Happy Tuesday! Here’s your Tuesday Tech Drop, the past week’s top stories from the intersection of technology and politics.

Dems want damning surveillance report

A pair of Democratic senators are accusing President Donald Trump’s administration of hiding a report that “details serious abuses of Americans’ rights under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are trying to pry loose a report they say the administration is legally required to make public after a FISA court opinion detailed abuses of the program in March.

Since retaking office, Trump has expanded the federal government’s arsenal of creepy surveillance tools en route to building what appears to be an unprecedented spy machine that can track Americans. It’s in that context that Democrats — with some GOP help — tanked a vote in June that would have extended the controversial FISA powers that give the government broad latitude to sweep up data, including information belonging to Americans.

In a letter to Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and Attorney General Todd Blanche, the two Senate Democrats said the damning FISA report from on alleged surveillance abuses should have been released already — and demanded that it be released now so lawmakers can consider whether to extend FISA powers next year.

They wrote:

The administration has now had over seven months to declassify and release this opinion. It is time to stop violating the law and finally release this opinion. And if this administration won’t follow this simple statutory directive, it is unclear why Congress or the American people should trust this administration to follow any of the other legal limits to Section 702.

Read more at Gizmodo.

AI bots’ banking break-ins

Artificial intelligence bots are increasingly gaining unauthorized access to people’s bank accounts, according to new reporting from Axios. The report homes in on concerns among bank officials about security in the age of AI.

Read more at Axios.

Massive Meta judgment

A judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after the company lost a lawsuit alleging that the company broke New Mexico’s consumer protection laws and jeopardized its users after the Cambridge Analytica scandal nearly a decade ago. Meta has vowed to appeal the ruling.

Read more at MS NOW.

Republican outcry over Colom ad

After Mississippi’s Republican attorney general issued legal threats last week, the state’s Democratic Senate nominee, Scott Colom, deleted an ad using AI tools to mock his Republican opponent, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith. I wrote about how it seems like Republicans are fretting over this race in a deep-red state.

Read more at MS NOW.

Pro-ICE activist reportedly faces deportation

Samuel Sey, a popular right-wing influencer known for supporting Trump’s racist anti-immigrant crackdown, reportedly has been detained by immigration officials and is now facing deportation after allegedly overstaying a temporary visa.

Read more at The Roys Report.

What AI guidelines?

The good news is the Pentagon apparently has some guidelines around the development of AI tools to avoid the risk of escalating wars or harming civilians and troops. The bad news? Defense officials aren’t always adhering to these rules, according to a congressional report.

Read more at NPR.

Anthropic bots get alarming access

Anthropic says its AI tool accessed Georgia voting data typically only available to people who pay for it. The company and Georgia’s secretary of state said no individual voter records were accessed, but the intrusion marks yet another disturbing security breach involving AI. A new report explains why “the company’s statements about what its bot accessed raise more questions.”

Read more at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Alpha School shortcomings

An investigation from The New York Times suggests that Alpha School, the network of AI-fueled private schools that have been backed by the Trump administration and vow to offer a superior learning experience, is failing to live up to its promises.

Read more at The New York Times.

MAGA influencer meddling fails

Several MAGA influencers have recently been in Brazil and Serbia, hoping to sway elections in both countries — but the pro-authoritarian candidates they supported flamed out over the weekend. Now, especially when it comes to Brazil, Trump and a bunch of extremely online conservatives are pushing lies about the election being rigged, as my colleague Brandy Zydrozny explained.

Read more at MS NOW.

The post Senate Democrats warn that the Trump administration is hiding a damning surveillance report appeared first on MS NOW.

If reporters can only maintain their access to the White House by staying in Donald Trump’s good graces, they will not be free to do their most vital work, and the public will be deprived of information that is essential to its democratic role as a check on corruption and despotism.

That’s why I’m suing him.

If Trump has his way, the press pool will eventually consist solely of enablers and courtiers, of whom there are already too many. They will not raise the pressing issues that the American people need Trump to address. We will not see how he reacts to tough questions — whether he answers them at all, gets angry, lies, attacks, changes the subject or gets flustered.

And the threat of being targeted in the future is already distorting the reporting of news organizations. According to an ABC News lawyer, the network’s news division has been tempering its election coverage ahead of the midterms, for fear of retribution.

Trump most recently punished MS NOW, CNN and Politico by banning them from the White House. They sued, and a federal judge tentatively restored their access. But Trump is appealing. He is making a preposterous argument citing national security. The White House has continued to exclude CNN and Politico from pool duty on Air Force One. The Independent’s correspondent, Andrew Feinberg, was kicked off Air Force One on Thursday after he somehow infuriated the president the day before. And as Trump said last month, “There may be others to follow.”

