Democrat News

This post was originally published on this site

You might think that someone who barely squeaked by in 2024, despite Trump winning Iowa by double digits, might take her own re-election a bit more seriously. But that’s just not how Mariannette Miller-Meeks rolls.

With Trump’s tariffs hurting farmers, a worsening economy, and Miller-Meeks’ general political incompetence, I’d say her chances of being re-elected again are slim to none.

Probably a good thing she’s not holding any town halls, though, as Christina Bohanan should finally rid the district of her once and for all in 2026.

Source: CNN

Iowa Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks told Johnson County Republicans in an August meeting that she’ll hold town hall meetings “when hell freezes over.”

The Republican, who represents one of the nation’s most competitive House districts in southeastern Iowa, has faced questions for months over when she’ll hold a public town hall after promising to do so in April.

And in the meeting with the Johnson County Republicans of Iowa — which was later posted on YouTube by the county party, where it went largely unnoticed at the time — she was blunt, saying she’s already being hounded over Medicaid cuts in the GOP’s massive government funding and policy bill.

“You know, I don’t have to hold a town hall so you can come and yell at me,” said Miller-Meeks, who won by 799 votes in 2024 and faces a likely rematch next year with Democratic challenger Christina Bohannan.

Emily Singer at Daily Kos put it this way:

Really, what Miller-Meeks is afraid of is being captured on video, unable to defend herself when constituents ask her legitimate questions about why she is cutting their health care benefits and why she won’t stand up to President Donald Trump’s moronic tariffs, which are harming farmers in her state.

In fact, earlier this year, GOP leadership advised its caucus not to hold town halls for that very reason—a cowardly move that allows Republicans to deny that voters feel real frustration that the GOP won’t say no to their Dear Leader.

Christina Bohannan with the shorter version of the video.

This post was originally published on this site

WASHINGTON  — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.

Bondi, a Trump loyalist, refused to discuss her conversations with the White House about the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and the deployment of federal troops to Democrat-run cities.

She deflected questions about an alleged bribery scheme involving the president’s border advisor and declined to elaborate on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.

“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”

Her testimony came as the Justice Department faces increased accusations that it is being weaponized against President Trump’s political foes.

It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.

That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.

“I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”

In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.

“They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”

She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”

“It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.

Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”

Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”

“In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”

This post was originally published on this site

Yambo said Monday that he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act “if it was necessary,” particularly if the courts or state and local officials delay his plans to use the National Guard. Via NBC News:

“I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when he was asked under what conditions he would consider the rarely used 19th century law.

“If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that. I mean, I want to make sure that people aren’t killed. We have to make sure that our cities are safe,” he added.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to mobilize the U.S. military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities under certain circumstances. It was last used during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Trump was speaking about his efforts to federalize troops and crack down on crime in Democratic-run cities.

Trump doubled down on his comments during a Newsmax interview that aired Monday night when asked if he would invoke the law.

“If we don’t have to use it, I wouldn’t use it,” Trump said before adding, “If you take a look at what’s been going on in Portland, it’s been going on for a long time, and that’s insurrection. I mean, that’s pure insurrection.”

This post was originally published on this site

MAGA influencer and pardoned felon Steve Bannon told his audience that indicting James Comey was just an appetizer for the MAGA cult and much more is going to come moving forward.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is fulfilling Trump’s appetite for vengeance and indicting people who rightly tried to hold Trump in check during his first term.

BANNON: The level of depravity you’re going to see in this FBI, and this is why everybody’s on Thursday, I think Comey’s going to be arraigned.

Ray, Comey, all of them.

Remember, it’s just an appetizer what Comey’s getting for lying to Congress and obstruction of justice.

That’s just an appetizer.

So much more to come.

It’s obvious that Trump, Stephen Miller, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Steve Bannon, and others in the MAGA media all discuss what indictment Trump desires next and how to fulfill it.

This post was originally published on this site

Graham G. Dodds, Concordia University

President Donald Trump set the tone for his second term by issuing 26 executive orders, four proclamations and 12 memorandums on his first day back in office. The barrage of unilateral presidential actions has not yet let up.

