Joe Biden has officially announced his campaign for a second term in the White House.
Things are about to get interesting.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Most conservatives understand that one of the left’s major weapons in the war of ideas is manipulating language and using well-researched buzzwords and phrases to change reality and mask their more extreme ideas.
We see it every day with the constant use of ‘gun violence’ rather than shooting or murder committed by a criminal. We see it with ‘global warming’ becoming ‘climate change’ when the facts don’t support the narrative.
We also see it with the insanely deceptive and grotesque ‘gender-affirming care’ rather for genital-mutilating sex-change surgery.
And of course, we see it in spades with abortion, where supporting the unrestricted killing of unborn babies in the womb becomes ‘reproductive health care rights,’ previously known as being ‘pro-choice.’
The new term is far better politically since it appears to somehow be about rights and health, not deception and killing. Plus, ‘pro-choice’ has been thoroughly sullied by its accurate association with being ‘pro-abortion.’
And we can’t have that.
And now, since the Dobbs decision correctly returned the abortion issue to the states where it always belonged, the battle to control the language, and hence the narrative on abortion, is intensifying.
And it just got a lot worse.
The latest words and phrases chosen by the left to describe or refer to abortion fly in the face of fact and science.
But the leftist language warriors are now being reinforced by the power behind the news media – the Associated Press—and its widely used ‘Stylebook.’
The Daily Signal reports:
The Associated Press recently released a guide for news outlets for reporting on abortion that’s so biased in favor of the procedure, its guidance often runs contrary to medical science. The new guide has the ability to significantly distort how Americans perceive the abortion issue.
The AP’s “Abortion Topical Guide” is part of the widely used “AP Stylebook” that many outlets across the country, including The Daily Signal, use as a guide for everything from grammar to punctuation to best practices for terms and phrasing.
One glaring problem among many? The guide frequently cites the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to back up its guidance. ACOG claims to be the premier professional membership organization of OB-GYNs. But on the issue of abortion—a procedure that most OB-GYNs don’t perform—ACOG is wholly committed to lobbying for extreme abortion policies that don’t reflect its membership’s views.
In typical Orwellian fashion, the leftists at AP cudgel writers into referring to an unborn child’s “heartbeat,” which is detectable via ultrasound from the very early stages of life to the deliberately bland and mostly meaningless term “cardiac activity.”
The Stylebook also inappropriately enters the scientific realm as self-made medical experts when it advises writers not to refer to unborn children as “pain-capable” until after at least 24 weeks.
This, even though the beloved doctors who actually perform surgeries on ‘preemies,’ or premature babies in utero, regularly use anesthesia for those babies under 24 weeks because they feel pain.
The AP’s demonic advice also contradicts the massive, and growing, body of research showing unborn babies can feel pain at just 15 weeks or even earlier.
And most importantly, the Stylebook admonishes writers to never, ever use the accurate but uncomfortable phrase – ‘late-term abortion.’
Polls show a solid majority of Americans are opposed to late-term abortions, so best to religiously (pun intended) avoid the term.
The Daily Signal concludes:
The AP guide misses the mark throughout. Of course, that’s inevitable when the goal is not objective reporting of fact but rather promoting pro-abortion propaganda. Try as the AP might, it’s a fool’s errand to put lipstick on a pig.
I go further by saying AP is part of the left’s far-flung language-distorting media empire intended to manipulate words, in order to manipulate news, in order to manipulate you.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Welcome to the 2024 version of the liberals’ “Russia collusion” hoax. But now they hysterically claim that Donald Trump will abandon the Constitution, destroy democracy and become a dictator.
You know, just like the last time he was president.
This latest Trump demonization is an effort to scare left-wing voters unenthusiastic about reelecting Joe Biden next year.
Democrats believe that Biden stands a better chance against Trump in 2024 if the campaign is a battle for the future of democracy rather than a referendum on Biden’s record.
And this idiotic fear campaign is now in full gear, The New York Times and The Washington Post recently published articles previewing a future Trump dictatorship. The Atlantic will devote its January/February issue to articles predicting Trump’s harmful impact on civil rights, the Justice Department, immigration and more if elected again.
Sadly, these accusations are potentially more dangerous than the fake Russia collusion claims.
Sen. J.D. Vance, an Ohio Republican, said on social media that Trump opponents “need to take a chill pill.” He added: “All of these articles calling Trump a dictator, are about one thing: legitimizing illegal and violent conduct as we get closer to the election.”
Meanwhile, let’s ignore for a moment that Biden has done far more than any recent president to shred the Constitution, cancel student loan debt without Congress, target opponents with a weaponized federal government, censor dissident speech in collusion with Big Tech, not to mention persecute his chief political rival and ex-president by criminalizing politics with lawfare.
Trump makes that case often on the campaign trail, notes the Washington Times:
“He’s been weaponizing government against his political opponents like a Third World political tyrant,” Mr. Trump said of the president at a campaign event last weekend in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Biden and his radical left allies like to pose as standing up as allies of democracy. Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy. Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy. It’s him and his people. They’re the wreckers of the American dream. The American dream is dead with them in office.”
