Random

    Featured

    Home Featured
    Featured posts

    Trump Responds To Pelosi Retirement Announcement

      By
      Madeleine Jackson
      -
      6
      Gage Skidmore Flickr

      Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not be seeking re-election after completing her current term, she announced in a video Thursday morning.

      Trump cheered Pelosi’s announcement in comments to Fox News, “The retirement of Nancy Pelosi is a great thing for America.”

      He called her “evil,” “corrupt,” and “only focused on bad things for our country.”

      “She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back. I’m very honored she impeached me twice and failed miserably twice,” Trump said.

      Watch:

      “There has been no greater honor for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco.’ I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress, and I’ve always honored the soul of Saint Francisco — ‘Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.’ The anthem of our city,” Pelosi said in a voiceover.

      “That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress. With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative as we go forward.”

      Pelosi has been a power player in U.S. politics for decades, having served as House speaker from 2007 to 2011 and then again from 2019 to 2023.

      Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi’s rivalry has been one of the defining political dramas of recent years, symbolizing the deep partisan divide in Washington. From Trump’s first impeachment—driven by Pelosi’s Democratic House—to their public clashes over the State of the Union address, the two leaders turned political disagreement into personal enmity. Trump often cast Pelosi as the face of establishment obstruction, accusing her of putting party politics ahead of American progress. For many Republicans, her approach epitomized the D.C. elite’s refusal to respect the voters who put Trump in office.

      Even after Trump left the White House, the feuds continued to shape both figures’ legacies. Pelosi frequently invokes Trump as a threat to democracy, while Trump uses her name as shorthand for what he sees as the failures of liberal governance.

      The House GOP is conducting the largest voter verification process in our party’s history. If we don’t get full participation our House Majority will be in jeopardy! Click HERE to verify your profile.

      Legal Theorists Try To Attack Trump. Their Argument May Be Dead On Arrival.

      By
      Norman Leahy
      -
      4
      Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

      A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.

      As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:

      On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.

      Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:

      Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.

      Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”

      The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.

      Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:

      “No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.

      Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.

      And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.

      My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:

      …no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐​hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.

      Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.

      Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.

      The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

      Amanda Head: The Deal Is Done – Twitter Is Freed!

        By
        Amanda Head
        -
        1

        Elon Musk is officially the new CEO of Twitter. After a rocky acquisition, Musk has officially been installed as the platform’s new leader and he wasted no time making some notable personnel changes.

        Watch Amanda break down the situation below.

        Biden Defense Department Tells Soldiers To Treat Pro-life Americans As Potential Terrorists

        By
        Donny Ferguson
        -
        4
        Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

        A group of United States senators and representatives are demanding answers after United States military servicemembers received anti-terrorism training that included instructions to consider pro-life Americans as potential terrorists.

        It is unclear why the military would be training for combat against Americans on American soil.

        Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Ted Budd (R-NC), along with Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) and their colleagues, “sent a letter to Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth demanding answers after an anti-terrorism training conducted at Fort Liberty, North Carolina depicted Pro-Life Americans as terrorists,” Lankford’s office reports.

        “We write regarding social media reports that anti-terrorism training conducted at Ft. Liberty, North Carolina depicts Pro-Life Americans as terrorists. Specifically, the slides identify National Right to Life, ‘Choose Life’ license plate holders, and anyone who opposes the Supreme Court’s rightfully overturned decision in Roe v. Wade, which was rightfully overturned by the Supreme Court, as members of terrorist groups. Smearing Pro-Life Americans is despicable and emblematic of the ongoing politicization of the military under the Biden-Harris Administration,” the Members wrote.

        The National Right to Life Committee is a peaceful mainstream conservative organization.  The training did not mention pro-abortion groups such as “Jane’s Revenge,” which have been engaged in a nationwide campaign of domestic terrorist attacks on pregnancy centers and Catholic churches.

