Aaron Christian Peterson appears in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Nov. 19, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Screenshot)
A confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s pick to fill a judicial vacancy in Alaska was largely uneventful on Wednesday.
Aaron Christian Peterson was nominated by Trump this month after getting support from U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate’s judiciary committee held a hearing on Peterson’s nomination and two other prospective judges bound for other states.
Senators’ attention largely focused on the other two men — David Fowlkes for a judgeship in Arkansas, and Nicholas Ganjei for a seat in Texas — and senators frequently used their time in the hearing to discuss their own views, rather than seek information about the nominees.
“Here I am asking the questions and giving the answers — it’s like the bar exam, except I’m giving the answers,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, at one point in the hearing.
Peterson, who lives in Eagle River, is a natural resources attorney for the state of Alaska and has extensive experience as a criminal prosecutor.
Speaking to the committee, he said he has “a deep familiarity with the laws that are specific to Alaska,” naming the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as one example.
“I have a wide variety of experience in the arenas that are likely to come before the district court, and hopefully I’ll be able to preside over those matters if I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed,” he said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked all three nominees if they had ever been accused of sexual harassment or made unwanted sexual advances toward someone.
All three said no.
Alaska’s most recent pick for the U.S. District Court, former Judge Josh Kindred, was appointed during the first Trump administration but resigned and was disbarred after an investigation found had committed significant sexual misconduct while in office.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, asked all three nominees whether they believe Congress is prohibited from imposing a code of ethics on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Peterson, answering third, echoed his potential colleagues and said it would depend on the circumstances, but that he does have concerns about whether such a thing would violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is closely aligned with President Trump, and members of the court have repeatedly accepted financial and physical gifts from people affected by issues before the court.
Republicans generally oppose new ethics restrictions on the court; Democrats generally favor them.
Hawley asked the judicial nominees whether they believe a district court judge has the ability to issue injunctions that can halt nationwide actions.
Sullivan, who does not sit on the judicial committee, read a prepared statement introducing Peterson.
“Aaron is a lifelong Alaskan. He knows and understands our great state and the federal laws that reflect on Alaska. I think he will be a great federal judge. I urge his nomination be sent to the Senate floor with positive votes from all the members of this committee,” Sullivan said.
Peterson was one of several people suggested to the president by a committee formed at Sullivan’s behest to consider nominees for two current vacancies on the federal bench in Alaska.
That committee deliberated in secret, and the list of applicants — and of proposed nominees — has never been revealed.
Murkowski used a more traditional process to propose nominees to the president, relying on advice from the Alaska Bar Association. Peterson’s name did not appear in that application process, and the Bar Association did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Nebraska and chair of the judiciary committee, said members of the committee will submit written questions to the nominees by Nov. 26.
After that, the committee is expected to vote on the nominees and send them to a vote of the full U.S. Senate for confirmation.
Jeffrey Epstein abuse survivor Lisa Phillips speaks during the press conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Act in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 18, 2025. Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
What is child sex trafficking and how does it differ from other kinds of trafficking?
It is a child being traded for sex via force, fraud or coercion. These are children who are under the age of 18. Often what happens, in terms of victim blaming, if a child is, say, 15, 16, 17, there’s this level of blame from perpetrators, the media, relatives, law enforcement, jurors: “She knew what she was doing.” I recently heard this with the Epstein files back in the news: “He wasn’t into like 8-year-olds. … There’s a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old.” That’s not true. Children cannot make decisions that adults can. Neuroscience shows that children’s brains are not developed until their mid 20s. Children do not have the same decision-making capacity. That very vulnerability is what is preyed upon by perpetrators.
Why do we not use terms like “child prostitution” anymore, and why does language matter?
In the late 1990s and early aughts, at the beginning of the anti-human trafficking movement, people did use the term child prostitution. In fact, I used it in a white paper that I did, and I’m a survivor. But once we really adopted and embraced the terminology of force, fraud and coercion of human trafficking, that gave us a new frame to think of the power dynamics that are involved in the commercial sexual exploitation of children. This phrasing captures the true essence of what is happening within child sex trafficking.
