In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at (and question) the criticism Vice President JD Vance has taken for his words about Pope Leo.

Share

Read more

Once again I find myself in a familiar place — caught in the middle of two opposing sides … and disagreeing with both.

To the left stands a man of peace, Pope Leo XIV. To the right, the secretary of war — or at least a man who seems comfortable with the title — Pete Hegseth. Both men, I assume, mean well. But as we’ve seen time and again, good intentions don’t always lead to sensible conclusions.

Let’s start with the pope. He recently said, “God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

Okay, a not too subtle shot at President Trump without mentioning Mr. Trump by name. We shouldn’t be surprised. Pope Leo is a man of the left. And no surprise either that Donald Trump took to Truth Social to fire back at the pope, just as he fires back at everybody who says something about him that he doesn’t like. The pope, Mr. Trump said, is “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” before adding, “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.” Not long after that, an image of the president looking a lot like Jesus popped up on Trump’s Truth Social— the latest piece of evidence indicating that Donald Trump desperately needs some divine intervention.

Read more

Hi everyone.

I hope you all had a good weekend. Mine was pretty busy, but I finally had a few spare minutes this evening, and figured I’d write about a couple things that are on my mind.

Good Riddance to Eric Swalwell

People who’ve read my work for a while know that I’ve been making fun of Eric Swalwell for quite some time. From his portrayal of himself as a bad-ass for not buying coffee at Trump Tower, to his argument that the U.S. government could nuke its own country to put down a domestic uprising over proposed gun-confiscation, to his hyper-feminized presidential run, to his possible affair with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, I’d long pegged Swalwell as a hopelessly unself-aware clown.

But as it turns out, he’s also a very creepy one — a sexual predator, if you believe the credible allegations that have recently come out against him (including the rape of a former staffer). Swalwell denies at least some of the claims, but there’s enough corroborating evidence backing them up that he ended his California gubernatorial campaign and resigned from the House of Representatives. The DOJ has appropriately launched an investigation into the allegations, as have state officials.

Since the controversy began, it’s been disturbing to hear a number of D.C. insiders describe rumors of Swalwell’s infidelities and womanizing as being well-known for some time. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) even said, “Every member in Congress knows not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It’s not a secret there.”

If that was indeed true (and I believe it, based on how many people have now said as much), how did this not become an issue much earlier? Granted, there’s a difference between being a cad and sexual assault, but Swalwell, who’s married with children, ran successfully for Congress seven times. He even ran for President of the United States. One would think that his conduct with women would have set off career-damaging alarms a long time ago. Unfortunately for his apparent victims, it didn’t.

The good news is that, like Matt Gaetz and recently Tony Gonzales, he’s no longer in public service. That’s a start. I hope justice is served through our legal system.

An Unholy Troll

Last week, conservative New York Times columnist David French appeared on the “Relatable” podcast with host Allie Beth Stuckey. French and Stuckey are both Christians, and their commentary often delves into matters of faith and politics. The two have a number of disagreements, including whether Donald Trump, and the political-era he’s shaped, have been a net-positive or net-negative for the Christian church in America. Stuckey seems to believe the former. French believes the latter.

It was a decent enough conversation, with both individuals making good points. But in accordance with the online hatred that is routinely directed at David French by the MAGA-right (seemingly whenever he pens a column or opens his mouth to speak), the disparagement came hard and fast.

One social-media post that caught my eye pretty early in the feeding frenzy was by a guy named J. Chase Davis. It wasn’t directed at anything French said, but rather something Davis noticed, and felt inclined to publicly speculate on.

“No wedding ring,” Davis noted on X, posting a screen-capture from the episode showing French’s bare left hand. Davis also included a screen-capture of French’s profile-page, along with that of his wife Nancy, drawing attention to a discrepancy he found interesting. “Two different locations,” Davis wrote. “I can’t be the only one that has some questions.”

The clear suggestion was that David and Nancy were having marital problems, and were separated. The reality, as anyone familiar with the couple (or bothered to do a quick Google search) knows, is that the two split their time between Franklin, TN and Chicago, IL in order to live closer to their grandchildren. And as a number of people replying to Davis soon pointed out, lots of happily married individuals choose not to wear a wedding ring (mine comes off whenever I lose some weight, because I’m afraid it’s going to fall off my finger).

Of course, such garbage as Davis’s is pretty common online. Lots of trolls hound public figures across social-media platforms with gross accusations and demonstrably false statements.

But J. Chase Davis isn’t just some troll. He’s an evangelical pastor — a real one… at The Well Church in Boulder, CO.

The “core beliefs” of The Well Church, according to its website, are “based on the foundational truths taught in the bible. All of our teaching and ministry is rooted in and flows out of these biblical doctrines.”

Apparently, Davis’s copy of the Bible is missing the part about bearing false witness (which is fairly important, being that it’s the Ninth Commandment).

Davis later acknowledged that he now understands the nature of David and Nancy French’s living situation, but, as of the time I’m writing this, he has yet to delete his original post. He’s also dismissed the criticism he’s taken over it as “leftist discourse.”

Ironically, Davis is currently promoting his new book titled, “Offensive Christianity.”

No, I’m not joking. And its subtitle, “Restoring the Strength of Men in a Feminized Age,” would also seem ironic considering Davis’s gossip girl tendencies.

For the hat trick, if you Google Davis’s recent past, and browse through his other posts, it would seem he’s been finding ways to actually bolster French’s beliefs about the Trump Effect on the Christian church in America — unwittingly so, of course.

The good news for Davis is that his post has now been viewed by over a quarter of a million people, which can only help his book sales.

Let’s hope it was worth it for him, because it definitely didn’t do the Christian faith any good.