Well, it’s hard to top all that undemocratic things Biden has done, but if Trump tries, it will be a reaction to the left’s long-standing control over and abuse of the deep state.
And I as I wrote on November 23, ‘Trump’s Much-Needed ‘Radical’ Second Term Agenda’ will be a very welcome corrective to the decades of leftist penetration and subversion of our institutions.
Even then, Trump can only achieve so much.
As The Washington Times reported:
Republican Party strategist John Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy in Washington, said Democrats and media outlets are raising fears of a Trump dictatorship because “they think he is going to win and they are completely panicked.”
“I don’t know how somebody who doesn’t have functional control over the military or the intelligence community could possibly be a dictator,” he said. “[Democrats] don’t have deep faith in our constitutional framework, so they are projecting that lack of faith into Trump. I think it is ridiculous.”
But sometimes Trump, or his associates, don’t help.
Kash Patel, a top deputy in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Trump, said this week that he and other Trump allies would seek payback against “deep state” actors and media members in a second Trump term.
The Washington Times noted:
“The one thing we learned in the Trump administration, the first go-round, is we’ve got to put in [government] all American patriots, top to bottom,” Mr. Patel told podcast host Steve Bannon. “And we’ve got them for law enforcement. We got them for intel collection, we got them for offensive operations. We got them for DOD, CIA, everywhere. We will follow the facts and the law and go to courts of law and correct these justices and lawyers who have been prosecuting these cases based on politics. … We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media.
“Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. This is why they hate us. This is why we’re tyrannical. This is why we’re dictators.”
However, when asked during a televised town hall whether he plans to become a dictator, Trump laughed.
“No, no, no – other than Day One,” he said. “We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Question – What’s worse than regular people being indoctrinated to be woke leftists? Answer – a global woke leftist Artificial Intelligence (AI) helping them.
And apparently, and not unsurprisingly, that’s what Joe Biden and his team want. And they are working hard to achieve this nefarious goal.
And it is terrifying.
The American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a government watchdog group, recently warned that Team Biden is actively using the federal government’s vast power to regulate AI to promote a “woke” ideology in the basic architecture of the revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.
That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action racism under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and radical transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’ Please note ‘equity’ is the opposite of equality. It means forcing equal results not providing equal opportunities.
It is essentially un-American – simply a new way to say socialism.
But Orwellian doublespeak is the way the left sugarcoats and soft peddles its poison.
After researching Team Biden’s plans for artificial intelligence, AAF concluded that Biden administration officials are planning to feed emerging AI platforms with “dangerous ideologies.”
Add that to the growing list of the dangers of AI.
AAF just released part one of a multi-part “investigation into WOKE AI.”
“They have plans to rig AI in the name of fighting ‘algorithmic discrimination,’ ‘harmful bias,’ and ‘data that fails to account for existing systemic biases in American society,’” the group tweeted on June 25.
Fox News reported:
“Under the guise of fighting ‘algorithmic discrimination’ and ‘harmful bias,’ the Biden administration is trying to rig AI to follow the woke left’s rules,” AAF president Tom Jones told Fox News Digital.
“Biden is being advised on technology policy, not by scientists, but by racially obsessed social academics and activists. We’re already seen the biggest tech firms in the world, like Google under Eric Schmidt, use their power to push the left’s agenda. This would take the tech/woke alliance to a whole new, truly terrifying level.”
Arati Prabhakar, director of Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, seen in the twitter thread above, recently touted Biden’s signing of an executive order that, in her words, “promotes data equity,” directs agencies to fight “algorithmic discrimination” and ensures these agencies use AI to advance “equity…”
Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden named “AI czar” is supposedly in charge of the National Science and Technology Council which oversees all science and technology efforts across the federal government.
As part of that effort, the White House’s Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence released the National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan, which calls for additional resources to fight “harmful biases.”
Fox reported that the AAF memo showed another example of how Team Biden is weaponizing AI.
The “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy last October talks of “algorithmic discrimination” in which AI systems treat people differently based on their race, sex or other characteristics and calls for data “used as part of system development or assessment” to be “reviewed for bias based on the historical and societal context of the data.”
To address such concerns, the blueprint recommends, among other steps, that “proactive equity assessments as part of the system design.”
But AAF isn’t the only one sounding the alarm about Biden’s woke AI, Tesla CEO and Twitter owner Elon Musk also warned about the danger of “woke” artificial intelligence being weaponized to push political agendas through false information.
Last December, he tweeted: “The danger of training AI to be woke — in other words, lie — is deadly.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Most conservatives and even some liberal free speech advocates applauded Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, a Big Tech hotbed of leftist narratives and anti-conservative censorship.
Many leftists, outraged that they could no longer simply cancel opposing conservative views, squealed and threatened to leave Twitter.
Of course, they made their threats on Twitter, then waited on Twitter to see the reactions on Twitter.
However, since his tumultuous takeover, Musk has worried some supporters by apparently quickly engaging in the same capricious censorship he so strongly decried.
Going after critics, including the college kid who tracks his plane using publicly available open-source information.
Most recently Musk put his Twitter CEO-ship on the line by asking Twitter users to vote online about whether he should remain ‘Chief Twit.’