These have included Trump’s efforts to remove thousands of government workers and fire several prominent officials, such as members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the chair of the Commission on Civil Rights. He has also attempted to shut down entire agencies, such as the Department of Education and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

For some scholars, these actions appear rooted in the psychology of an unrestrained politician with an overdeveloped ego.

But it’s more than that.

As a political science scholar who studies presidential power, I believe Trump’s recent actions mark the culmination of the unitary executive theory, which is perhaps the most contentious and consequential constitutional theory of the past several decades.

A prescription for a potent presidency

In 2017, Trump complained that the scope of his power as president was limited: “You know, the saddest thing is that because I’m the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI, I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I’m very frustrated by it.”

The unitary executive theory suggests that such limits wrongly curtail the powers of the chief executive.

Formed by conservative legal theorists in the 1980s to help President Ronald Reagan roll back liberal policies, the unitary executive theory promises to radically expand presidential power.

There is no widely agreed upon definition of the theory. And even its proponents disagree about what it says and what it might justify. But in its most basic version, the unitary executive theory claims that whatever the federal government does that is executive in nature – from implementing and enforcing laws to managing most of what the federal government does – the president alone should personally control it.

This means the president should have total control over the entire executive branch, with its dozens of major governmental institutions and millions of employees. Put simply, the theory says the president should be able to issue orders to subordinates and to fire them at will.

The president could boss around the FBI or order the U.S. attorney general to investigate his political opponents, as Trump has done. The president could issue signing statements – a written pronouncement – that reinterpret or ignore parts of the laws, like George W. Bush did in 2006 to circumvent a ban on torture. The president could control independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The president might be able to force the Federal Reserve to change interest rates, as Trump has suggested. And the president might possess inherent power to wage war as he sees fit without a formal authorization from Congress, as officials argued during Bush’s presidency.

A constitutionally questionable doctrine

A theory is one thing. But if it gains the official endorsement of the Supreme Court, it can become governing orthodoxy. It appears to many observers and scholars that Trump’s actions have intentionally invited court cases by which he hopes the judiciary will embrace the theory and thus permit him to do even more. And the current Supreme Court appears ready to grant that wish.

Until recently, the judiciary tended to indirectly address the claims that now appear more formally as the unitary executive theory.

During the country’s first two centuries, courts touched on aspects of the theory in cases such as Kendall v. U.S. in 1838, which limited presidential control of the postmaster general, and Myers v. U.S. in 1926, which held that the president could remove a postmaster in Oregon.

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., the high court unanimously held that Congress could limit the president’s ability to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. And in Morrison v. Olson the court in 1988 upheld the ability of Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire an independent counsel.

Some of those decisions aligned with some unitary executive claims, but others directly repudiated them.

Warming up to a unitary executive

In a series of cases over the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has moved in an unambiguously unitarian, pro-presidential direction. In these cases, the court has struck down statutory limits on the president’s ability to remove federal officials, enabling much greater presidential control.

These decisions clearly suggest that long-standing, anti-unitarian landmark decisions such as Humphrey’s are on increasingly thin ice. In fact, in Justice Clarence Thomas’ 2019 concurring opinion in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, where the court ruled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure was unconstitutional, he articulated his desire to “repudiate” the “erroneous precedent” of Humphrey’s.

Several cases from the court’s emergency docket, or shadow docket, in recent months indicate that other justices share that desire. Such cases do not require full arguments but can indicate where the court is headed.

In Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Boyle and Trump v. Slaughter, all from 2025, the court upheld Trump’s firing of officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

Previously, these officials had appeared to be protected from political interference.

Total control

Remarks by conservative justices in those cases indicated that the court will soon reassess anti-unitary precedents.

In Trump v. Boyle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “whether this Court will narrow or overrule a precedent … there is at least a fair prospect (not certainty, but at least a reasonable prospect) that we will do so.” And in her dissent in Trump v. Slaughter, Justice Elena Kagan said the conservative majority was “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s and finally officially embrace the unitary executive.