These actions amount to an unconstitutional attack on the public’s right to trustworthy and undistorted reporting about the president and his policies.

Play

NYT: Trump floats replacing White House press briefing room with indoor swimming pool October 21, 2026 / 02:12

For this reason, I am one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed on Monday by the champions of the free press at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. My fellow plaintiffs include Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch; Yale history professor Beverly Gage; and Benjamin Wittes, the editor-in-chief of Lawfare.

We all rely on newsgathering and reporting from members of the White House press corps. Our right to that information would be abridged if the only reporters left there were either toadies or too scared of losing access to ask tough questions and speak the truth.

Indeed, because of the chilling effect created by Trump’s threats, my rights (and yours) to trusted information from independent news organizations are already being violated.

And that is no small thing. The founders put freedom of the press in the First Amendment to guarantee an independent and uncensored press that could fully inform the public and hold the government accountable.

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787. “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

When the Supreme Court rejected the Nixon administration’s efforts to block newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors … Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

Play

‘Call the president’s bluff!’: Symone urges resistance against ‘crazy bullies’ in the Trump admin October 14, 2026 / 07:10

For over a century, every president has recognized the obligation to provide spaces nearby where the press can engage in First Amendment-protected newsgathering.

Both the practical and the constitutional necessities were obvious. Particularly in times of crisis, the pool’s presence as independent witnesses in the White House and on Air Force One — attesting to the president’s health and safety, for instance — is essential so the American people don’t just have to take the government’s word for it.

The lawsuit from the currently targeted news organizations is a good first step toward restoring the status quo. But the only way to truly protect our right to independent reporting is for the courts to deliver a ruling that prevents Trump or any other president from ever doing this again, to anyone.

As a press critic who believes that the most essential job of a political reporter is to hold the powerful accountable, I have criticized the White House press corps over the years — but only in practice, not in principle. Its members are the only outsiders whom Trump is required to admit into his bubble of sycophancy. They alone can ask him difficult questions, get him to respond to facts he would rather not acknowledge, and confront him with his lies. They alone can demand answers. And they do that on behalf of the American people, who have no such opportunity.

Trump’s new de facto policy — which he himself described as a “ban on the free press” — cannot be allowed to stand.

The post The president admits he’s censoring the free press. That’s why I’m suing him. appeared first on MS NOW.

Brazilian Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro fled Brazil for the United States on Tuesday, two days after losing the country's presidential runoff to leftist incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

The U.S. Department of State will issue visas to Bolsonaro and his family and allow them to enter the U.S., a senior State Department official confirmed to Fox News Digital.

An ally of the far-right conservative senator confirmed his departure from the South American country to Reuters on Tuesday.

Bolsonaro's flight was reportedly headed to Florida, according to Brazilian outlet Metropoles, citing people close to his family.

BRAZIL’S RAPID ELECTION COUNT PUTS SPOTLIGHT ON VOTING SECURITY AHEAD OF US MIDTERMS

The 45-year-old lawmaker had been out of public view since Tuesday morning, the outlet reported.

His departure came as a deadline for him to surrender his regular and diplomatic passports expired at noon Tuesday. 

Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo reported Bolsonaro was under investigation for alleged money laundering and other crimes. 

It remained unclear whether Bolsonaro had complied with the order, The Associated Press reported.

BRAZIL BECOMES NEXT TEST FOR LATIN AMERICA’S SURGING CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

Bolsonaro was served with the order Monday, a day after Lula defeated him in Sunday's presidential runoff for an unprecedented fourth term.

With 100% of the vote counted, Lula won 51.8% of the vote, defeating Bolsonaro by nearly 4.4 million votes.

He has refused to concede the election and has called for the election results to be annulled, alleging fraud, according to The Associated Press.

Lula addressed supporters after winning re-election, expressing gratitude to the Brazilian people.

CONSERVATIVE WAVE HITS ROADBLOCK IN BRAZIL AS LULA HOLDS OFF BOLSONARO CHALLENGE

"No one is required to like the president-elect, but he must govern for everyone," Lula said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Referring to his opponent, Lula said, "This was a defeat for denialism and lies."

Fox News Digital's David Unsworth and Michael Sinkewicz, as well as Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As is true of the first two criminal cases the Trump Justice Department brought against James Comey in Virginia and North Carolina, the third set of charges, made public this week in Washington, D.C., presents multiple legal issues.

