WATCH: Bill Maher says Vance interview critics wouldn’t be happy unless he ‘punched him in the nose’
Liberal comedian Bill Maher dismissed backlash that he went too easy on Vice President JD Vance during their recent interview, arguing that critics wouldn’t have been satisfied unless the conversation had ended in a physical altercation. “They would never be happy unless JD Vance walked out and I punched him in the nose,” Maher told Fox News Digital. “That’s the only thing that would satisfy certain people.” He continued, “I don’t play that game. I like to actually talk to people.” BILL MAHER’S DIRE MIDTERM ELECTION WARNING TO DEMS AFTER ‘REALLY CRAZY’ SOCIALISTS WIN PRIMARIES Maher faced criticism after Friday’s episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher” interviewing Vance as some argued he failed to challenge the vice president aggressively enough on political issues. “For someone who spends every Friday night railing against the Trump administration, he treated its vice president with kid gloves,” an article in Variety claimed. The two discussed the rise of socialism in the Democratic Party after three far-left progressive candidates won in New York’s primary elections last week. They spoke on how that impacts the trajectory of both sides of the aisle heading into November’s midterms, with Maher even admitting his vote could flip Republican with the direction the Democratic Party has moved toward. BILL MAHER TELLS JD VANCE DEMOCRATIC RADICALISM ON ISRAEL AND SOCIALISM COULD PUT HIS VOTE ‘IN PLAY’ Maher walked the red carpet at the Kennedy Center Sunday night as he accepted the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, where he spoke to reporters about his conversation with Vance. The comedian, whose political commentary has often put him at odds with Trump and other Republicans, said his opinion of the vice president didn’t change after his interview, as he “talks to these guys all the time,” referring to politicians and Republicans. He shared that his conversations with Republicans usually go well. “Everybody’s a monster till you talk to them,” he said in reference to his interviews with Republicans. He continued, “Are there things we’re never going to agree on? Yeah.” BILL MAHER CALLS OUT TRUMP’S ‘BULLS—‘ TRUTH SOCIAL POST ATTACKING HIM Maher pressed Vance during the interview on the Trump administration’s refusal to concede to losing the 2020 election, claiming it was “rigged” by fraudulent voting, interference and censorship in the election against former President Joe Biden. But Maher still commended Vance for coming on his show, sharing with Fox News Digital on Sunday that despite their disagreements, conversations with politicians like Vance don’t typically turn “hateful.” “They’re happy warriors,” he said in regards to Vance and other Republicans he has interviewed. “You hit them with three really, really hard-hitting things that say ‘you can’t keep doing it,’ and they just answer it,” Maher said. “They evade it. But they don’t hold it against you. It doesn’t turn hateful.”
Alito blasts latest SCOTUS ballot ruling as invitation to ‘voter fraud’ risks
Justice Samuel Alito cautioned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow ballots received after Election Day to be counted could lead large sections of the public to view elections as illegitimate. While Alito had legal concerns with the majority’s ruling, arguing that they misinterpreted when the “electorate’s choice” occurs, he closed his dissent by issuing a practical warning. Allowing late-arriving ballots to determine the outcomes of elections long after Election Day will, according to Alito, severely damage the trust Americans place in their electoral system. “Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences,” he wrote. “The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.” SUPREME COURT RULES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY Alito went on to describe a hypothetical scenario where the outcome of a presidential election hinges on a single state that allows late-arriving mail ballots to be counted. In the scenario described by the justice, one candidate leads by 15,000 votes on election night only for the opposing candidate to slowly gain votes and, a few days before electors are scheduled to vote, pull ahead by just under 100 votes. “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh also noted during the case’s oral arguments. Alito didn’t simply claim that the ruling could affect how people view elections; he argued that it could open the door for fraud. SUPREME COURT RULES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY “Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections. Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud,” Alito continued. “In 2005, a committee chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker found that absentee voting was ‘the largest source of potential voter fraud’ in American elections.” While instances of voter fraud carried out using mail-in ballots have been recorded, there is no evidence that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 or 2024 presidential elections. Democrats, meanwhile, argue that allowing states to process ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward, is essential to ensuring that all eligible voters have a say in who governs them. SUPREME COURT RULES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY “I’m relieved the Supreme Court is not interfering with Washington’s mail-in ballot system,” Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., wrote on X. “If you work a shift job, have young kids, or live out in the woods, you can’t just knock off for the day to go stand in line at a polling place. For decades, Washington’s secure vote by mail system has made it easy for these folks to participate in democracy and make their voice heard.” The majority, however, did not address whether allowing late ballots to be counted was good policy, stating that such a consideration is outside the scope of what the court has authority to rule on. “Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by Election Day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. “As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts.”