That’s all for now. Have a great week, everyone.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don’t exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn’t happen.

But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump? Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there. But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.

I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs “cautiously optimistic” and TDs “cautiously pessimistic” takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.

Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don’t think it’s all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with [Mike] Nelson and [Mike] Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I think you’ve illustrated just how complicated of an issue the Iran War is. I also think your position is totally reasonable.

As for political pundits aligning their war analysis with their personal views of Trump, I think that’s largely true. There are exceptions, of course, and I’m one of them. I’m not at all a Trump fan, but I do support much of his Iran policy and the military action we’ve taken there. I would love to see the Iranian regime toppled; it would be great for the Iranian people and much of the world. That said, I think the administration has handled a number of things poorly, including in communicating the policy to the American people (there has been a lot of mixed messaging), and sidestepping Congress. Also, Trump himself seems to be quite confused at times about what the goals, strategy, and latest developments are (I have much more confidence in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM).

I very much disagree with those, including some of the aforementioned Bulwarkers, who are insistent that Iran is winning. Iran is absolutely not winning (and no American should be giddy if they were). At minimum, we’ve destroyed so much of the regime’s leadership and military capacity (not to mention their nuclear program, months earlier) that it will take them years to recover. But again, at this point, I’d like to see us keep going and put an end to the regime.

Lastly, thanks for watching/listening to the Reagan Caucus podcast episodes with Mike Nelson and Mike Coté. They both know their stuff. I’m a bit more aligned with Mike Nelson on the issue that I am Mike Coté, though both certainly want the Iran regime gone.

Sir John, I keep hearing from the left that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein Files. I keep hearing from the right that the Dems could have released the files during the Biden Administraton but chose not to. The left responds by saying that a court order prevented them from doing that. So what IS the truth? Do you think Trump truly doesn’t want the files made public because they may be incriminating or at least embarrassing to him and his friends? Were the Dems truly unable to release the Epstein Files during the Biden Administration? Or is that a convenient excuse they use to cover their own concern about prominent Democrats that may be on the list? —“Epstein’s Ghost Still Hanging Around” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. I do not believe that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. As for the Democrats, from what I understand, they could have released the files under Biden (albeit it with significant limitations), but they didn’t.

Regardless, I think you and many others may be missing an important point here. The “Epstein Files” controversy of the past couple years was created by MAGA, not the Democrats. I don’t think the Democrats had any interest in using the Jeffrey Epstein as a political weapon against Trump (at least not in any meaningful way), until MAGA gift-wrapped it, and dropped it right in their lap.

Trump surrogates (including current FBI Director Kash Patel) made this a huge issue in the 2024 election cycle, insisting that President Biden was protecting pedophiles, and therefore Trump was needed back in office to publicly expose those people (with the assumption that many of those mentioned in the files were Democratic party bigwigs and/or donors). When Trump won, MAGA demanded the promised results. But Trump didn’t want that, because, as a former friend and associate of Epstein’s (not to mention a Democrat and big Democratic donor at the time), he was mentioned several times in the files (along with some embarrassing, if not damning, revelations). This put people like Patel and AG Pam Bondi in the unenviable position of having to very awkwardly manage the situation, and do their best not to embarrass their boss (or otherwise get him in trouble).

The Democrats, observing all of this, smelled political blood in the water. They went all-in on calling for the release of the files (apparently having calculated that any embarrassing revelations about people still on their political team would be offset by what might come out about Trump). Even if there’s nothing more about Trump that hasn’t already been released (which is doubtful), it’s a political advantage for the Dems to keep hammering the issue (even if, in reality, they couldn’t care less about it).

It’s that classic tale about being careful what you wish for.

Literally a day after you published this, the corruption got worse with the DOJ now deciding to vacate charges against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for the Jan 6th insurrection. It’s clear ‘justice’ is not being served by the department that bears its name, and trust in this institution is at an all time low (like Trump’s poll numbers) that will take years to rebuild. Well done on being ahead of the curve on this one. — FDM

Thanks, but the corruption is sadly front and center for all to see. I might write about this latest development next week, but it really is egregious (though sadly not surprising) that the DOJ is working on totally clearing people found guilty of seditious conspiracy, of all things.

What are your thoughts about Lauren Boebert (is she your representative?) slamming a bunch of reporters, who were asking about sexual misconduct scandals (that she had been weighing in on), as being “horny.” — Ben G.

My first reaction was to laugh, because — while it’s possible I missed some important context — my understanding is that she was being asked relevant questions about an issue she’s been very vocally weighing in on. The bizarre leap to calling the reporters “horny” reminded me of a recurring joke on Arrested Development:

Oh, and no, she is not my representative. I used to live in, and volunteer for, that district (when Ken Buck held the seat), but recent redistricting put me in a different one. Now, a Republican named Gabe Evans is my rep. He’s pretty much just a Trump toadie, but a fairly low-profile one.

Are we ever going to know the real reason why Trump and Vance were so desperate to keep Victor Orban in office? — Alex D.

That’s an interesting question, Alex. Up until the election, I had assumed that Trump’s weird affection for Orban came entirely from his well-documented admiration for strongman leaders. With Vance, it was more ideological; Orban represents the postliberal, autocratic ideology that Vance largely subscribes to. But Trump and Vance went so far over-the-top in their campaigning for Orban (Vance outright lied on behalf of Orban numerous times) that I’m inclined to believe there was indeed something more. We did find out, after Orban was defeated, that he’d been directing Hungarian tax dollars to American right-wing organizations like CPAC. I now wonder what other American enterprises he was investing in. It’s possible, through the new Hungarian government, that we’ll find out.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Can’t is not part of your vocabulary.”