        “It is no wonder that the Army is struggling to recruit young men and women to join its ranks when it appears the service attacks their values and promotes a woke agenda rather than improving readiness and lethality…The American people deserve to be assured that these slides truly do not reflect the Army’s views, that a full investigation will be conducted, and that any offending employees will be properly held accountable. Finally, we must be assured that similar materials are not being utilized at other installations across the Army,” the Members continued.

        Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Steve Daines (R-MT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Todd Young (R-IN), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Mike Braun (R-IN), Jim Risch (R-ID), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) also signed the letter. 

        The letter is supported by Catholic Vote, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, Americans United for Life, Concerned Women for America, Students for Life Action, SBA Pro-Life America, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and ACLJ Action.

        The letter reads:

        Dear Secretary Wormuth,

        We write regarding social media reports that anti-terrorism training conducted at Ft. Liberty, North Carolina depicts Pro-Life Americans as terrorists. Specifically, the slides identify National Right to Life, “Choose Life” license plate holders, and anyone who opposes the Supreme Court’s rightfully overturned decision in Roe v. Wade,which was rightfully overturned by the Supreme Court, as members of terrorist groups. Smearing Pro-Life Americans is despicable and emblematic of the ongoing politicization of the military under the Biden-Harris Administration.

        The American public expects the Department of Defense and its personnel to defend the homeland from actual terrorists, not Americans who seek protections for children in the womb. Labeling Pro-Life organizations as threats challenges servicemembers’ moral obligation to defend and protect even the smallest among us. In fact, around half of all Americans identify as Pro-Life. It is no wonder that the Army is struggling to recruit young men and women to join its ranks when it appears the service attacks their values and promotes a woke agenda rather than improving readiness and lethality.

        We understand that the anti-terrorism slide was in fact briefed to a group of soldiers as recently as July 10th. What is unclear is how long these slides have been utilized at Ft. Liberty and whether similar briefings have been used at other installations. We also understand from a statement released by Ft. Liberty that these slides were not vetted by appropriate approval authorities.  

        While Ft. Liberty’s statement asserts that the slides “do not reflect the views of the … US Army or the Department of Defense”, the American people are rightfully concerned that training of this kind is being disseminated in the first place and possibly at other military installations. The American people deserve to be assured that these slides truly do not reflect the Army’s views, that a full investigation will be conducted, and that any offending employees will be properly held accountable. Finally, we must be assured that similar materials are not being utilized at other installations across the Army. 

        Therefore, we request responses to the following questions no later than July 29, 2024: 

        Is it official Army policy to identify Pro-Life Americans and Pro-Life Organizations as “terrorist groups”?

        How long have these slides been briefed to soldiers and how many soldiers have been briefed with these slides? 

        What is the current process by which the Army reviews anti-terrorism training materials disseminated on Army bases? 

        Who are the appropriate approval authorities charged with vetting training materials disseminated to soldiers across the Army?

        What action is the Army taking to investigate the distribution of training materials depicting Pro-Life Americans as terrorists? 

        What statutes or Army regulations were potentially violated and what action is the Army taking with regard to any offending employee? 

        Will you commit to an installation-by-installation review to ensure that these or similar materials are not being disseminated elsewhere and that Army anti-terrorism training aligns with DoD anti-terrorism standard guidance and training? 

        Will you commit, in writing, that these slides will no longer be used and all future training materials reviewed will align with current DoD anti-terrorism guidance?  

        We look forward to your prompt attention and response.

        Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.


        Jury To Hear Election Workers’ Case Against Rudy Giuliani

          By
          Madeleine Jackson
          -
          5
          Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

          A Washington, D.C. federal judge ruled Sunday that a jury will hear and decide a case to determine how much ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani owes two Georgia poll workers for falsely claiming they helped steal the 2020 election from former President Trump.

          U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell denied Giuliani’s request to hold a bench trial instead of a jury trial, meaning the judge would decide the case instead of a jury. In her ruling, she chided him for the “significantly tardy” motion, having set an October deadline for all pre-trial motions, according to The Hill.

          “Perhaps Giuliani’s submission is titled a ‘Trial Brief,’ rather than a motion seeking to convert the scheduled jury trial to a hearing, in a fairly blatant effort to avoid being called out for filing an untimely pretrial motion,” Howell wrote in a footnote.