This is not a child somehow deciding that they’re going to go out and trade sex for money, heat, food, anything of value. This is a case of perpetrators, whether they are family members or nonfamily traffickers, who are preying on the vulnerability of children who have often been sexually abused prior to their commercial sexual exploitation. This prior abuse adds another layer of vulnerability.
How do Epstein’s actions fit into the paradigm of trafficking – is he a classic case or an unusual one?
Jeffrey Epstein is not unique. This is absolutely a classic case, for four primary reasons. Child sex trafficking perpetrators are primarily white men, with wealth and power. Epstein was, granted, among the uber rich and really powerful men. But power is relative to whatever context in which a child is being exploited. The most powerful person in a small town may not be a billionaire like Epstein, but they have disposable income and high socioeconomic status for the area, or they may hold a prominent position in government, church or a civic organization.
The Epstein case is also not unique in that victims are often dehumanized, by perpetrators and in the media. They are blamed, even though they are children who are developmentally incapable of making adult choices. There are transcripts of Maxwell calling the girls “trash.” These are seen as disposable children, not worthy of protections. And they have already been dehumanized within our culture prior to exploitation, whether it be through poverty, lack of educational or employment opportunities, or prior sexual violence. That makes them even more vulnerable to perpetrators such as Epstein and Maxwell, who are looking to prey upon those vulnerabilities.
Third, traffickers often insulate themselves from detection and trafficking charges by having others, such as women or girls, recruiting victims for them, which is exactly what Epstein did. Lastly, traffickers and buyers often plea down their trafficking charges. That results in low trafficking prosecution rates. They plea down from a charge like trafficking of a minor to assault, so this does not count toward trafficking prosecution rates. Epstein did exactly this in 2008 when he accepted prosecutor Alex Acosta’s nonprosecution agreement to plead guilty to two lesser Florida state-level prostitution charges rather than facing the multiple federal child sex trafficking charges for which Epstein was being investigated. This ability to use their wealth and power hides the truth of what is happening.
What systems allow sex trafficking to happen, and how can we change those systems?
Law enforcement often looks the other way. In the Epstein case, one of the victims had reached out to the FBI decades ago and nothing happened. It’s really been the persistence of the survivors, saying people really need to look at this.
Child sex trafficking is not a political issue. It’s one of the few bipartisan issues in our country that is so culturally divided. Yet Americans need to acknowledge that perpetrators comes from all political affiliations, they come from all races, socioeconomic status. As a culture, we really need to not blame victims and survivors. These are children who are being manipulated and violated. So recognizing the truth of power differences between perpetrators and victims is something that we as a culture very much need to do. By supporting victims, we can use our power – as relatives, jurors, constituents, elected officials – to hold traffickers and buyers to account. Victim-blaming creates a diversion that cements perpetrators’ ability to exploit and abuse children without fear of detection.
Audrey Strauss, acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announces charges against Ghislaine Maxwell on July 2, 2020, for her alleged role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. AP Photo/John Minchillo, File
In terms of legislation, most states in the country still retain the right to criminalize sexually exploited minors, either through arrests or prosecution. These are laws that all states have considered since 2007, when New York was the first state to introduce a Safe Harbor law.
But oftentimes children do not trust law enforcement. And often for good reason. Some law enforcement are perpretrators. Other times, law enforcement tells sex-trafficked minors, “We’re doing this for your protection, we’re going to lock you up.” Both instances are deeply traumatizing and lead to mistrust of the police. That being said, so many extraordinary law enforcement agents are committed to supporting child sex trafficking victims and holding perpetrators to account.
Much of this retraumatization happens because local and state governments do not have the money for social services, trauma-informed, child sex trafficking-specific services, and housing opportunities for children to be able to heal. What we have is a robust criminal legal system. So, until we have a robust system that can support children who have been trafficked, sex trafficking is going to continue, in my experience.
Any last thoughts?