In 2012, while working for HBO’s Real Sports, I did a story on one of the most remarkable and inspiring people I’ve ever met: a young woman named Jennifer Bricker.

Bricker has an amazing personal story, from her birth and upbringing, to her life now. I hesitate to give any of it away here, as it might spoil the unfolding of that story in today’s video piece. I’ll just mention that I actually did two stories on Bricker — the first one in 2012, and a follow-up in 2016. Clips from both segments are in the video.

When you’re finished watching it, let me know what you think in the comment section.

Read more

Show Notes:

• Mark’s memoir, A Cup of Tea on the Commode

• Mark’s website

• John’s newsletter on watching 1980’s action flicks

Share

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the Democrats’ “TACO” pattern, the implications of a third Trump impeachment, and the president’s show of disrespect for the Christian faith.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Editor’s note: This column is a more detailed version of a recent Off the Cuff.

Being fired by the president isn’t all bad. Sure, the public humiliation isn’t any fun, and neither is losing your title and your power and all the perks that go with it. But getting the axe has its upside.

Take two of the president’s loyal servants — Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem, the former attorney general and former secretary of homeland security, both of whom got pink slips from their boss. The silver lining for them is that at least now they won’t be impeached if (and most likely when) the Democrats take over the House in the midterm elections.

It’s always good to look on the bright side.

In the end, loyalty — and good looks, for that matter — go only so far with the president. And it won’t save you if he thinks you made a mess of things … even if you were doing what he wanted you to do.

Read more

A few weeks ago, when Pam Bondi was still our attorney general and trying desperately to keep her job, she directed the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into one of her boss’s old political foes: Cassidy Hutchinson.

On January 6, 2021, Hutchinson worked for Trump’s then chief of staff, Mark Meadows. A year and a half later, she provided damning testimony to the January 6 Committee, including the implication that Trump was aware, prior to the attack at the U.S. Capitol, of his supporters potentially causing violence that day.

Cassidy publicly recalled the president, after being told that some of the protesters outside his infamous “Stop the Steal” speech were armed, saying words to the effect of, “I don't f****** care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me.”

Others have disputed Hutchinson’s summation, which was the expressed basis for the DOJ pursuing the notion that she lied under oath in front of Congress.

A number of Justice Department officials have reportedly been skeptical all along that there’s a viable case to be made against Hutchinson. Nonetheless, the department has been moving forward with the former AG’s last sacrificial offering to the president. And they’re doing so in a highly unusual way.

The investigation has been assigned to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — a specialized unit that typically handles cases involving systemic issues like police misconduct, voting rights, and racial discrimination. It’s currently headed by Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and staunch Trump loyalist with a penchant for going after the president’s critics.

Normally such a case would be led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, headed by former Fox News host, Jeanine Pirro (another Trump loyalist). But Pirro has been handed so many judicial defeats in recent months, while trying to advance criminal cases against Trump’s political adversaries, that there are apparently higher hopes for Dhillon.

None of this should be surprising, of course. As The Dispatch’s Kevin Williamson recently pointed out, the Trump DOJ has launched “a series of pretextual criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting the president’s political enemies, even when there was not the hint of an actual legal case to be made against them.”

Williamson provided a useful list of the DOJ’s political targets so far:

Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, all of Minnesota; Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey; St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her; Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell; Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook; Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan; Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado; Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Reps. Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania; Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona; Sen. Adam Schiff of California; former FBI Director James Comey; former CIA Director John Brennan; Attorney General Letitia James of New York. (The prosecution of former National Security Adviser John Bolton, no less political and pretextual where Bondi was concerned, is more complicated in that it is not solely the work of the Trump administration.)

And this doesn’t even include all of the DOJ personnel, FBI officers, and Secret Service agents who were fired for simply being assigned to investigate occurrences that Trump didn’t want investigated (like January 6, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, his mishandling of classified documents, and his obstruction of the retrieval of those documents). In other words, their career-derailing sin was just showing up to work. Some of these individuals filed federal lawsuits last month, claiming they were unlawfully fired as part of a “retribution campaign.” It’s not clear whether such terminations are in fact illegal, but I suppose we’ll find out.

Regardless, Hutchinson is just the latest political target of this DOJ, but she assuredly won’t be the last. Trump fired Bondi, after all, because he didn’t feel she was aggressive enough in using the legal system to punish his opponents. And with Trump recently promising mass pardons for his staff before he leaves office (similar to what he did for almost 1,600 January 6 criminals on the first day of his second term), it’s entirely possible that Bondi’s replacement will indeed dare to go where no modern AG has gone before. What would he or she have to lose?

Whether that person is Todd Blanche or someone else, however, I suspect Trump will continue to be disappointed for one simple reason: It’s not a lack of internal willingness or desire to appease the president that keeps derailing these cases. It’s the frivolousness of them. In instance after instance, they have lacked compelling evidence of a crime having been committed. And judges and juries have been unwilling to make the same capitulations as the DOJ.

While it’s disheartening that the judiciary is arguably the only branch of our federal government that’s still functioning as it should, one is certainly better than none. These cases (including Hutchinson’s) will likely continue to fall apart regardless of who heads the DOJ, but that’s not to say that those who’ve been politically targeted will walk away unscathed. A legal defense-team costs a lot of money, and not everyone in this administration’s crosshairs is wealthy. There’s also the reputational and professional damage that can come from such an ordeal, even if one is legally vindicated.

What’s especially troubling to me is how normalized this has become. Congress is largely asleep at the wheel, and the general public doesn’t care much about it either, probably having priced such abuses into the baseline chaos and vindictiveness they’ve come to expect from a Trump presidency. Their biggest problem with Trump has been cost-of-living issues (now including the price of gasoline, due to the Iran War). Much of the rest is just noise.