          Following the 2020 election, Giuliani falsely claimed Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss committed election fraud by processing “suitcases” of illicit ballots in Georgia.

          The two election workers sued Giuliani, and as their case proceeded, he failed to turn over evidence despite “repeated reminders” from the court. Howell in August found Giuliani civilly liable for Freeman and Moss’s claims of “defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage,” citing the longtime Trump ally’s “willful shirking of his discovery obligations” as reason.

          In her Sunday opinion, Howell again cited Giuliani’s “discovery misconduct” as a reason to deny his request for a bench trial.

          “This Court will not reward him for conduct that has ‘already resulted in significant prejudice to Plaintiffs,’” Howell wrote, quoting her earlier decision.

          Wyoming Official Intervenes On Court Labeling Trump ‘Insurrectionist’

            By
            Madeleine Jackson
            -
            9
            Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

            Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray is working to change a Colorado judge’s ruling which labeled former President Donald Trump an “insurrectionist”.”

            “As chief election officials of our states, [Secretaries of State] have to stand up for the electoral process in our republic, and this is pivotal to ensuring the integrity of our elections,” Gray told Fox News Digital in a phone interview. 

            “I ran on election integrity, and that’s why the people of Wyoming voted me into office. And I’m following through on that, and defending the truth here, and making sure that these outrageous, frivolous lawsuits that the radical left is bringing and trying to remove President Trump from the ballot, that they don’t succeed.” 

            Gray filed an amicus curiae brief, otherwise known as a friend of the court brief, with the Colorado Supreme Court last week that argues a Colorado District Court made a mistake when labeling Trump an “insurrectionist” in a legal case that worked to remove Trump’s name from the state’s primary ballot. 

            The amicus brief calls on the Colorado Supreme Court to vacate the district court’s order and “direct the District Court to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 

            “It really should have been dismissed immediately, the case is frivolous. And instead we got this 95-page finding from this local judge there in Colorado and with the principle of issue preclusion, this could be really used against President Trump,” Gray said. “So it’s very important that this is just dismissed in its entirety. And that’s what we really try to delve into with this amicus brief … and we’re really proud that Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Ohio Secretary of State LaRose signed on.” 

            Gray’s move comes after a liberal group attempted to have Trump removed from the state’s 2024 primary ballot under the 14th Amendment..

            Gray told Fox News the case should have been dismissed from the start.

            “The frivolous lawsuits, they’re happening around the country, and it’s imperative that voters in one state not be affected by judgments in other states. And if you think about it, preventing an eligible candidate in one state for being able to attain electoral votes affects every other state. And preventing a candidate from being on the ballot, primary or caucus, artificially will alter momentum,” Gray said. 

            Harris Campaign’s Endorsement By Fake Police Group Raises Astroturf Concerns

            By
            Patrick Houck
            -
            3

            As Vice President Kamala Harris continues her campaign, avoiding direct interviews and carefully selecting debate settings, questions about the authenticity of her support base are growing. The latest example is the endorsement from a group called “Police Leaders for Community Safety,” which Harris’s campaign and media outlets touted as a “stunning endorsement” from a group that typically backs Trump.

            However, scrutiny reveals that the group is far from a major law enforcement organization. USA Today notes that “Police Leaders for Community Safety” was only formed in 2024, describes itself as representing “dozens of police officials,” and is led by Sue Riseling, a former chief of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department. The group is primarily composed of former law enforcement members, many of whom lean left politically.

            The newspaper explained that “as the group has only been around since June, this marks the first endorsement for Police Leaders for Community Safety, with the group throwing their support for Harris.”

            The group’s announcement to Fox News, however, failed to share that information:

            The organization – which says it is led by a diverse group of prominent police professionals who have been at the helm of numerous major national law enforcement leadership groups – highlights that its mission is to champion “policies to make communities and the people in them safer, improve and evolve policing, and safeguard the rule of law.”

            Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

            “This endorsement reflects Vice President Harris’ track record and unwavering commitment to public safety and the rule of law,” Sue Riseling, chair of Police Leaders for Community Safety, said.

            Police Leaders for Community Safety board member David Mahoney, a former Dane County, Wisconsin, sheriff and past president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, said that Harris “spent her prosecutorial career protecting people, supporting victims and holding accountable those who have harmed others and betrayed the public trust. As a lawmaker, she has fought hard for the critical law enforcement-backed policies needed to fight crime and protect the public.”

            Critics have accused the Harris campaign of astroturfing, creating a façade of grassroots support by highlighting endorsements from groups with little influence in the law enforcement community. This comes in stark contrast to Donald Trump’s endorsement from the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s oldest and most influential law enforcement organization, which has supported Trump in the last three elections.

            FOP President Patrick Yoes emphasized the importance of public safety and border security, stating that Trump’s policies align with the values of law enforcement officers across the country.

            READ NEXT: Top MAGA Republican Burned At Campaign Event, Returns To The Trail

            With early voting now underway, we have to know: Are YOU still with us? Please submit your responses below before the Early Voting Cutoff to complete the 2024 Voter Verification Questionnaire!

            Poll: Americans Oppose US Involvement In Iran, Believe US Should Stay Out Of Other Countries’ Business

            By
            Donny Ferguson
            -
            3

            A new poll finds overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose the U.S. government’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and believe the federal government should stay out of other countries’ disputes.

            Reuters/Ipsos reports their new poll finds “most Americans support immediately ending U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. The poll also finds that Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in the Middle East unless the U.S. is directly threatened and that most Americans do not feel that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer.”

            Only 36 percent of Americans support the strikes, with 45 percent opposing.  

            A whopping 69 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of Republicans, oppose “any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened”.

            58 percent of Americans say “it is better for the nation if the U.S. stays out of the affairs of other nations”

            Republicans generally opposed U.S. strikes on Iran when Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden were president, warning it would lead to “World War 3.”  They now report supporting the policy under Republican President Donald Trump.

            Reuters summarized the findings, noting:

            * Seven in ten say they have been following the U.S. airstrikes against Iran (70%) or the war between Israel and Iran (67%) very or somewhat closely. Republicans are slightly more likely to say they are following the U.S. airstrikes very closely (39%) compared to Democrats (32%), independents (31%), and the general population (33%).

            * Four in five Americans say they are concerned with the conflict growing between the U.S. and Iran (84%) and U.S. military personnel stationed in the Middle East (79%). In comparison, similar numbers of Americans are concerned about rising inflation (81%) and growing U.S. debt (78%).

            * Republicans (69% support, 17% oppose) are significantly more likely to support the strikes compared to Democrats (13% support, 74% oppose) and independents (29% support, 48% oppose).

            * Just over one in three Americans (36%) say they agree that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer, while 60% disagree and 4% refused or skipped. This is heavily divided along partisan lines, with 12% of Democrats, 29% of independents, and 67% of Republicans agreeing with this statement.

            * Most Americans say the U.S. should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened (69%). Majorities across partisanship feel this way, with 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats agreeing with this statement. 

            “This Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted June 21-23, 2025. The poll began fielding immediately after the June 21 U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The poll closed before the June 23 Iranian strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, which has reportedly caused no fatalities,” Reuters notes.

            Trump Celebrates ‘Major WIN’ in Lawsuit Against Pulitzer Prize Board 

              By
              Madeleine Jackson
              -
              0

              He’s a winner…

              President Donald Trump took a victory lap, celebrating what he called a “major WIN” in his lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board over its 2018 award to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of the Russia probe.

              The president declared the board’s defense was “viciously rejected” by a Florida appellate court, which denied its motion to pause proceedings until Trump leaves office.