We need to acknowledge low prosecution rates of child sexual abuse cases, that 14% of all reported – just reported – child sexual abuse perpetrators are convicted or plead guilty. Similarly, in terms of adult rape charges, 1% of cases end in a conviction or guilty plea. So much of this lack of perpetrator accountability comes through this employment of plea deals and dehumanizing and retraumatizing victims during legal proceedings.
So we need to acknowledge when our criminal-legal system is not doing justice to victims whatsoever, and they’re allowing perpetrators to walk free. In the Epstein case, we’re focused on a few people, while hundreds of perpetrators continue to walk free. By employing these tactics, predators will continue to use the societal silence and misperceptions to their advantage. If it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to sexually exploit a child.
Kate Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hollywood screenwriter Samuel Ornitz speaks before the House Un-American Activities Committee in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 29, 1947. UPI/Bettmann Archive via Getty Images
Yet, the First Amendment has not always been potent enough to protect the right to speak. The Cold War presented one such moment in American history, when the freedom of political expression collided with paranoia over communist infiltration.
In 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committeesubpoenaed 10 screenwriters and directors to testify about their union membership and alleged communist associations. Labeled the Hollywood Ten, the defiant witnesses – Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo – refused to answer questions on First Amendment grounds. During his dramatic testimony, Lawson proclaimed his intent “to fight for the Bill of Rights,” which he argued the committee “was trying to destroy.”
The conviction and incarceration of the Hollywood Ten left a chilling effect on subsequent witnesses called to appear before congressional committees. It also established a period of repression historians now refer to as the Second Red Scare.
Although the freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution and prized by Americans, the story of the Second Red Scare shows that this freedom is even more fragile than it may now seem.
The Fifth Amendment communists
After the 1947 hearings, the term “unfriendly” became a label applied by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the press to the Hollywood Ten and any witnesses who refused to cooperate with the committee. These witnesses, who wanted to avoid the fate of the Hollywood Ten, began to shift away from the First Amendment as a legal strategy.
They chose instead to plead the Fifth Amendment, which grants people the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. Many prominent artists during the 1950s, including playwright Lillian Hellman and singer and activist Paul Robeson, opted to invoke the Fifth when called before the committee and asked about their political affiliations.
While they could avoid contempt citations by pleading the Fifth, they could not erase the stain of perceived guilt. This legal approach became so widespread that U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the country’s leading anti-communist crusader, disparaged these witnesses as “Fifth Amendment Communists” and boasted of purging their ranks from the federal government.
Three portraits of Albert Einstein taken in Princeton, N.J., in March 1953. AP Photo
From Fifth back to First
In 1953, the physicist Albert Einstein became instrumental in revitalizing the force of the First Amendment as a rhetorical and legal tactic in the congressional hearings. Having fled Germany after the Nazis came to power, Einstein took a position at Princeton in 1933 and became an important voice in American politics.
In April of that year, Frauenglass was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, “the Senate counterpart” of the House Un-American Activities Committee, to testify about his involvement in an intercultural education seminar. After the hearing, in which Frauenglass declined to speak about his political affiliations, he risked potential termination from his position and wrote to Einstein seeking support.
While Einstein advised noncompliance, he also acknowledged the potential risk: “Every intellectual who is called before one of the committees ought to refuse to testify, i.e., he must be prepared for jail and economic ruin, in short, for the sacrifice of his personal welfare in the interest of the cultural welfare of his country.”
Frauenglass shared his story with the press, and Einstein’s letter was published in full in The New York Times on June 12, 1953. It was also quoted in local papers around the country.
One week later, Frauenglass was fired from his job.
After learning about Einstein’s public position, McCarthy labeled the Nobel laureate “an enemy of America.” That didn’t stop Einstein’s campaign for freedom of expression. He continued to encourage witnesses to rely on the First Amendment.
When the engineer Albert Shadowitz received a subpoena in 1953 to appear before McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to answer questions about alleged ties to the Communist Party, he traveled to Einstein’s home to seek out the physicist’s advice. After consulting with Einstein, Shadowitz opted for the First Amendment over the Fifth Amendment.