Lots of Trump loyalists, on the other hand, are very much enjoying what the DOJ is doing. Like the president, their only gripe is that it hasn’t been brutal enough. They believe the department is righteous and justified in exacting their boss’s revenge, because of how Trump was treated by prosecutors and investigators when he was out of office. They’ve been assured over the years by the president, his surrogates, and the right-wing media that Trump wasn’t deserving of any of the criminal investigations, indictments, and prosecutions he had to contend with.

I certainly agree with them on the New York cases (as I’ve written many times). The federal ones were a different story. But that shouldn’t matter — not for the question of whether it’s acceptable for the DOJ (whose primary function is to enforce laws impartially and independent of political influence) to openly serve as an instrument for satisfying a president’s bottomless desire for political vengeance.

Regardless of how one feels about Trump, that is indeed what’s happening right now. And the country should care more about it.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John, Pam Bondi's firing was long overdue in my opinion- January first would had been the time to do so. She leaves a bad taste and much confusion with the Epstein files and her initial verbiage and handling of it all; an earlier firing would had helped the Republicans going into the mid-terms as folks would had long forgotten her face by now. Same goes for Kristi Noem. Better late than never. These two women hurt Pres. Trump's ratings much more than he realizes. My question to you is do you believe these women were more controversial than if a man had held these positions? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I didn’t shed any tears for Pam Bondi, of course, but as I told one of the commenters on this website the other day, Bondi wasn’t fired for being incompetent (which she was) or being a terrible AG (which she also was). Trump fired her for not being terrible ENOUGH. His beef was that she wasn’t aggressive enough in perverting our legal system to punish his perceived political opponents, and protect his from the Epstein political fallout (which he can thank MAGA influencers for — including his current FBI Director Kash Patel). In other words, despite Bondi completely discrediting the office and herself for Trump, it wasn’t (as Bernie discussed in this week’s “Off the Cuff”) enough for him. He wanted her to be more corrupt. She wasn’t (or couldn’t be), so he fired her.

As for the midterms, I don’t think Bondi and Noem will make (or would have made) a difference. And I don’t think their gender played a role in them being controversial.

John: It’s the beginning of April, so that means tax season. Again this year, my wife and I are going through the herculean task of gathering all documents, receipts, etc. to submit to the tax preparer. Even though we don’t do our own taxes, I still consider this an autopsy of my finances without the benefit of death. We hear a lot about raising taxes in blue states and lowering taxes in red states, but I think that misses half the point. I would actually be willing to pay slightly MORE taxes if this whole process were greatly simplified for time and clarity. The older I get, the more I value time equal to or greater than money. Have you seen any proposals lately to simplify the tax code, and do you agree that this would go a long way towards clarity of the whole exercise of taxation? — Steve R.

I feel your pain, Steve. The work I do for this website/membership is just one several contracted jobs I have (in addition to author royalties/expenses, freelance writing, etc). My accountant probably hates me due to the complex nature of my tax situation, but I suppose that’s my cross to bear for being (as Bernie calls me) The Renascence Man of the Rocky Mountains.

I’m all for a simplified tax code, and I’ve heard lots of proposals over the years for making it happen, but they unfortunately never come to fruition, in large part due to political interests. In other words, Steve, I think this will continue to be a pain in the butt.

Sir John — what are your thoughts on Pope Leo’s homily about Jesus ignoring the prayers of those who wage war? On the one hand, it appears that he’s speaking about Trump. That’s fine. But I would take him more seriously if he had the guts to criticize the Islamic regime and what they did when they slaughtered their own citizens protesting in the streets, and then afterwards they executed a star wrestler simply for dissension. Okay so the Mullahs and IRGC aren’t Christians, nor do I believe that Jesus is pro war. But I can’t help wondering if the Pontiff would have made the same homily in 1941. —“All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance…While The Iranian Citizens Are Being Slaughtered By Their Rulers” regard from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. This may sound weird, but I’ve never put much personal stock in what Popes say about the morality of war (unless it’s specifically about war crimes), because of how complicated and individualized of an issue it is (geopolitically and beyond). Like you, I don’t believe that Jesus is pro-war, but many times throughout history it has been war that has ultimately saved scores of people from genocide, or liberated them from terrible suffering. Though I do think Pope Leo was addressing Trump’s threats to commit war crimes, he also got more broadly into the morality of war (which again, is complicated).

If I recall, Pope Leo did comment on the mass-murder of Iranian protests, but did in so in broad terms (emphasizing peace, dialogue, and an end to the suffering of civilians) without specifically naming the Iranian regime. Was it a cop-out not to name them? Maybe/probably. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think he specifically named Trump either. Regardless, like I said, I don’t hang on a Pope’s words when it comes to this issue.

You’re exactly right about Vance with Orban. What a disgrace. In regard to the flaming hypocrisy of his “election interference” comments, he’s STILL out there doing it. He told a Hungarian interviewer: “You should never have a foreign head of state threatening the head of government of an allied nation. It's preposterous, it's unacceptable.” TRUMP HAS DONE THIS TIME AFTER TIME. Does Vance honestly not understand how ridiculous he sounds? — Ben G.

I think Vance is smart enough understand exactly how hypocritical and shameless these comments are, Ben. He just doesn’t care. As we’ve seen time after time (including specifically with Vance), there’s no penalty for double-standards and breathtaking hypocrisy in today’s U.S. politics (let alone lies). Thus, there’s nothing keeping those things from getting worse — except for personal shame (which Vance, and many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, no longer have).

What are your thoughts on Thomas Massie? Did you ever expect him to become a Trump opponent in the GOP? — Alex D.