              Trump took to Truth Social to praise the decision and slam the reporting as “fake” and “malicious”:

              BREAKING! In a major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory “Award” of their once highly respected “Prize,” to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants’ corrupt attempt to halt the case. They won a Pulitzer Prize for totally incorrect reporting about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax. Now they admit it was a SCAM, never happened, and their reporting was totally wrong, in fact, the exact opposite of the TRUTH. They’ll have to give back their “Award.” They were awarded for false reporting, and we can’t let that happen in the United States of America. We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

              At the heart of the case is the board’s public defense of its Pulitzer-winning coverage. Trump sued for defamation in 2022, arguing that the board’s statements supporting the reporting – despite the Mueller probe finding no evidence of collusion – amounted to “malicious” and “false” claims.

              Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against the board’s attempt to delay the suit on constitutional grounds. Judges dismissed arguments that continuing the case would unconstitutionally interfere with a sitting president’s official duties, a line of attack the court called “misplaced.”

              “Such privileges are afforded to the President alone, not to his litigation adversaries,” the opinion reads, adding that only the person entitled to immunity may assert it, and that Trump had made no such attempt.

              The board had argued that allowing the case to proceed would violate due process, particularly since Trump himself has previously invoked presidential privilege to pause lawsuits against him.

              The decision clears the way for the case to continue, allowing Trump to maintain pressure on the Pulitzer Board.

              Dem Senator Left ‘Baffled’ By Lack of Support for Trump’s Iran Strikes and Death of ‘Evil’ Leaders

              By
              Madeleine Jackson
              -
              5
              Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

              Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is expressing disbelief at fellow Democrats who have criticized President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran, calling the action a decisive moment for regional peace and security.

              Fetterman questioned members of his own party who voiced opposition to the strikes, arguing that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon has long been a bipartisan priority.

              “Every single member of the Senate has agreed that we can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, and clearly they [Iran] were actually intending to do that. So, are you really committed to that?” Fetterman asked Monday on Hannity.

              U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes on Iranian military and government targets on Feb. 28, deploying air, sea and missile power in what officials described as a sweeping operation. The mission, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, struck more than 1,000 military, intelligence and government sites across Iran within its first 24 hours, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior regime officials were eliminated in the strikes.

              Fetterman said he was “baffled” that more people were not celebrating the death of what he described as “one of the most evil men ever” and the crippling of the Iranian regime.

              “It’s a good thing for the region, it’s a good thing for Israel, it’s good for America, and so, for me, that’s why I stand with the country over perhaps what the base may demand,” Fetterman said.

              Watch:

              He also defended the legality and strategic rationale behind the operation, pushing back on critics who questioned whether the president overstepped his authority.

              “Imagine if people just listened to the conventional wisdom, that they could have possibly have acquired a bomb if we weren’t bombed back in June. So, yes, there is a threat. It’s not imminent that it could happen right now. But it’s one that I think is entirely appropriate to deal with it,” Fetterman told CNN host Dana Bash. “And that’s why I support it. So, again, people keep— describe that it was a legal war. Now read the War Powers Act. And, now, that has not been violated at this point what happened yesterday.”

              The War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing U.S. military forces. The Trump administration notified the “Gang of Eight” — the bipartisan group of top congressional leaders and intelligence committee chairs — before the strikes but did not seek formal authorization.

              Fetterman noted that Trump had previously attempted diplomacy before resorting to military action.

              “Well, what is true is that President Trump tried to negotiate that and tried to find a firm kinds [sic] of agreements, absolutely. And they refused to those basic, basic kinds of things: remind everybody, you are never allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. And, clearly, they was [sic]. And I absolutely supported what happened last June,” Fetterman continued.

              Fetterman is one of the few Democrats who backed Operation Midnight Hammer, the June 2025 U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities ordered by President Trump. While most of the Democratic caucus condemned that action, Fetterman later voted as the lone Democratic senator against a war powers resolution seeking to curb the president’s authority following the operation.

              URGENT MISSION: 35 brave House GOP members are in JEOPARDY! Today ONLY, you can donate ANY amount and it will go DIRECTLY to fending off attacks on our 35 brightest MAGA fighters in Congress in these vulnerable districts! [Rush Donation HERE]
              123...99Page 1 of 99
              © Great America News Desk 2022