A potentially fatal threshold issue is that federal prosecutors may have blown a key deadline — indeed, the key deadline, one that could kill the latest case against the former FBI director before it even gets going.

The Washington charges, stemming from allegations of unlawfully sharing sensitive government information with a journalist, have a 10-year statute of limitations. That means prosecutors must bring them within a decade of the alleged offense.

The DOJ apparently brought the case just in time to make the 10-year window for alleged criminal conduct from 2016. But regardless of the allegations’ validity on their merits (which a jury could decide down the road, if it gets that far), a more pressing issue is the type of legal instrument that prosecutors used to bring these charges. They used an information, which doesn’t require grand jury approval, as opposed to an indictment, which does. The reason that’s a possibly fatal problem is that the law for these charges says they must be brought within 10 years by “indictment,” without mentioning “information” as an option.

Comey’s lawyers made that point in a pending motion to dismiss. They noted that Congress has referenced both informations and indictments in other laws; therefore, the defense argued, lawmakers know how to specify the difference but chose to require an indictment here. The defense asked the judge to “enforce the text that Congress wrote and dismiss the information as time barred.”

Opposing the dismissal motion, the DOJ argued that it’s both premature and that the difference between informations and indictments isn’t as big a deal here as Comey claims. Prosecutors cited the general five-year statute of limitations law, which references both indictments and informations; from that, they argued that the 10-year law for Comey’s charges, which mentions indictments but not informations, is really only about extending the limitations period, not about the form those charges must take.

The bottom line is that if Comey is correct, then the DOJ’s failure to obtain an indictment within the 10-year period is not a mere technical foot fault — it’s the end of the case before it begins. This latest case, therefore, starts with a crucial court battle over whether it’s a case at all.

It’s a battle that the DOJ could have avoided by securing an indictment. We don’t know why it didn’t do so. We do know, generally, that it has had trouble securing approval of charges from citizens called to grand jury service in President Donald Trump’s second term in some of the administration’s most political cases in the nation’s capital.

At any rate, this felony case won’t proceed toward trial without prosecutors first securing an indictment. That grand jury process is required unless a defendant waives their right to it, which we have no reason to expect here. So even if prosecutors win this threshold battle and succeed in stopping the clock with their placeholder information, they still need to clear that grand jury hurdle.

If they do so, then that would only put prosecutors in a position to face the more standard pretrial motions to dismiss before the case can make it to trial. I say “more” standard because a notable feature of litigation in Trump’s second term has been defendants raising claims that they have been vindictively or selectively prosecuted by this revenge-fueled administration.

As with grand jury refusals to approve indictments, even potentially successful motions along those lines had been rare. Yet they have been raised in a series of high-profile cases in Trump’s second term, including in Comey’s other cases. If this latest one proceeds, then we should expect him to make such a motion here, too. We should also expect it to be taken seriously in this third attempt to prosecute the Trump target with criminal charges that were lodged on the eve of a 10-year deadline — charges which, Comey’s lawyers observed in their pending motion to dismiss, previous prosecutors refused to bring.

And that’s before even getting to a potential trial, where the government would have the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the factual background section of the DOJ’s pending opposition motion, it said the government “uncovered evidence” that, when Comey was FBI director during Trump’s first term (before Trump fired him in 2017), he told his staff to share information with a New York Times reporter to “correct misinformation” from another outlet’s reporting about email surveillance.

Like all defendants, Comey is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

His Virginia charges, which related to his congressional testimony in 2020, were dismissed pretrial last year, because a judge found the Trump-backed lawyer overseeing the case, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. The DOJ is appealing.

Meanwhile, the judge in North Carolina is considering Comey’s pretrial motions to dismiss that case, which stems from his posting a photo of seashells on Instagram that the government argued amounted to a criminal threat against the president.

The post How the Trump DOJ can lose the new Comey case before it even starts appeared first on MS NOW.

According to Donald Trump’s version of events, ahead of his Saturday night campaign rally in Georgia, his own team encouraged him not to celebrate higher gas prices. The president ignored the good advice.

In fact, Trump spent quite a bit of time at the event bragging that oil and gas companies are “making a fortune” as a result of higher gas prices, so consumers struggling to pay their bills should be glad they’re paying more at the pump.

As for members of his team who encouraged him not to make such comments, the president added, “I said, ‘I don’t give a damn. I’m going to say it.’”

In the same set of remarks, however, Trump also added a related thought that didn’t generate nearly as much attention: “You know, you’re still paying lower than [you were under] Biden.”