I don’t like Massie. Like a broken clock, he gets a couple of things right, but I mostly view him as a conspiracy-nut provocateur who — up until recently — was overly servile to the guy he’s now become of an “opponent” of. Am I surprised that he (and others like MTG) have taken on this new role? Maybe a little, but they were perfectly fine (and eager) to go along with some of Trump’s worst instincts (at times when it mattered more).

Hi John, has Trump lost his mind completely?

“There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

What are your thoughts on the US committing war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure such as water desalination plants, bridges and power plants? Will Trump Join Putin and Netanyahu on the ICC’s most wanted list?” Fun video explainer.

Can acting AG Todd Blanche’s slobbering love affair with Donald Trump get any more sickening and cringeworthy? Blanche publicly prostrated himself in front of the entire media, affirming his “love” and subservience to the President. I have never seen a more spineless display of toadying in my life, and that’s saying a lot with this current administration. — FDM

Lots to answer there, FDM. Lol. I’ll address one question at time.

Longtime readers know that I’ve long believed Trump to be psychologically/emotionally/temperamentally unfit to be president, and I do think it’s getting worse as he gets older. (And before newer readers throw “What about Biden???” at me, I argued, while Biden was in office, that he was so mentally unfit that he should have resigned rather than try to run for a second term). I’ve always believed that a U.S. president’s words matter, and while one could argue that a president presenting oneself as insane could effectively scare our enemies into compliance, what I’ve seen with recent developments surrounding the Strait of Hormuz (and the broader Iran situation) isn’t exactly compliance.

To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t committed any war crimes (though he spoke of possibly doing such, which was bad in itself, but not an international crime).

As for Blanche: Yes, it can absolutely get worse, but it’s hyper-embarrassing at its current level. As I’m often reminded, there is no bottom.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Sharks aren’t the problem. Jaws is.”

Editor’s note: Today’s 50-year-old news clip his poor audio-quality, so we suggest that you turn up your volume all the way.

By August of 1975, the newly released Steven Spielberg film-classic, Jaws, was smashing box-office records and already having a major impact on American culture. It was driving many people’s fear of sharks through the roof… and also driving beach-community tourist bureaus nuts! They believed that irrational fears stoked by the movie were keeping visitors away from their beaches, and they were looking for ways to deal with the situation.

I covered one such community — Carolina Beach, North Carolina — for CBS News.

What gets me, while revisiting this report, is how the individuals we filmed and interviewed both look and sound like they could have been actual characters in the film.

Read more

Not all that long ago, it was considered wholly improper for an elected representative of the United States to campaign for a foreign leader — especially on their home turf. But earlier this week, Vice President JD Vance did exactly that. Making it especially gross was who that leader was: an unapologetic supporter of Vladimir Putin and outspoken opponent of Western civilization, policies, and governance.

I’m talking, of course, about Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary. He’s currently running for a fifth consecutive term, and polls suggest it’s a very tight race. Orbán’s erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law, along with economic stagnation in his country, have voters considering a new direction. In a move of desperation, Orbán presumably called upon his buddy, President Trump, for a helping hand. Vance was apparently tasked to publicly extend it.

Critics of the move have pointed out that beyond Trump’s personal affection for the strongman leader, the United States and its allies would gain nothing from Orbán winning reelection. In fact, Orbán has been deepening Hungary’s ties with China, and obstructing the Trump administration’s preferred Ukraine policy of letting Europe take the lead role in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invaders. He’s also been delaying sanctions packages against Russia.

Russia certainly has a vested interest in Orbán staying in power; the United States does not.

But it’s even worse than that…

In Vance’s Budapest campaign speech, the vice president went as far as parroting Kremlin propaganda that Ukraine has been interfering in foreign elections, including those of Hungary… and the United States.

“This is just what they do,” Vance told reporters. “This is part of the cost of doing business within some elements of their system. I try to remind myself that Ukraine, like the United States, is a very complicated place. There are good people and there are bad people. There are people that try to interfere in others’ elections. And there are people who actually just say, you know what, we believe in sovereignty for everybody. And that’s what we support. For example, there were people in the Ukrainian system who were campaigning with Democrats literally in the weeks before the presidential election where Donald Trump won very comfortably in November of 2024.”

Of course, that didn’t happen. That is, unless one wants to argue that President Zelenskyy touring a Pennsylvania ammunition factory alongside local Democratic leaders was a campaign event. For Zelenskyy, it was an opportunity to thank American workers (who were producing shells for Ukraine) for helping defend is country against its Russian invaders.

As shameful as Vance’s comments were, one could simply add them to our vice president’s long history of expressed, inexplicable, personal animosity toward Ukraine and Zelenskyy. But what stood out in this instance was the glaring irony of Vance’s claim.

Vance, that very day in Budapest, was openly doing exactly what he accused Ukrainians of doing: campaigning for a foreign leader. In his speech, Vance even specifically called on Hungarians to “go to the polls” and “stand with Viktor Orbán.” He also voice-conferenced President Trump into the event, who told attendees (and Hungarians watching at home): “I’m a big fan of Viktor. I’m with him all the way. The United States is with him all the way.”

By Vance’s own framing, that is election interference. Thus, doesn’t that make him and Trump two of the “bad people” he spoke of?

“It’s like a Prohibitionist pastor railing against that ol’ demon rum between shots of whiskey,” remarked The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg.

Sadly, expecting our political leaders to be mindful of their own hypocrisy is a pointless, bipartisan exercise in today’s politics. But shouldn’t we still expect our leaders to prioritize America’s interests over those of Russia?

It doesn’t feel like a lot to ask for.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the recent dismissal of Attorney General Pam Bondi, and what it says about President Trump (and working in his administration).