Trump says he will ‘continue the fight’ after Supreme Court declines to review Carroll abuse verdict
President Donald Trump appeared surprised after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not hear his appeal of a $5 million verdict that found he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and later defamed her. The high court declined to take up the case, leaving the $5 million judgment in place. In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996 inside a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room, awarding her $5 million. In 2024, another jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in a separate defamation case over Trump’s denials and attacks after she accused him. The justices did not provide an explanation for Monday’s decision. “Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.” TRUMP REQUESTS E JEAN CARROLL $83M JUDGMENT STAY FOR PENDING SUPREME COURT ACTION ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY “This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for,” he added, “and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!” Trump’s attorneys argued that the trial judge violated federal evidence rules by admitting the infamous Access Hollywood tape — in which Trump is heard bragging about grabbing women by their genitals — and by allowing the jury to hear from two other women who accused Trump of sexual assault, allegations he denies. Carroll’s lawyers countered that the women’s testimony was relevant because the allegations were highly similar, and they noted that Judge Lewis Kaplan’s evidentiary decisions aligned with legal precedents across the country. FEDERAL APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS $83.3M E. JEAN CARROLL JUDGMENT AGAINST TRUMP “Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms once and for all the jury’s unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll. His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed, and today’s ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions,” said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney. In a separate statement, Trump’s legal team stated: “The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes. President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.” In his Truth Social post, Trump also accused New York state lawmakers of explicitly targeting him. “New York State created a Law, for an instant speck of time, going back many decades, in order to wrongfully ‘nab’ me,” he wrote. “It was tailor-made, and this Injustice cannot be allowed to stand!” The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Iowa Dem who touted ‘strong work ethic’ misses more than half of her House votes
Lindsay James, a state legislator and Democratic candidate for Congress in Iowa, missed over half of her votes in the state’s House of Representatives this past year, records show. In 2026, James missed 177 of 342 votes, according to the legislature’s records, accounting for 51.7% of the whole. The absences clash with assurances James made about how her campaign might impact her legislative duties and has opened her up to Republican-led criticisms that she has prioritized her potential role instead of the one she has now. “Lindsay James promised Iowans that campaigning wouldn’t distract her from the job she was elected to do. That didn’t last long,” Emily Tuttle, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said. DEM REP MIKIE SHERRILL SKIPS 145 HOUSE VOTES AS NJ GOVERNOR’S RACE HEATS UP “James chose her own political ambitions over showing up for work, proving that when given the choice between serving constituents and serving herself, she puts herself first,” Tuttle continued. James’ campaign said that she has a track record of representing constituents well. “Lindsay has always fought for Iowa families, taking on corporate greed and predatory landlords and writing the bill to cap the cost of insulin,” Jackson Smith, a spokesperson for the campaign, said in a statement to Fox. “While Lindsay listens to and works for the Iowans making impossible economic choices caused by Joe Mitchell and his Washington allies, Mitchell has been using his campaign cash to party with Washington insiders and will be a rubber stamp for the policies raising Iowa families’ costs,” Smith said, referring to Joe Mitchell, a former state representative and a Republican candidate for the seat. At the outset of her campaign, James told viewers in an interview that she would continue to prioritize her work in the House of Representatives despite intentions to campaign “full-time.” “Full-time campaigning and, of course, fulfilling my important work in the Iowa legislature,” James said when asked whether she would also continue working as a minister. “You know me, I have a pretty strong work ethic at the capitol, early, very late, providing for my constituents. That will never stop. That’s just who I am and how I’m wired,” James said. Even so, James, who first joined the Iowa House in 