When all else fails, this is the card Republicans play when the public discussion turns to gas prices. It’s a talking point rooted in the idea that consumers might be frustrated now, but they should remember that conditions were even worse when Trump’s Democratic predecessor was in the White House.

Except that’s also not true. Reuters reported:

Americans have paid more for their gasoline and diesel at the pump on average during President Donald Trump’s second term than they did under his Democratic predecessor, Joe ​Biden, according to the AAA. […]

The price of a gallon of regular gasoline has averaged $3.472 since Trump took office almost two years ago, edging out the $3.471-per-gallon average for Biden’s term, according to data from the AAA.

In general, gas prices were unremarkable across much of Biden’s term, but after Trump’s friends in Moscow decided to launch an unprovoked war in neighboring Ukraine — a move Trump described at the time as “genius” — prices spiked. When Republicans talk about Biden-era gas prices, they’re hoping Americans forget why, exactly, costs climbed during the Democrat’s term.

Nevertheless, when we look at the broader average, which includes the Russia-imposed spike, the AAA data shows consumers were paying roughly $3.47 a gallon during the Democrat’s presidency — which is less, not more, than the average during Trump’s second term.

What’s more, a Bloomberg News report added that Americans have never paid as much as they’re paying now so late in the year, as opposed to the summer driving season.

Is it any wonder why Trump is peddling unpersuasive nonsense? On one of the key issues of the day, the Republican is confronting a reality that is proving unspinnable.

The post New data shows why Trump should stop talking about Biden-era gas prices appeared first on MS NOW.

As the White House’s anti-fraud task force struggled with its principal task, Team Trump last week turned to a new idea: crowdsourcing. Under the Republican administration’s latest gambit, Americans who uncover and report cases of fraud will be eligible for cash rewards.

Donald Trump specifically said at an Oval Office announcement that “people will make millions of dollars by turning others in.”

That’s an extraordinarily unlikely scenario, although the fact that the president was turning to regular people to help uncover evidence seems effectively like an admission that the task force has fallen short of success. Oddly enough, a week later, Trump, frustrated that his own team hasn’t found evidence of systemic voter fraud either, rolled out another crowdsourcing plan.

On Monday afternoon, he published an item to his social media platform that read in its entirety, “Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

During a brief Q&A with reporters, the president stopped whining about Barack Obama’s Cheesecake Factory joke long enough to reiterate his support for the idea.

“I’m also going to be issuing $1 million bonus or reward, or whatever you want to call it, for anybody that reports voter fraud, leading to the arrest and conviction of somebody,” Trump said. “We’re giving that person $1 million.”

Some skepticism is in order. It’s not at all clear whether this new initiative exists in reality. The New York Times reported, “The White House did not immediately respond to questions about where the money would come from for the ostensible rewards or how Americans are supposed to report fraud accusations.”

I guess it’s possible that Trump might agree to cut checks with his own money (he made at least $2.2 billion last year, so he could afford it), but the president isn’t known for easily parting with cash. That means he’d have to get the money from somewhere else, and to date, Congress hasn’t appropriated any such funds. He would also have to create some kind of mechanism for reporting allegations of fraud, which does not currently exist.

The project struck me as interesting, though, because of the motivation behind the apparent scheme. As a factual matter, voter fraud in American elections is exceedingly rare; and the U.S. system is both strong and secure, even if Trump and other Republican conspiracy theorists have spent many years desperately trying to convince the public there is a national scourge tearing at the very fabric of our democracy.

The offer of $1 million payouts is notable, in other words, because it’s the latest in a series of moves intended to undermine public confidence in elections by pointing to an imaginary crisis.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an election law expert, told The Washington Sun that the White House’s latest move is “part of a larger project on the part of Donald Trump to generate distrust of the election system by touting election fraud as some kind of problem.”

If recent history is any guide, these efforts are likely to get worse in the coming days and weeks.

The post As his team struggles to find voter fraud evidence, Trump turns to crowdsourcing (again) appeared first on MS NOW.

Polls Favor Democrats as the MAGA leader Ramps Up Campaigning to Help Republicans Retain Control of Congress.

U.S. citizens will head to the polls in one week for midterm elections that are shaping up as a referendum on President Donald Trump’s performance and will determine whether Republicans retain control of both chambers of Congress during the second half of his term.

RELATED:

Trump Backs Netanyahu’s Reelection for Tuesday Elections

Polls for the Nov. 3 elections point to a favorable outlook for the Democratic opposition, prompting Trump to throw himself into the campaign, with nearly daily rallies this week in key states.

According to an analysis by Decision Desk, based on polling averages, Democrats have a 79% chance of winning the House of Representatives, up 2 percentage points from last week, and a 57% chance of regaining control of the Senate, up 1 point from a week ago.