Share

Read more

Here’s the thing about politicians: They talk tough when it costs them nothing — and when reality hits them in the face, they sing a very different tune.

Take Kathy Hochul. Back in 2022, while campaigning for governor of New York, she had a message for Donald Trump and like-minded Republicans: “Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong. OK? Get out of town. Because you don’t represent our values.”

So much for Democratic inclusivity — to say nothing about their supposed open-mindedness. What better way to say everyone is welcome here than telling your political opponents to pack up and leave the state.

Well, fast forward a bit — and surprise, surprise —people actually took her advice. Not just Trump. Not just Republicans. Not just the hated billionaires. Regular, tax-paying New Yorkers looked around, checked their bank accounts, looked again at their tax bills … and said, “You know what? Florida sounds pretty good.”

Read more

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Greetings, sir, John: what do you think of the No Kings protestors? For that matter, is it true that many of these protestors were being paid by very wealthy Communists? The types of people that want to take everything from the rich, but stay wealthy themselves? —“April Fools March For No Kings” regards from The Emperor

To be honest, Emperor, I paid even less attention to the most recent No Kings protests than I did the ones the preceded them. But my general assessment of “the movement” is that, like similar ones, it’s a hodgepodge of normal people, weirdos, and radicals. Were some protestors paid by “very wealthy communists”? Maybe. I’m assuming there are stories indicating as much (which is why you asked)? What I do know is that a number of people I know personally have gone to these things, and I can assure you that no one has been paying them to.

John: Politics and the courts are often downstream from culture, so I am curious about your thoughts regarding two legal decisions recently, one in your home state. The Supreme Court ruled this week against Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban. Also, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health issues of a woman who became addicted to the dopamine hits that social media companies program into their algorithm. Do you think these decisions will have legs and far-reaching consequences? What about the moral and legal issues that serve as undercurrents? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. I think politics are certainly more downstream from culture than our courts, but I can certainly think of examples of what you’re talking about.

Anyway, regardless of what one thinks about “conversion therapy,” I think it’s pretty clear that Colorado’s ban violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was a victory for free speech.

I don’t know much about the California case, but the ruling, as you describe it, seems pretty ludicrous on its face. I have all kinds of criticism for social-media and its algorithms, but finding these companies liable of damages related to screen-addiction feels like a very slippery legal slope. I can picture lots others now trying to get in on the action.

Why is Vice President Vance going to Hungary next week to campaign for Viktor Orban? — Alex D.

The White House is trying to portray the planned joint-remarks as something other than that, Alex, but you’re right: It’s a campaign endorsement. And it’s both inappropriate and pretty gross (considering who Orban is).

Unfortunately, both Trump and the Postliberal Right (of which Vance is part of) have a crush on Orban. With Trump, I’m sure part of the appeal is their mutual affection for Vladimir Putin, but a lot of it has to do with Orban’s autocratic tendencies. Trump and Vance want him to stay in power for reasons that just aren’t in America’s interest.

Did I see you dissing Chuck Norris on X the other day, John? You do know he once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, right? RIP

Lol! Chuck was an American icon (and by all accounts, a very nice guy). RIP. But yeah, his acting was always pretty rough.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“There’s an awful lot of crudeness out there, in the street and all over our pop-culture.”

In 1998, I anchored a CBS prime-time documentary called “In Your Face, America.” It was an hour-long report about the coarsening of our country, and how vulgar and uncivil our popular culture was becoming. This was well illustrated, at the time, by junky, combative, daytime talk-shows (that I covered in one of the segments).

A lot of that crudeness may seem quaint by today’s standards, but people like former United States Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett (who I interviewed for the documentary), used to be very concerned about the social corrosion. (I say “used to,” because he changed quite a bit at the beginning of this political era). I also talked to Sally Jessy Raphael, a popular daytime talk-show host (who many of you will remember).

Read more

Last week, The Dispatch’s Steve Hayes wrote a fascinating (and entertaining) long-form piece on a hotly contested (but little reported on) GOP primary race in Florida’s 19^th Congressional District. Rep. Byron Donalds currently holds the seat, but he’ll be giving it up to run to be Florida’s next governor. The district leans heavily Republican and pro-Trump, so whoever wins the contest will assuredly go on to win the general election.

The candidates, as Hayes describes, are quite an entangled collection of hardcore MAGA faithfuls.

Perhaps the most recognizable name among them is Madison Cawthorn, who’d previously represented North Carolina’s 11^th District for a single term (from 2021 to 2023). He had plans on staying in that office longer, but a few reelection snafus prevented that from happening. By “snafus,” I’m referring to Cawthorn’s unsubstantiated (and later recanted) claims of being pressured into attending cocaine-fueled congressional orgies on Capitol Hill, the public emergence of photos of him wearing women’s lingerie, and multiple videos showing him simulating sex acts with men (one of whom was allegedly his cousin).

It was a little too weird for Cawthorn’s former constituents, who voted him out in the primary. A week after that defeat, the House Ethics Committee announced that Cawthorn was under investigation for an inappropriate relationship with a male staffer (his second cousin) and a conflicting interest with a cryptocurrency business.

Now a Floridian, Cawthorn is presumably tanned, rested, and ready to give the U.S. Congress another try.

Also running for the Florida House seat is another former congressional representative, Chris Collins. Collins served New York’s 27^th Congressional District for a few terms before insider-trading charges resulted in his resignation and imprisonment. He was supposed to spend over two years in the clink, but Donald Trump pardoned him just a couple months into his sentence.

Believe it or not, Collins isn’t the only individual in the race who was pardoned by President Trump. He shares that apparent honor with fellow candidate, John Strand, a California transplant whose biggest political notoriety, prior to running for Florida’s 19^th, was as an unapologetic January 6 rioter.