2019, has missed several key votes in the chamber. LAKEN RILEY ACT ROILS NJ GOVERNOR’S RACE AS 2 DEMS SKIP ROLL: ‘THE MORE SOMEONE CAMPAIGNS THE LESS THEY VOTE’ Instead of voting on a bill to limit screen time for students in schools, she held a campaign event in Cedar Rapids on April 20, roughly two hours from Des Moines. Just ten days later, James also missed a vote on whether to make animal torture a felony on April 30 to host a meet-and-greet at a brewery in Decorah, Iowa. In a third case, she also skipped the chamber’s consideration of whether to lower property taxes in order to host another candidate activity in Dubuque — a three-hour drive from the capitol. James recently won a Democratic primary earlier this month as she wages a campaign to fill the seat currently held by Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa. SWALWELL’S ‘I SHOULD BE WORKING’ GYM, POOL VIDEOS RESURFACE AS DEM RIVAL HAMMERS HIS MISSED HOUSE VOTES Hinson, who has represented the district since 2021, announced she would not seek reelection as she pursues a Senate seat to replace outgoing Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.
Embattled Maine Democrat deadlocked with Collins despite controversies in key Senate race, new poll shows
Graham Platner, the populist Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, is in a virtual dead heat in a crucial Senate showdown with longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins, according to a new poll. Platner, the embattled candidate who has been facing a slew of controversies, stands at 49% support among likely voters questioned in a New York Times/Portland Press Herald/Siena poll released on Monday, with Collins at 47%, and 3% of respondents undecided or refusing to answer. Platner’s two-point edge is within the survey’s sampling error, meaning the contest is virtually tied. Collins, a moderate Republican who at times votes against President Donald Trump’s agenda, is running for a sixth six-year term in the Senate. The high-profile and likely combustible and expensive race is among a handful that will determine if the GOP holds onto its slim Senate majority in November’s midterm elections. Republicans currently control the chamber 53-47 and flipping the Senate seat in left-leaning Maine is a key part of the Democrats’ path to retake the majority. GAME ON IN KEY SENATE RACE AS PLATNER CAPTURES DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION Platner, a military combat veteran and oyster farmer who is backed by progressive champions Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Rep. Ro Khanna of California, earlier this month easily defeated two longshot rivals in Maine’s Democratic Senate primary. Platner, who advocates an economically populist agenda as he takes aim at corporate influences and advocates for the working class, also topped two-term Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in the primary. The governor’s name remained on the ballot even though Mills, who had been backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, suspended her bid this spring after significantly trailing Platner in fundraising and polling. Platner’s victory also came as he was facing one of the roughest stretches of his bid for the U.S. Senate. He was playing defense the past couple of months amid multiple controversies. They included inflammatory online comments made on Reddit, a well-publicized and now covered-up tattoo on his chest that resembled a Nazi symbol, recent reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with several women while married, and allegations from ex-girlfriends of a history of rape fantasies, heavy drinking and violent episodes. Platner has called the allegations of violence untrue. THE TEN RACES THAT WILL DETERMINE THE SENATE’S MAJORITY A day before the primary, a former high-level staffer from the Platner campaign wrote in the Washington Post that Platner “is not someone who would be good for Maine or for the country.” The mounting controversies grabbed plenty of attention and triggered some Democrats in the nation’s capital to question whether Platner was damaged goods, but didn’t stop him from riding a populist wave to capture the nomination. More than 9 in 10 Platner supporters questioned in the poll said they had heard about his controversies but that their vote for him was based on where he stands on the issues. Platner, who has acknowledged his battle with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his three tours of duty in the war in Iraq with the Marines and one tour with the Army National Guard in Afghanistan, apologized for his controversial Reddit posts after some of them made headlines last fall soon after he launched his Senate campaign. And Platner has said he got the skull and crossbones tattoo in 2007 while drinking with fellow Marines stationed in Croatia. He said that he covered up the tattoo with a new design after learning last year that it resembled a Nazi symbol. But allegations from an ex-girlfriend raise questions about Platner’s timeline regarding knowledge of the tattoo. In his primary night victory speech, Platner emphasized that he’s a changed man. “If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change,” Platner told the crowd. “And the reason I believe that is because I have lived it. And the reason that I have lived it is because of my wife.” DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB The new poll, conducted June 19-26, suggests Platner is having some difficulty winning over some voters who want the Democrats to take back power in Congress. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they’d like to see the Democrats win back the Senate majority in the midterms, five points higher than the 49% who are supporting Platner. And Collins is capturing 10% of voters who prefer the Democrats control the Senate. The poll also indicates that a majority of Maine voters don’t believe Platner has “good character” or the “right kind of moral values” and nearly half say he’s too extreme. By contrast, more than 6 in 10 say Collins has “good character” and the “right kind of moral values” and only a third said she was too extreme for Maine. Meanwhile, some Democratic respondents worried that the 41-year-old Platner, who has never held elective office, would be “too inexperienced.” But there are also warning signs for Collins. A majority questioned said they thought the senator would be too supportive of Trump and even some of her own supporters worry that the 73-year-old Collins is too old to be an effective senator. The senator voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. And early last year she opposed the confirmation of now-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. But she is also remembered for her 2018 vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which eventually helped the court’s conservative majority overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Beating Collins won’t be easy. Six years ago, public opinion polls indicated the senator was headed to defeat, but Collins defied expectations and won re-election by topping then-Democratic state House Speaker Sara Gideon by nine points. The new survey is the latest to indicate Platner with a slight edge over Collins, although a
Obama takes new swipe at Founding Fathers ahead of America’s 250th birthday: ‘Deep flaw’
Former President Barack Obama took aim at the Founding Fathers ahead of America’s 250th anniversary, saying they held a “deep flaw” for their ties to slavery despite being “geniuses.” “I think sometimes we get confused in thinking that these two stories are separate. They’re intertwined, right? Which is why it’s possible for me to be a great admirer of George Washington, and also acknowledge he was a slaveholder,” said Obama in an interview Sunday with MSNOW. The 44th president’s appearance comes as most Americans prepare to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday on Saturday with patriotic events across the country, while Obama is using the milestone to deliver a more cautionary message about the state of American democracy. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ “That does not negate [Washington’s] greatness, it simply acknowledges that there’s a profound deep flaw in these Founding Fathers who were also geniuses and gave us these tools,” Obama said. “It’s that we’re this mixed bag, we’ve got contradictions. And embody the country’s contradictions,” he added. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ Obama has been making many media appearances leading up to and following the opening of his presidential center in Chicago earlier this month. The expansive center includes a museum, library branch, community programming and is intended as a legacy project tied to Obama’s political roots on Chicago’s South Side. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ During the center’s opening ceremony, which attracted former presidents and Hollywood elites, Obama took a swipe at the founders. “The success of this experiment was never a given,” Obama said in his speech, referring to the nation’s founding. “In forming our union, the founders fell terribly short of the Declaration’s promise, leaving slavery intact, allowing states to restrict the franchise to white men who owned property. But in drafting a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, they did have the foresight, the genius, to provide us with a framework that allows each generation to make our union more perfect,” he added. Fox News Digital reached out to Obama’s office for additional comment on Monday. During Obama’s early political rise, researchers found that some of his White ancestors had owned slaves in the U.S., a discovery that has resurfaced periodically in political discourse, including in 2019 comments by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War,” then-Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirmed to the Associated Press in 2007 of the future president’s family history.