In short, the writing is on the wall, and Humphrey’s may soon go the way of Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions that had guided American life for decades.

As for what judicial endorsement of the unitary executive theory could mean in practice, Trump seems to hope it will mean total control and hence the ability to eradicate the so-called “deep state.” Other conservatives hope it will diminish the government’s regulatory role.

Kagan recently warned it could mean the end of administrative governance – the ways that the federal government provides services, oversees businesses and enforces the law – as we know it:

“Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control. Congress created them … out of one basic vision. It thought that in certain spheres of government, a group of knowledgeable people from both parties – none of whom a President could remove without cause – would make decisions likely to advance the long-term public good.”

If the Supreme Court officially makes the chief executive a unitary executive, the advancement of the public good may depend on little more than the whims of the president, a state of affairs normally more characteristic of dictatorship than democracy.

Graham G. Dodds, Professor of Political Science, Concordia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This post was originally published on this site

On Tuesday morning’s Fox and Friends, Fox News host Mark Levin went full Joe McCarthy on the Democratic Party.

Levin said the “Democrat Party” is “the enemy within” because they want to destroy the United States.

Dude, demanding affordability in health insurance is NOT “destroying the United States.” How many health insurance stocks do you OWN, Mark?

Margaret Thatcher also called the working class “miners” the enemy within during their strikes. Fox News is running with this new line of attack on many of their primetime shows.

Americans do not want troops on the ground in US cities. But Trumpworld must appease Trump’s ego.

At least Levin wasn’t spitting into the camera. It’s always those supporting a wanna be fascist dictators who claim those opposing a dictatorship are the enemies.

Levin was particularly agitated on the anniversary of the Oct 7th attack on Israel.

LEVIN: People, you know, Donald Trump uses this phrase, the enemy within, you know, who else used that phrase?

Great men of the past, Abraham Lincoln, talked about the enemy within. When you have an enemy within, and you say we have an enemy within, our press starts attacking you as some kind of a fascist.

There is an enemy within. The Democrat Party has changed.

It’s not just policy disputes. They seek to overthrow the republic. They seek to destroy our economic system. They want to change the citizenry and the population. They want to bankrupt the country.

These are not policy disputes anymore with the Democrat Party. These are fundamental battles over the survivability of the United States. Trump gets it 100 percent, and he’s trying to do the best he can in our country, in the Middle East and with Europe.

Embedded within his complaints are white supremacist attacks on minorities. Levin offers no explanation for how the Democratic Party has become an enemy except for vitriolic hyperbole. The Democratic Party is the opposing political party, moron. Well over half this country supports their vision.

Is Levin now claiming 160 million Americans are traitors if you don’t bow down to the fatuous, bronzed-up old man?

Trump is authorizing US troops on US soil to carry out corrupt ICE raids in blue states’ cities.

Any form of protest or criticism of Donald Trump and his corrupt administration of unqualified sycophants is described as an insurrection. . Projection much?

The real insurrection occurred on January 6th, 2021, and continues as Trump assaults the US Constitution — and the constituents he swore to protect — every day he holds the office.

It’s happening right in front of you.

Trump and the GOP are creating their own manufactured crises, lighting the Reichstag fires, blaming “them” for the violence (their critics), citing “left-wing” terrorism, all as a setup for martial law and the Insurrection Act.

It’s…

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) October 7, 2025

This post was originally published on this site

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday heard a free-speech challenge to state laws against “conversion therapy” and sounded likely to rule the measures violate the 1st Amendment.

California and more than 20 other states have adopted laws to forbid licensed counselors from urging or encouraging gay or transgender teens to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The laws were adopted in reaction to a history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatments that induced nausea and vomiting or administered electric shocks.

Lawmakers and medical experts said such efforts to “cure” LGBTQ+ teens were cruel and ineffective and caused lasting harm. But these “talk therapy” laws have been challenged by a number of Christian counselors who believe they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.