Republicans Set to Lose the House of Representatives

The House will see all 435 seats up for election for two-year terms. Republicans currently hold a narrow majority of 219 seats to the Democrats’ 214, meaning the opposition needs a net gain of three seats to take control.

According to RealClearPolitics’ polling average, Democrats hold a clear lead in House voting intentions, with 51.1% support compared with 42.8% for Republicans.

Over the past week, Cook Political Report has revised its forecasts in 19 districts in favor of Democrats, many of them in traditionally Republican states. The opposition is virtually assured of winning 220 seats, above the magic number of 218 needed for a majority.

Republicans face particular difficulties in Midwestern states that voted for Trump in 2024 but where dissatisfaction with his economic management, high gasoline prices and the U.S. war on Iran has grown.

It is common for the president’s party to lose control of the House in so-called midterm elections. This happened to Trump during his first administration, when Democrats took advantage of their gains to launch impeachment proceedings against him.

Senate Race Is More Closely Contested

On Nov. 3, 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats will also be up for election. Republicans currently hold a majority of 53 seats to the Democratic caucus’ 47.

The opposition faces a somewhat more difficult path: It needs to wrest four seats from Republicans while holding on to its own to secure a majority in the upper chamber, which has among its responsibilities confirming Supreme Court justices.

According to polls, the race is close in seven states: Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Texas. All the seats being contested in those states are currently held by Republicans, except for Michigan’s, which is held by a Democrat.

One of the races attracting the most attention is in Texas, long considered a Republican stronghold, where Democrat James Talarico now leads Ken Paxton, a Trump ally, by 1.8 percentage points, according to RealClearPolitics.

In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, from the Democratic Party’s more progressive wing, leads Republican Mike Rogers by 2.5 points. In Maine, Democrat Troy Jackson leads incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins by 1.2 points.

Gubernatorial Elections

In addition, 36 states will elect governors, with Democrats starting as favorites in 20 of them and potentially winning a majority of the country’s governorships for the first time since 2010.

Expected Democratic victories include those of Xavier Becerra in California and Kathy Hochul in New York, while Republicans Greg Abbott and Byron Donalds lead in Texas and Florida, respectively.

The race is much tighter in three states: Georgia and Nevada, currently governed by Republicans, and Wisconsin, governed by a Democrat.

In Alaska, Cook Political Report identifies Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins as the favorite. His victory would mark his party’s first gubernatorial election win in the state since 1994.

Trump’s Popularity at Record Lows

Against this backdrop, Trump is entering the final stretch of the campaign, which will take him to Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Kansas and Iowa in a last-ditch effort to mobilize his MAGA movement base.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll released Monday puts Trump’s approval rating at 32%, a slight rebound from the record low of 31% recorded last week.

teleSUR/ JF

Source: EFE

Last week, on the heels of Trump administration officials going after Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Barack Obama issued a statement condemning the obvious and politicized abuse, explaining, “It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say.”

As part of the same statement, the former Democratic president added, “And it’s not the first time this has happened. Under President Trump, the Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he considers his political enemies — from the Attorney General of New York, to the former head of the FBI, to members of the Federal Reserve.”

The reference to the former FBI director made a lot of sense in light of the Republican administration’s crusade against James Comey, although Obama could not have known what would happen eight days later. MS NOW reported:

Former FBI Director James Comey is facing new federal criminal charges in Washington, D.C., accusing him of unlawfully transmitting sensitive national defense information and conspiring to disclose it to a reporter, according to court documents unsealed Monday.

Prosecutors filed the two-count criminal information under seal on Oct. 5, alleging Comey improperly disclosed national defense information while serving as FBI director in 2016. The charges include unlawfully transmitting national defense information to an unauthorized person and conspiracy to commit that offense.

According to the filing, Comey was responsible for some kind of sensitive leak on Oct. 5, 2016. The crime carries a 10-year statute of limitations, which made it all the more notable that Trump’s Justice Department brought the new charges on the last possible day.

In a statement, the former FBI director said the developments “would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to.” Comey added, “Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent, and I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”

It might seem like ancient history, but nearly a decade ago, Trump saw Comey as a political ally. In fact, in January 2017, just two days into his first term, the president appeared to literally blow a kiss at the then-FBI director at a White House event, thanks in part to Comey’s role in undermining Hillary Clinton’s 2016 candidacy.

The affection did not endure. Days later, Trump told Comey he expected “loyalty,” and after Comey did his job instead, the president fired him in the hopes of derailing the FBI’s investigation into the Russia scandal.