Strand (who possibly attended Madison Cawthorn’s vitriolic “Stop the Steal” speech that day) was convicted of multiple crimes for his conduct at the U.S. Capitol, including a felony (for which he served prison time). As with several hundred other J6ers, Trump would later absolve Strand of his legal sins. Strand not only walked away with his freedom, but also a slogan he’s currently using in his campaign ads: “Let’s storm the Capitol for real.”

The good news for fans of law and order is that the remaining candidates don’t have much of a criminal record. Most have instead established themselves as geographically-diverse professional political candidates.

Ola Hawatmeh is a MAGA influencer and former New York congressional hopeful. Catalina Lauf is a multi-time congressional candidate, who ran unsuccessful campaigns in three different Florida districts before trying her hand at the 19th. Prior to moving to Florida, she ran for congress in Illinois, where she was defeated in the GOP primary by a guy named Jim Oberweis. Oberweis would go on to lose the general election, and move to Florida… where he’s currently running once again against Laur — this time in the 19th.

As Steve Hayes describes in his piece, Oberweis “has run and lost so many times that he’s known in Illinois as the ‘Milk dud.’ Oberweis ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2002 and 2004. He ran for governor in 2006. He ran for the House in the 14^th Congressional District in 2008 (in a special election and the regular election). He ran for the U.S. Senate again in 2014, winning the GOP primary and losing to Sen. Dick Durbin.”

Also in the race are Linda Sawyer (who ran unsuccessfully in three different Michigan congressional districts over four cycles), recent New Jersey arrival Dylan Modarelli, and former Marine Mike Pedersen.

Oh, and there’s also Jim Schwartzel, a fellow who owns a local country music station called “Trump Country.” He and Pedersen are the only two candidates who’ve lived in Florida’s 19^th district for some time.

What everyone in the race has in common is their expressed adoration of President Trump. As Hayes documents in his piece, it’s pretty much the entirety of each of their arguments for why they should win the nomination: They love Trump more than their primary competitors do.

Case in point, there hasn’t been much in the way of voter outreach or campaign events. The only real campaigning going on, as Hayes describes, has been the campaign for Trump’s endorsement (which everyone agrees would effectively decide the nomination). The effort has included adopting Trump’s policies wholesale, parroting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen, attending events in celebration of Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and landing air-time on Fox News (Trump’s go-to network) to further sing the president’s praises. Chris Collins has gone as far as claiming he was targeted by prosecutors not for the commission of a crime, but rather for being too effective of a servant to Trump.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

Or course, one might ask why any of this matters (beyond entertainment value). If a congressional district is so reliably pro-Trump that criminals, disgraced former leaders, and failed politicians converge there — from around the country — in hopes of becoming a reliable pro-Trump vote, flatterer, and pseudo-celebrity in Washington, isn’t that the prerogative of everyone involved?

The answer to that question is yes. If the only standard constituents choose to hold their representative to is that of unconditional loyalty to Donald Trump, it’s hard to imagine voters in Florida’s 19th will be disappointed with any of these contenders.

But here’s my question: Shouldn’t voters expect more — especially those who still consider themselves conservatives in our system of divided government?

Our national debt is about to surpass $40 trillion — double the amount it was when Trump first took office. Yet, like the Democrats, Trump still opposes reforming the federal entitlement programs that are the major drivers of our debt. He’s signed more debt-spending into law than any president in U.S. history (and it’s not even close).

Is the rapidly approaching insolvency of Social Security and Medicare not of any concern to today’s Republican Party? How about a catastrophic debt crisis? Is loyalty to Trump really all that matters, at least for the next few years? Shouldn’t our congressional representatives be thinking more about America’s future than live-in-the-moment rump-kissing?

Trump’s trade war has been a major drag on the U.S. economy. The numbers don’t lie. His tariffs have cost us jobs, driven up prices and government subsidies, raised taxes on the American people, and alienated safe and previously reliable trade partners — all while achieving none of the goals the administration promised. Congress could put and end to this failed experiment tomorrow, and the GOP could right the ship and reclaim its “free trade” mantle.

Is personal loyalty to Donald Trump really more important than the health of the U.S. economy? He’d still be our president, after all, even with more principled conservatives in the Republican Congress occasionally voting against his worst ideas.

Sure, the race in Florida’s 19^th is uniquely cartoonish because of the candidates’ pasts… But purely in the realm of congressional representation, is it really all that different than the GOP primaries currently taking place throughout the rest of the country?

Maybe that’s something to think about when it’s time for you to vote in this year’s local primary.

Share

Reminder: This is the last day that free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives!

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the record number of voters that are becoming independents, and what that could mean for the rest of the Trump presidency.

Share

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

If a 13-year old girl, enrolled in a public school, wants to be referred to as he and him, and wants to alter her appearance to look more like a boy than a girl … does her mother have a right to know what’s going at that school when it comes to her child?

That’s not a hypothetical question. In Maine, that’s precisely what happened.

“While cleaning her 13-year-old daughter’s room in 2022, Amber Lavigne found a chest binder. A social worker at the eighth-grader’s school in Maine had given the child the device, which flattens breasts to facilitate a masculine appearance. Unbeknownst to Lavigne, at school her daughter was using masculine pronouns.” That, from a column by George Will.

The girls’ mother confronted school officials — and was told that the school counselor did nothing wrong. So she sued the school board for violating her rights as a parent — and lost twice (on technical grounds) in federal court. Now she wants the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

“This was no accident: my daughter’s public school counselor deliberately tried to keep me in the dark, encouraging my daughter’s gender transition and encouraging her to hide it from me,” Amber Lavigne says. “When school officials found out, they actually defended the counselor’s actions, trampling on my constitutional rights at every turn. I deserve to know what’s happening to my child — the secrecy needs to stop.”