The court on Tuesday heard an appeal from Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colo. She says she is an evangelical Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people of a same-sex attraction or change their gender identity.

She sued, alleging the state law seeks to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.

She lost before a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, both of whom said the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prevent substandard healthcare.

But the Supreme Court voted to hear her appeal.

“This law bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions,” her attorney James Campbell said in his opening.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, appeared to agree the Colorado law violated the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.

“What’s being regulated here is pure speech,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Moreover, he said, the state law enforces a double standard. It would punish a licensed counselor who agrees to talk to a teenage client who wants to “overcome same-sex attractions,” but not if she encourages the teen to accept or affirm those attractions.

Justice Elena Kagan said she too saw a potential 1st Amendment violation. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there was less evidence that talk therapy alone has caused real harm.

She also questioned whether the Colorado counselor had standing because she was not charged with violating the law. But none of the others endorsed that idea.

In defense of the law, Colorado state solicitor Shannon Stevenson said the law applies only to licensed counselors. It does not extend to others, including religious ministers.

The practice of medical care “is a heavily regulated area. A doctor doesn’t have a 1st Amendment right to give wrong advice to patients,” she said.

But most of the justices said the 1st Amendment does not permit the state to punish counselors because their views do not align with the state’s.

What about the era when “homosexuality was professionally considered to be a mental health disorder?” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Could the state by law have punished a “regulated licensed professional for affirming homosexuality?”

The state’s attorney agreed that may have been possible based on the standard of care at the time.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others suggested counselors could still face a medical malpractice lawsuit, even if the court rules the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

The Trump administration joined the case on the side of the Colorado counselor and urged the court to rule for her on free-speech grounds.

In 2012, California was the first state to adopt a ban on conversion therapy for minors. In signing the measure, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. referred to such therapy as “junk science” that led to depression and suicide.

The measure was challenged on free-speech grounds, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it on the basis that it regulated medical treatment by professionals.

But the 1st Amendment has been used repeatedly to challenge laws involving LGBTQ+ people.

Twice in recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled for Colorado business owners who objected to providing service for a same-sex wedding.

One designed custom wedding cakes, and the other designed websites for weddings. They sued seeking an exemption from the state civil rights law that required businesses to provide equal service to customers without regard to sexual orientation.

They were represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that also represents Chiles.

In June, the court’s conservative majority ruled for Tennessee and upheld red-state laws that prohibit the use of puberty blockers and sex hormones for transgender teens.

The court’s opinion said it was deferring to the states because there was sharp debate over the proper treatment for young people with gender dysphoria.

The case heard Tuesday — Chiles vs. Salazar — was the first of two this term involving LGBTQ+ rights. In December, the justices will hear arguments on whether West Virginia may bar transgender school athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams.

This post was originally published on this site

Donald Trump told CNN’s Kaitlin Collins that he would consider pardoning sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein partner Ghislaine Maxwell in the future.

This will infuriate his QAnon supporters.

Earlier today the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Maxwell and refused to take on her case in their new session.

The Jeffrey Epstein files and Ghislaine Maxwell saga have been in the news, haunting Donald Trump and infuriating his MAGA cult at every turn for some time now.

A tired-out Trump made believe he hadn’t heard about Maxwell in a long time and claimed he didn’t even know she filed an appeal to the highest court. He tried an Abbot and Costello routine with Collins.

COLLINS: The Supreme Court is back in session. They rejected today an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell to overturn her conviction. That means her only chance at getting out of prison is a pardon from you.

Is that something you’re open to?

TRUMP: Who are we talking about?

COLLINS: Ghislaine Maxwell.

TRUMP: You know, I haven’t heard the name in so long. I can say this, that I’d have to take a look at it. I would have to take a look.

Did they reject that?

COLLINS: She wanted to appeal her conviction.

TRUMP: And what happened?

COLLINS: They said that they were not going to hear her appeal.