When Comey, a lifelong Republican, went public with his concerns and criticisms about Trump, the president came to see the ousted FBI chief as one of his chief enemies, and in April 2018, he started demanding that Comey be prosecuted for crimes that Trump struggled to identify.

It’s taken several years, but the president is seeing the results he’s long sought.

When Trump’s DOJ first charged Comey last year, it was a devastating moment for American law enforcement. MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian reported that within the DOJ, many insiders believed it was “among the worst abuses” in the history of the institution. Describing the circumstances as “shocking,” Dilanian added, “It’s hard to overstate how a big a moment this is.”

Indeed, among the most striking things about the Comey case was that it had barely a pretense of propriety. A failing, desperate and unpopular president wanted a critic to be charged, without regard for merit; he publicly demanded the indictment; and he found officials who were willing to feed his appetite for revenge. It was a tragic lesson that Americans now live in a country where the president’s political opponents are prosecuted at his command.

Alan Rozenshtein, a former DOJ official who now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School, told The New York Times, “What we are seeing is the almost wholesale collapse of the Justice Department as an organization based on the rule of law.”

The case ultimately collapsed, but not before a federal judge blasted prosecutors for what he described as an “indict first, investigate later” attitude. Around the same time, a bipartisan group of former federal prosecutors and judges wrote in a court filing that the case was an “assault” on the justice system.

In theory, Trump’s DOJ should have been chastened by the condemnations and by the case’s failure. In practice, the shamelessly weaponized department decided to give it another try, charging Comey again in April, alleging he used Instagram to call for violence against Trump by way of a purported seashell-related code.

Legal experts were reportedly “shell-shocked” over the preposterous nature of the case, and with good reason: No fair-minded observer could defend or take seriously such spurious charges.

Nevertheless, there’s now another case.

Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the cases, though there’s no reason to assume that a conviction is Trump’s intended end point. On the contrary, in the broader context, the new indictment checks a different set of boxes for the Republican president.

First, Trump appears eager to make it clear he can orchestrate federal prosecutions based entirely on his whim and petty desires, without regard for merit or evidence. There is, for all intents and purposes, a White House enemies list, and the president seems eager to intimidate and instill fear in those whose names appear on it.

Second, Trump is sending an unsubtle signal to other federal prosecutors who might be inclined to prioritize the rule of law over the White House’s wishes. Indeed, when it comes to the pursuit of the former FBI director, the prosecutors who chose not to bring charges against Comey were replaced with those who would follow political instructions. As a second set of charges moves forward, the message to other prosecutors couldn’t be clearer: Play along with the revenge campaign or face unemployment.

And third, the Comey prosecution allows the president to demonstrate he can force his perceived enemies to endure legal, personal and financial hardships as a direct consequence of their defiance of him, even if the indictments are a joke and the defendants are ultimately acquitted.

Trying to convict the former FBI director is largely irrelevant. The corruption is the point.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post The DOJ’s cases against Comey will likely fail. For Trump, a conviction may not be the point. appeared first on MS NOW.

Remember Katie Zacharia? She served as Donald Trump’s White House press secretary for about five days before her embarrassing tenure ended abruptly nearly two weeks ago.

Zacharia has said very little in public since losing a job the president never should have given her, but this week, she spoke to the California Post about her extraordinarily unusual experience, pointing to, among other things, her lack of preparation. From the article:

Defending her rocky press room performance, Zacharia claimed she was given “only a few hours of actual briefing material” on the morning of her first press conference. She said former press secretaries, including Kayleigh McEnany, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Ari Fleischer, and Sean Spicer, reached out to express sympathy over what she called an inadequate “runway” to prepare.

In some ways, this helps capture what made the Zacharia story so notable in the first place.

To be sure, it was (and is) notable that the president chose an unqualified and conspiratorial commentator to serve as his chief spokesperson. But just below the surface, the way in which Trump hired and fired Zacharia reflects a spectacularly dysfunctional White House that struggles to complete basic tasks.

The president and his team, without any meaningful vetting process, chose a conspiracy theorist to be the public face of the White House, three weeks before nationwide elections, and then threw her into a difficult role without any meaningful preparation. Failure was both predictable and unavoidable.

But a competent West Wing would have known that in advance and taken steps to avoid a humiliating disaster.

“As the midterm elections draw near, the machine has begun to sputter,” The Atlantic’s Jon Chait noted after Zacharia’s ouster. “In the span of days, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced he would livestream a public execution, only for Trump to overrule him, [and] the administration fired Kimberly Guilfoyle, its ambassador to Greece, for engaging in corruption so overt, it embarrassed even the most corrupt administration in history. … In the midst of this multicar pileup, Zacharia briefly stepped forward as the administration’s stammering face.”