Not surprisingly, considering residual leftism left at Twitter, Musk lost that poll and may soon step down and appoint someone else to run the Twitter show.
Still, despite the turmoil and concerns brought on by Musk’s Twitter takeover, many see this dramatic move as an even more dramatic shift in the media ecosphere.
A momentous move to the right and against the dominant liberal media megaphone.
Axios writes: “Elon Musk and allies are building a new anti-left media ecosystem almost overnight.”
It continues:
Why it matters: It’s as if the New York Times editorial page suddenly flipped to the right.
With the reins in Musk’s hands, the right is gaining power in online spaces the left once dominated, Axios’ Erica Pandey reports.
Axios adds: “Look who’s driving the news on Twitter…”
And notes:
Anti-mainstream-media journalists — like Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi — are driving the narrative, getting the clicks and earning new followers on Musk’s Twitter. They’re thriving in an environment where alternative, anti-left and anti-establishment media has taken center stage.
To the folks at Axios, “Musk’s moves at Twitter are part of a larger — growing — anti-left, alternative media ecosystem.”
To buttress their case, they point to Joe Rogan’s populist podcast, which has a heavily conservative fan base and was the most listened-to show of the second half of 2022, according to Edison Research.
Not to be outdone, Axios notes, Ben Shapiro’s more intellectual conservative podcast is now No. 7 — and rising.
As a conservative, I can only hope this is the beginning of a major shift from the leftist-dominated media landscape to a far more balanced one where conservative points of view are given the respect they deserve.
Let’s see where this all leads as we head into the 2024 election.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Election results are still pouring in on Wednesday as Americans wait with anticipation to see which party will gain control of Congress.
Watch Amanda break down the situation below:
ANALYSIS – FBI Director Christopher Wray has steadfastly refused to provide the House Oversight and Accountability Committee an internal Bureau document that alleges Joe Biden took a $5 million bribe from Chinese sources.
The committee issued a subpoena for it a while ago. Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has said he learned about the allegations from a whistleblower whom he declined to identify but has described as “very credible.”
With the committee’s deadline passing yesterday, Comer has said he will seek to hold Wray in contempt of Congress, rejecting Wray’s offer to allow lawmakers to view the FD-1023 form in a secure location instead of handing over the document.
A contempt vote would be the most significant confrontation between House Republicans and federal law enforcement since the GOP took control of Congress in January.
Wray insists that the FD-1023 form contains unverified claims from a single confidential human source (CHS), and that turning it over is irresponsible. Sources need to know their identities will be protected.
And allegations shouldn’t be publicized without being corroborated.
Wray is right.
In the past, neither party would push much on an issue like this because they understood that need. But they also trusted the Bureau to be nonpartisan.
As the National Review notes:
…the mere fact that a CHS may have alleged that Biden took part in a bribery scheme doesn’t mean it happened. It can’t be dismissed out of hand — there’s too much indication of Biden’s sleazy self-dealing and outright lying for that. But people in positions of authority get falsely accused of wrongdoing all the time. The FBI rightly keeps such allegations under wraps because those people are presumed innocent and the bureau can’t investigate without being discrete. Congress has traditionally given the FBI a wide berth because lawmakers know secrecy is a necessity for competent investigations — and it has assumed that the FBI is competent and non-partisan.
Unfortunately, those days are gone, and the FBI director can’t decide what part of a Congressional subpoena to honor or reject. Wray has no legal basis to keep it hidden.
And due to the recent history of partisanship and politicization at the Bureau, most egregiously the Trump-Russiagate hoax, this is only part of a much bigger problem.
The Bureau can no longer be trusted to be fair and apolitical. As the National Review explains:
[The FBI] is a contented cog of the progressive administrative state. In the Obama years, it was put in the service of the Democratic Party. It marched to President Obama’s beat, whitewashed and abetted Hillary Clinton’s malevolence, undertook to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency, spent years covering its tracks, and insulated his 2020 opponent from scrutiny. It has spent the Biden years helping Democrats craft a political narrative of a nation besieged by white-supremacist domestic terrorism — all the while slow-walking the investigation of the Biden family’s influence-peddling business.
National Review continues:
[FBI] abuses have proceeded under Wray’s stewardship — the FBI’s (a) illegal surveillance under FISA; (b) general participation in the suppression of political speech on social media; (c) specific complicity in the Democrats’ and the intelligence community’s suppression of the Biden influence-peddling scandal; (d) collaboration in the Democrats’ crafting of a political narrative that the country is overrun by white-supremacist domestic terrorists; and (e) retaliation against whistleblower agents who’ve reported to Congress about some of these issues (at least according to three of those agents, who testified under oath at a recent House hearing).
So, while normally, I would be understanding of the director’s arguments and attempts to limit dissemination of a form that could expose investigative sources and methods, in this case, the FBI simply can’t be trusted.
It needs to turn over the document to the committee, with minimal redactions, or Wray should be held in contempt. This is about a much bigger problem.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Even woke Hollywood can’t stand Meghan Markle…
The former princess’ podcast finally got the axe…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
It’s about time…
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
The Legal Hit Squad Targeting Trump Lawyers
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.