Thomas, Gorsuch target landmark ruling Trump says protects the ‘fake news’
Two of the Supreme Court‘s conservative justices criticized the majority’s decision not to take up attorney Alan Dershowitz’s defamation case against CNN, saying the high court missed an opportunity to revisit a controversial 1960s defamation precedent. The dissent from the court’s conservative wing effectively called on the justices to revisit long-standing libel precedent, echoing President Donald Trump’s 2016 calls to loosen U.S. libel laws. Dershowitz, who has represented famous figures like Trump, O.J. Simpson and Leona Helmsley, claimed CNN deceptively edited a snippet of his defense during Trump’s first impeachment trial about “quid pro quo[s]” to make it sound like he said the opposite of his fuller statements and used that clip to damage his reputation. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — appointees of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Trump, respectively — criticized their colleagues for relying on the “actual malice” standard in evaluating whether CNN defamed Dershowitz, arguing the standard is not rooted in the Constitution and instead was created in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. ISRAELI PM NETANYAHU INITIATING DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST NEW YORK TIMES OVER CONTROVERSIAL ‘DOG RAPE’ STORY “Predictably, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting standard, which this Court created in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Dershowitz now asks this Court to overrule Sullivan and related precedents,” the conservatives wrote. Dershowitz also reacted to the dissent in remarks to Fox News Digital, calling the majority’s standard “impossible” to overcome. “All the judges agreed that CNN lied about me,” he said Monday. “But the majority ruled, over dissents, that I had to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence— an impossible standard that I believe will be overruled in years to come.” The Sullivan case arose after a Montgomery, Alabama, commissioner sued the Times for libel over a full-page advertisement criticizing how the city treated civil rights protesters. An Alabama jury awarded damages to L.B. Sullivan even though he was not mentioned by name in the ad. The Supreme Court later reversed the ruling, holding that a public official cannot prevail in a defamation case unless he proves the statement was made with “actual malice” — knowing it was false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth. “The actual-malice standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution,” Thomas and Gorsuch wrote Monday in Dershowitz’ case. “Instead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed.” As one historical example, Thomas and Gorsuch pointed to the Sedition Act of 1798, which imposed a far lower threshold for defamatory statements about public officials. Then-Rep. Matthew Lyon, D-Vt., was prosecuted under the law for characterizing President John Adams as someone with “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice” during American tensions with France. JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S $10B DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OVER EPSTEIN STORY President Thomas Jefferson allowed that law to expire in 1801 and pardoned many caught in its net. More recently, Trump has called for loosening U.S. libel laws, echoing concerns similar to those expressed by Thomas and Gorsuch about the court’s defamation jurisprudence. While running for president in 2016, Trump pledged to “open up our libel laws” if elected to pursue the ideological conglomerate he often labels “fake news.” SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER Journalists who “write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles — we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. He has often singled out defendant CNN more than most – famously warring regularly with its then-White House correspondent, podcaster Jim Acosta. During one 2017 incident, Acosta repeatedly interrupted Trump during a news conference, leading the president to demand he not “be rude.”.” Trump informed Acosta that he would not be taking a question from him because “you are fake news.” “We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” Trump said at the 2016 event, going on to further name-drop the Times and Washington Post. The ruling, along with Trump’s own lawsuit against the Ted Turner-founded network over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, leaves open the possibility that the court could revisit Sullivan, though such a shift appears unlikely in the near term. Fox News Digital reached out to CNN for comment on the dissent.
Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’
The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed a complaint against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., that alleged the lawmaker committed sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations. The probe was spurred by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who earlier this year charged that there were “very disturbing” allegations against a sitting senator in the wake of the scandal-filled downfall of former-Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a close friend of Gallego’s. But after a nearly monthlong investigation into the matter, the committee told Gallego in a letter on Monday that there wasn’t evidence to back up Luna’s claims. ‘DISTURBING’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UNNAMED SENATOR UNDER REVIEW IN WAKE OF SCANDALS ROCKING CONGRESS “We are writing to inform you that the Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) dismissed a complaint filed against you by Representative Anna Paulina Luna,” the panel stated. “Specifically, the complaint alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.” “In response to your request for an investigation, the Committee referred these allegations to you and requested additional information on April 17 and May 15, 2026,” the letter continued. “Based on the investigation of the Committee, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct.” Gallego said in a statement that the Ethics Committee’s decision “reaffirms what I have said about these accusations from the beginning: they were right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House and their allies.” SENATOR GALLEGO SAYS LONGTIME FRIENDSHIP WITH SWALWELL ‘CLOUDED MY JUDGMENT’ AS RUMORS SWIRLED IN DC “I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families,” Gallego said. “In the meantime, I will continue fighting for Arizonans and holding Trump Republicans accountable for high costs and new wars.” But an apology from Luna is unlikely. The lawmaker shot back on X that the allegations “are not conspiracy theories. You’re a gross example of representation.” SWALWELL FRIEND GALLEGO DEFENDS CAMPAIGN-FUNDED SUPER BOWL, MIAMI TRIPS: ‘GO WHERE THE MONEY IS’ “Need I mention you leaving your pregnant wife during your campaign for Senate? There are plenty of people who know about your antics,” Luna said. “The good news about D.C. is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” she continued. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep, always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.” Luna’s allegations against Gallego came shortly after Swalwell resigned from the House following a bombshell report from The San Francisco Chronicle that the ex-lawmaker allegedly sexually assaulted a former staffer. Gallego moved to quickly put distance between himself and Swalwell and argued that his tight-knit relationship “clouded my judgment,” regarding rumors that swirled about the ex-lawmaker for years in Washington, D.C. Gallego has recently come under scrutiny for a report from Politico that he spent thousands in campaign cash on luxury travel, Super Bowl tickets and childcare. “This is not breaking news,” Gallego told the outlet. “With the rising costs of childcare and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”
Conservatives revolt after Trump-appointed Barrett joins liberals in ‘shockingly wrong’ mail ballot ruling
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faced the wrath of conservatives on social media on Monday after she authored the majority opinion ruling in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day. The court was split 5-4 on the ruling with Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump, writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett’s opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate but said that relevant laws have no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid. Barrett was quickly criticized by conservative commentators and politicians. AMY CONEY BARRETT CALLS ROE V WADE ‘FREE-FLOATING’ DECISION THAT JUDGES ‘READ INTO’ CONSTITUTION “A shockingly wrong opinion,” Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt posted on X. “Justice Barrett joins with the liberal justices to hold that federal election law does not preempt states who allow late mail-in ballots to be counted. This is terrible for election integrity. Another reason we must pass the full SAVE American Act.” “Barrett is the biggest conservative judicial disaster since Souter,” conservative author Hans Mahncke posted on X. “The difference is that few conservatives expected much from Souter whereas Barrett was supposed to be the future of the Court. The worst part is that she’ll be there pushing leftist policies for another 40 years.” “Amy Coney Barrett continues to disappoint in far too many high-profile cases,” political commentator Josh Hammer posted on X. “Remember Election Day?” Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh’s office posted on X. “This disastrous SCOTUS decision, authored by Justice Barrett, guarantees we’ll keep drifting away from it — as our sacred elections get bogged down by endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts.” “Amy Coney Barrett is the worst choice ever among all GOP justices,” retired U.S. Army captain Seth Keshel posted on X. “And that includes Roberts. What a disappointment she is.” REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP WEIGHS ‘NUKING’ FILIBUSTER TO PASS TRUMP’S SAVE ACT “She quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 59, speaks of the Framers’ intent, and repeatedly invokes history as its guide,” constitutional attorney Krisanne Hall posted on X. “But when the historical evidence becomes inconvenient, Barrett quietly sets it aside. Barrett engages in judicial activism disguised as selective originalism.” Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, said in a statement that the ruling is “deeply disappointing and misses the mark.” “Federal law is clear: all ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted,” Snead wrote. “The Court missed a major opportunity to reinforce election integrity and instead sides with California-style chaos. As Justice Alito makes clear in his dissent, watching ballots trickle in after Election Day and flip races does nothing but damage public trust in our system of government.” Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner and Senior Legal Fellow in AAF’s Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, said in a statement that the ruling is a “grave disappointment.” “As Justice Samuel Alito says in his dissent, joined by three other justices, not only is Justice Amy Comey Barrett’s opinion inconsistent with the plain text of those laws and historical practice and precedents, it ‘risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity,’” von Spakovsky wrote. The ruling prompted many to reiterate the importance of the SAVE Act, Trump’s long-sought voter ID and citizenship verification legislation, including Republican Rep. Greg Steube who posted on X, “The Senate filibuster is the only thing standing in the way. Nuke it!” Trump reacted to the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “tremendous loss” and stressing the importance that all voters must show a photo ID and proof of citizenship and that there should be “no mail-in” ballots except for specific exceptions. “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump wrote. “There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump added, “The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES. The United States Senate seems unable to do so. In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. There can be no more excuses!” Fox News Digital’s Robert Schmad and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.