The fact that her failure came as a surprise to Team Trump speaks volumes about its competence — or lack thereof.

As for the former press secretary’s future, Trump told reporters two weeks ago that he expects her to continue to serve in his administration, “maybe a more pleasant form,” though that may not be altogether true.

“Zacharia teased that new career announcements are imminent, vowing to remain an outspoken Trump ally from outside the executive branch,” the California Post’s article added.

The post Katie Zacharia blames brief White House tenure on lack of prep appeared first on MS NOW.

When Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail in Michigan over the weekend, the former Democratic president took aim at his Republican successor on a variety of fronts, but he seemed especially interested in mocking Donald Trump’s misplaced priorities.

“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations. He should be on HGTV,” Obama said. “The guy’s building a ballroom that’s bigger than the White House. He’s paved over the Rose Garden, put a helicopter pad on the South Lawn.

“And there’s gold everywhere. What’s up with the gold? He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory. Just gold everywhere.”

The comments drew hearty laughter, probably because Obama was right: Trump really is fixated more on remodeling, renovations and interior design than on his weighty responsibilities. That preference has gone poorly, because Trump’s presidency is failing and because the Republican’s gaudy taste has turned the Oval Office into a showcase for gold curios.

If the incumbent president were capable of thinking strategically, he would have taken this opportunity to push a constructive message that reflected the concerns of the American mainstream and proved Obama wrong. Trump instead spent Monday doing the opposite.

Before departing for Mississippi, for example, the Republican held a seven-minute Q&A with members of the White House press corps, and he spent more than half of it whining in response to Obama’s ridicule.

Soon after, the president headlined a rally in support of struggling GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, where he spent another six minutes whining in response to the joke.

The pushback was itself foolish. To hear Trump tell it, Obama is “a stupid person” and “a lousy president” who “doesn’t like” companies like the Cheesecake Factory. The Republican also said he had spent “peanuts” on White House renovations, which seemed like an odd way to characterize roughly $1 billion in investments.

Just as notably, Trump wants Americans to know he’s worked tirelessly with the world’s “finest artisans” to overhaul the presidential mansion and make it “beautiful.” (He didn’t comment on Obama’s reference to Saddam Hussein, about whom Trump has said positive things in the recent past.)

So as Obama poked fun at his successor’s fixation on vanity projects and his failure to focus on what really matters, triggered Trump thought it would be good to fixate on his renovations in the most vainglorious way — and to prove Obama right.

The post Triggered by Cheesecake Factory joke, Trump inadvertently helps prove Obama’s point appeared first on MS NOW.

A ceasefire that first lady Melania Trump helped negotiate in a front-line Ukrainian city that she described as being on the "brink of disaster" went into effect Tuesday.

The pause in fighting in Oleshky started around 3 a.m. local time as "part of a humanitarian mission being carried out with the mediation and coordination of U.S. first lady Melania Trump, in cooperation with Yana Lantratova, Russia’s commissioner for human rights," according to Dmytro Lubinets, the Ukrainian Parliament commissioner for human rights.

"The situation in Oleshky is dire. Oleshky is a front-line war city on the brink of disaster," Trump said in a statement last week. "Oleshky’s remaining population is comprised primarily of elderly residents who urgently need medical attention, medicine, food, and clean water.

"The people of Oleshky have limited electricity, live amid mined roads, and endure regular military attacks. It was abundantly clear that without my intervention, the possibility to bring humanitarian aid into the city and to evacuate the elderly would be impossible," she added.

MELANIA TRUMP'S ADVISOR REVEALS HOW SHE BRIDGED PUTIN, ZELENSKYY TO BROKER FRONTLINE UKRAINE TRUCE

The White House said both Ukraine and Russia "agreed to temporarily stop all military action in Oleshky to allow for humanitarian aid to enter and to prepare a civilian evacuation through a designated safe passageway."

"Non-military, civilian leaders from both countries will work together to visit Oleshky residents in their homes and determine the level of assistance they require. Residents who wish to evacuate will receive coordinated support and transportation to their preferred destination. I anticipate some will want to go to Russia, and some to Ukraine," Trump added.