Read more

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: I was reading Friday that CBS, once a pioneer in the business, is ending its radio service. This makes me sad, as it is the end of an era and a piece of Americana. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Dan Rather, and Peggy Noonan (as a writer for Rather) all got their starts in CBS Radio. I was once a general manager of a couple of small-town radio stations and still enjoy the magic and intimacy of terrestrial radio. Maybe this is more a question for Bernie, but what are your thoughts and reflections on this news and the future of radio in general? — Steve R.

Yeah, that really is a better question for Bernie, Steve. Lol. I’ve never listened to CBS Radio, nor did I ever really get my news through the radio medium. Radio, in general, does seem to be slowly fading out of existence, as more and more people turn to streaming services. I suspect it will eventually go away all together (at least as we know it), unless it finds a way to hang on, in some limited fashion, as a novelty attraction (similar to drive-in movies).

What do you think about Jimmy Kimmel mocking Senator Markwayne Mullin for being a plumber? — Daniel R.

I thought it was very cheap and elitist, Daniel. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Mullin (I’m not a fan), but dismissing him as a “plumber” for a punchline was snobbish and willfully ignorant. Mullin took over his family's small, six-employee plumbing business after his father's health went down the tubes, and he turned it into the biggest plumbing service company in his state. And it was just one of eight companies he owned. That’s a very impressive resume, even if you don’t like Mullin as a politician.

John, what's with your dismay of Tulsi Gabbard? — Al

Not too many years before she was our National Intelligence Director (including when she was a Democratic member of Congress), Tulsi Gabbard was essentially a propagandist/apologist for tyrannical enemies of the United States, including Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Her “useful idiot” role should have kept her from being given any presidential-cabinet position, let alone that of National Intelligence Director. But because she kissed up to Trump (on Fox News and elsewhere) and trashed her former party a whole lot, Trump nominated her, and the GOP Senate confirmed her.

Just weeks after becoming secretary, she absurdly testified, under oath, that Iran was not working on a nuclear-weapons program (the very nuclear-weapons program Trump would drop bombs on a few months later). Since then, amidst much speculation that she’s been leaking information from the administration to the press, the White House has apparently insulated Gabbard from serious national intelligence matters (despite her being the director), and placed her on 2020 election conspiracy-theory investigations, rather than taking the appropriate action of removing her from office. If she had any dignity, she’d resign. If the administration took her position seriously, they’d fire her. I’m hoping one of those things happens soon, and I suspect it just might.

Greetings, Sir John — recently Hasan Piker and a bunch of virtue signaling leftist groups, such as Code Pink, went to Cuba to stay in a 5-Star Hotel and “help” the suffering Cuban people who are alleged victims of America. Even the Irish band Kneecap was there performing in concert. Ironically, as it turns out, these wealthy left-wing American liberal fools ended up, causing a power outage from the concert, causing people in the hospitals on ventilators to lose power and die. How do you feel about this and why do these liberal Marxist idiots continue to blind themselves with the virtue signaling that is doing nothing but causing problems? —“Power OUTAGE To The People!” regards from The Emperor

The part about them causing a power outage and killing people seems to be a hoax, Emperor (I discovered that with a simple online search). As for performative political activism, I’m not a fan. It’s typically far more about getting personal attention than helping anyone who’s legitimately suffering. That was certainly the case this time.

By the way, I hadn’t heard of this Piker guy until just a few months ago, but every time he pops up on my radar, it’s because he does or says something idiotic.

Since it became a topic this week, is there anyone whose death you would publicly celebrate? — Ben G.

Oh, maybe a mass murderer’s, or someone of that nature… though I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually ever celebrated anyone’s death.

Did president Trump just go full TACO with Iran? Was he caught out as a liar in regards to discussions with “Iran’s Leadership” who flatly deny ever having discussions with his administration (even through back channels)? Or is Iran lying? Who is responsible for the current airport chaos inflicting misery on travelers? Surely it can’t be the government in power?? — FDM

I’m not sure what’s going to happen with Iran, FDM. Like I said on this week’s podcast, there’s been lots of mixed signals about the administration’s goals for, and commitment to, this war. As for who’s being dishonest, I don’t know. Trump tells plenty of lies, but the Iranian regime obviously does as well. As for the airport chaos, I’m not sure you can pin it all on one party, or even one factor, but I do think the Dems are more to blame than the Republicans, since they’ve tied DHS funding to ICE reforms (which has been a big part of the hangup).

I saw your post on X about this year’s National Park pass, and I LOL’d. I honestly thought you made that photo yourself, but it’s real! I guess plastering his name and face all over U.S. memorials, federal offices, Bibles, U.S. coins, U.S. currency, and stimulus checks wasn’t enough. Did you follow through with the purchase? — Alex D.

Lol. Now, I’m going to have to explain this, Alex, so readers know what you’re talking about.

Every year, my wife and I purchase an America the Beautiful National Park pass (we go to multiple national parks throughout the year (including nearby Rocky Mountain National Park), and the pass saves us a lot of money. The card design is known for featuring beautiful National Park wildlife and scenery.

Here’s what past annual cards looked like:

But when I logged into the National Park website the other day, to purchase the 2026 card, I discovered that this is what it looks like:

No, that’s not satire. That’s the actual “America-250” card, featuring — as you say — more of the same. Breathtakingly beautiful aesthetics, huh? Really captures the spirit of our national parks and federal lands. Anyway, I’ll complete the purchase next week when my current pass expires.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you all with some pictures I took last week in Rocky Mountain National Park (it was a great day)…

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.