Trump voters say costs are crushing their wallets — but look past president for blame
Supporters attending President Donald Trump’s rally on the National Mall acknowledged feeling the pinch from higher gas prices, but they largely declined to blame Trump — instead pointing to the Iran conflict and lingering frustration with inflation under former President Joe Biden. “My least favorite president ran gas up to about $5 a gallon for no reason, and that was Mr. Biden,” said Billy of North Carolina. Fox News Digital spoke with Americans who gathered on the National Mall Wednesday evening for President Donald Trump’s rally kicking off the “Great American State Fair” celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary, where attendees weighed in on whether they are feeling pain in their pockets as affordability concerns loom over the war with Iran and midterm elections in November. “Affordability has a lot to do with just interest rates that went up the highest in 48 years under President Biden, so it’s going to take some time to get those prices back down to where we were before that,” said James McNair of Maryland. GAS SURGE TIED TO IRAN CONFLICT HITS SWING STATES, TESTING TRUMP’S LOW-PRICE PITCH “I’m not that concerned about the affordability thing. I think that our president is probably the best businessman to ever be president, and things will turn,” added James’ brother, David. “Being in Gen Z, everything’s very expensive now,” William of New York said in summary. Many attendees shared that while they recognize gas prices are high, they attribute the recent spike to the escalating conflict with Iran—a development they continue to support. TRUMP PROMISED LOWER COSTS; THE IRAN CONFLICT NOW THREATENS THAT PLEDGE “I don’t think the prices in general have gotten any worse than when Biden was in the administration,” said Lisa of Maryland. Before the war, the national average price of gasoline was $2.98 per gallon. Prices climbed to a peak of $4.56 per gallon in late May before gradually declining to $3.87 per gallon by the end of June. Lisa and her husband, Matt, both served in the Army and expressed diverging opinions on affordability and Trump’s handling of Iran. PENTAGON ESTIMATES IRAN WAR COST $11.3B IN THE FIRST SIX DAYS IN CLOSED-DOOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARING: REPORT “Prices have definitely gone up and they do get my attention,” said Matt of Maryland. Matt shared that his drill sergeants were warning him of being deployed to Iran back in 1985. “Here we are today in 2026, still dealing with this problem.” “If we’re worried about gas prices, we’re going to be worrying again and again and again until we get a handle on regimes that just don’t share our values,” said Matt. BLACKROCK CEO LARRY FINK ARGUES US-IRAN CONFLICT WON’T DERAIL ECONOMY AS GAS PRICES SURGE Norma Holm of Indiana also said she believed Iran would eventually have to be dealt with and that it was better to address the issue head-on than leave it for the next generation. “We are taking it for the team with the gas prices and everything else, but things are stabling, and President Trump, don’t underestimate him.” Washington and Tehran agreed to halt military strikes in the region with delegations scheduled to meet June 30 in Doha, Qatar for talks. Other attendees are hoping that a resolution to the Iran conflict will lead to lower prices. “As the Iran war comes to an end and the peace deal hopefully gels, we’ll see. I think gas prices are already coming down, not tremendously, not where we would like to see, but those things take time,” said James of New York.