Speaking on "Fox & Friends Weekend," senior advisor Marc Beckman said the agreement followed weeks of mediation involving Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

RECOVERING FROM LUNG SURGERY, POPE LEO URGES PUTIN TO AGREE TO CEASEFIRE IN RUSSIAN-HELD UKRAINE CITY

On Tuesday, Russia's Defense Ministry wrote on Telegram, "In relation to the conduct of the humanitarian operation in the area of the settlement of Oleshky, Kherson region, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have ceased fire in the Kherson direction."

Russian troops have held control of Oleshky since the early days of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, according to Reuters.

The news agency added that the city had a population of around 24,000 prior to the war, but that has since dwindled to only a few thousand.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fresh strikes also hit a bridge and subway infrastructure in Ukraine's capital of Kyiv on Tuesday, Reuters reported.

Fox News Digital's Madison Colombo contributed to this report.

• As a luxury real-estate agent, I tell buyers that a high price tag doesn't mean a sound investment.
• A beautiful renovation with signs of low-quality workmanship is an immediate red flag for me.
• I also pay close attention to a home's location and how long it's been on the market.

As a real-estate agent who works with buyers looking for luxury homes, I know how easy it is to get swept up in a beautiful property.

But after nearly three years in the industry, I like to remind my clients that a higher price tag doesn't automatically make a house a better investment — or mean there aren't problems hiding beneath the surface.

Some of the biggest concerns I notice aren't necessarily the things that stand out during a first showing. They're often in the details — like the quality behind the renovation, the home's location, and its history on the market.

These are the five red flags I always recommend my clients watch for before making an offer.

A pretty renovation doesn't mean it's a quality renovation.

A home may look spectacular online, but sometimes, once you walk through the door and look under the hood, it isn't what it appeared to be in the listing photos. I jokingly call it "lipstick on a pig."

Before making an offer, buyers should understand what they're actually getting, beyond gorgeous photos and expensive-looking finishes.

I like to look more closely at things like the cabinetry and hardware, flooring, countertops, stonework, fixtures, and overall quality of workmanship.

One of the easiest places to spot a lower-quality renovation is the cabinetry — specifically, whether the joints are properly fitted, the drawers glide smoothly, and the cabinet doors align. I also look out for things like uneven tilework, inconsistent grout lines, poorly installed flooring, and gaps around the cabinets or trim.

To me, the biggest concern is whether the renovation will hold up over time. If the materials and workmanship aren't up to par, buyers could end up repairing or replacing finishes far sooner than expected.

When you're paying for a luxury home, you want to know you're investing in quality that will last, not just an aesthetic that looks good in listing photos.

Regardless of how beautiful the home is, location is crucial.

Everyone has heard the term "location, location, location," and there's a reason for that. Almost anything about a home can be renovated or changed — its location can't.

I always tell buyers not to overlook things like road noise, backing to a busy street, an undesirable lot position, or other location factors simply because they love the house.

Those things may not bother you personally, but they could narrow your buyer pool significantly when it comes time to sell.

It's concerning when a house has been on the market for many days.

Seeing a high days-on-market number — the amount of time the property has been actively listed — isn't inherently detrimental, but it's important to understand why a house hasn't been able to sell.

A question I often get from clients is, "How many days on market is considered too many?" The reality is that there isn't a single magic number, as it depends on the area, the specific neighborhood, and the price point.

Just because a home has been on the market for an extended period doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong with the property. It could be road noise, a less desirable location, or simply a matter of pricing. However, I've seen instances where issues were uncovered during inspections, causing buyers to walk away.

Regardless of the reason, I always look at the listing history, previous price reductions, and comparable sales in the area to get a better picture of what's going on.

I'm also not afraid to ask the seller's agent point-blank what the issue has been. All of that information helps me decide how my clients and I should approach and structure an offer.

A luxury price tag doesn't mean a home is problem-free.

Even a picture-perfect home listed for millions of dollars can have an aging HVAC system, roof issues, water damage, plumbing concerns, or other costly problems that aren't obvious during a showing.

That's why inspections are so important. If an inspection reveals that an HVAC system needs to be replaced, that's a significant expense the buyer may not have anticipated when making their original offer.

I always remind my clients that the inspection period is still very much a negotiation period. The key is knowing which issues are worth negotiating, and being strategic about what you ask for.

What a seller spent isn't necessarily what an improvement is worth.

If a listing agent tells me their seller put $300,000 into a home's renovation, that doesn't automatically mean it's worth $300,000 more.

A seller may have spent a significant amount on finishes or design choices they personally loved, but that doesn't necessarily mean the next buyer will place the same value on them.

I think it's important for buyers to separate what someone spent on a home from what the market supports.

High-quality improvements absolutely matter, but ultimately, I don't think a buyer should pay a premium simply because a seller spent a lot of money.