TRUMP: I see. Well, I’ll take a look at it. I’ll speak to it. I will speak to the DOJ.

These remarks alone should be fuel the ire of the MAGA cult. Even considering a pardon for a sex offending trafficker like Maxwell is tantamount to a brazen act of betrayal.
Then he played dumb and dumber.

TRUMP: I wouldn’t consider it or not consider it. I don’t know anything about it. So but I’ll speak.

I will speak to the DOJ.

COLLINS: Why did she be attended at the clemency, sir?

TRUMP: I don’t know.

I mean, I’d have to speak to the DOJ.

I’ll look at it. I’ll I have a lot of people have asked me for pardons.

I call them Puff Daddy- has asked me for a pardon.

COLLINS: But she was convicted of child sex trafficking.

TRUMP: Yeah. I mean, I’m going to have to take a look at it. I have to ask DOJ.

I didn’t know they rejected it. I didn’t know she was even asking for it, frankly.

This was a bad attempt by a feeble and deteriorating old man to distance himself from a once close friend.

Trump knows all and is the greatest in ALL things.

He knows full well what’s going on with Maxwell and must likely have been looking for more of a definitive response from Ghislaine to distance him from Epstein’s bevy of underage girls being sex trafficked when she was interviewed by his Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche.

This post was originally published on this site

Trump White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller attacked Oregon U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut for knocking down Trump’s illegal act of sending in the California National Guard to Portland.

Miller, the most racist man to ever be a White House deputy chief of staff for policy couldn’t contain his anger when a Trump-appointed judge refused to be party to deploying troops on US soil for no reason except to fulfill MAGA’s blood lust.

Stephen Miller has now declared this Trump-appointed judge an insurrectionist.

To emphasize, the judge painstakingly examined all the protest happening in Portland before Trump activated the Guard. She noted that there hadn’t been any violence at a protest since mid-July. https://t.co/kUNOFeAVRn pic.twitter.com/fWEVhw1oOD

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) October 5, 2025

This continues Miller’s constant assault on judges who rule against their facetious and unconstitutional orders. Already we have a South Carolina judge’s house burned down, likely because of the outrage caused by Stephen Miller and many others attacking and doxxing judges.

Trump, @StephenM and MAGA-world have been doxxing and threatening judges who rule against Trump, including Judge Goodstein.

Today, someone committed arson on the Judge’s home, severely injuring her husband and son.

Will Trump speak out against the extreme right that did this?? https://t.co/Dl8JcUted7

— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) October 6, 2025

If Republicans really cared about violent rhetoric, they should put a muzzle on this racist dog.

Miller continues to foment hate and violence.

Miller: We have seen the last nine months an ongoing legal insurrection in which district court judges as a class in many cases have issued rulings that are flagrantly unlawful and it is an insurrection against the constitution.
pic.twitter.com/ndgsRTDaC5

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 6, 2025

And as usual, they always project, saying that the violent speech comes from Democrats, when Miller, Trump and the rest of them are out with language comparable to Hitler’s Germany.

This post was originally published on this site

During a speech at the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia marking the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Navy, Donald Trump left his critics and military leaders aghast by breaking protocol to active duty service members by telling them he needs to “take care of the” Democratic party in which he refereed to as “gnats.”

Talk about political violence. During the Troubles in Ireland, Protestant Reverend’s like Ian Paisley used hateful words to vilify and dehumanize Catholics which led to violent consequences.

TRUMP: But we have to take care of this little gnat that’s on our shoulder called the Democrats.

They want to give all of our money to illegal aliens that pour into the country. And you know, I have a bigger heart than they do.

But the problem is, when you do that, they come in by the millions. Everybody wants that, so you can’t do it.

In my research I could not find a single time when a US president used insect analogies against his political opponents to demean them. And using a major US Navy event to spew his vitriolic rhetoric shows his mental deterioration is accelerating.

Trump to the Navy: “We have to take care of this little gnat that’s on our shoulder called the Democrats.” pic.twitter.com/WD6Ojn75yP

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 5, 2025