On Dec. 16, 1953, Shadowitz informed the committee that he had received counsel from Einstein. He then voiced his opposition to the hearing on the grounds of the First Amendment: “I will refuse to answer any question which invades my rights to think as I please or which violates my guarantees of free speech and association.”
He was cited for contempt in August 1954 and indicted that November, facing a potential year in prison and US$1,000 fine. As an indicator of McCarthy’s diminishing power, the charge was thrown out in July 1955 by a federal judge.
Singer Paul Robeson appears before the House Un-American Activities Committee in Washington, D.C., in 1956. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
The triumph of dissent
Well-known public figures also began to turn away from the Fifth Amendment as a legal tactic and to draw on the First Amendment.
In August 1955, when the folk musician Pete Seeger testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, he voiced his rejection of the Fifth Amendment defense during the hearing. Seeger asserted that he wanted to use his testimony to call into question the nature of the inquiry altogether.
Pleading the protection of the First Amendment, Seeger refused “to answer any questions” related to his “political beliefs” and instead interrogated the committee’s right to ask such questions “under such compulsion as this.”
When the playwright Arthur Miller was subpoenaed by the committee in 1956, he also refused to invoke the Fifth. Both were cited for contempt. Seeger was sentenced to a year in prison. Miller was given the option to pay a $500 dollar fine or spend 30 days in jail.
As Seeger and Miller fought their appeals in court, McCarthy’s popularity continued to wane, and public sentiment began to shift.
Prompted by Einstein, the noncompliant witnesses in the 1950s reshaped the public discussion, refocusing the conversation on the importance of freedom of expression rather than the fears of imagined communist infiltration.
Although the First Amendment failed to keep the Hollywood Ten out of prison, it ultimately prevailed. Unlike the Hollywood Ten, both Miller and Seeger won their appeals. Miller spent no time in prison and Seeger only one day in jail. Miller’s conviction was reversed in 1958, Seeger’s in 1962. The Second Red Scare was over.
As the Second Red Scare shows, when free speech is under attack, strategic compliance may be useful for individuals. However, bold and courageous acts of dissent are critical for protecting First Amendment rights for everyone.
I met Pete Seeger personally while directing a documentary film about his environmental legacy.
We have some very disturbing news to report out of Illinois today:
A man named Arnold Rivera Jr. has been arrested in connection with the murder of 14-year-old Kylie Toberman.
Rivera is accused of sexually assaulting the girl before strangling her with a set of jumper cables and hiding her body.
Arnold Rivera Jr. has been accused of strangling his 14-year-old “step-niece.” (YouTube)
At the time of her death, Kylie had been living with her adoptive mother, Donna Toberman.
Rivera, who lived in an RV parked on the family’s property, was referred to as Kylie’s “step-uncle.”
Insiders tell WFIW radio that Rivera was actually Kylie’s adoptive brother. It seems that the family adopted the “step-uncle” title five years ago when Kylie was adopted, due to the fact that Rivera was nearly 30 years her senior.
Rivera, 43, has now been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated criminal assault, and concealing a homicide death.
Adding to the furor over the crime is the fact that Rivera previously served time for child sexual abuse.
Investigators say they discovered Kylie’s body inside a tote bag stored in Rivera’s RV.
Uproar over the case has been widespread, with Kylie’s biological mother, Megan Zeller, writing on her Facebook page, “I will not shut up or stop till my child gets justice!”
“We were just now educated of the manner of her death and the disrespect to her body, and it should’ve never happened. That’s all, it should’ve never happened,” Kylie’s paternal grandmother, Lisa Richards, told WFIW after the charges against Rivera were read in court.
“We have had minimal contact with her with the adoption that had taken place due to extenuating circumstances,” Richards explained.
“We had no information that there was such a dangerous, volatile situation that she was in.”
Leann Deweese, Kylie’s maternal grandmother, called the victim “very beautiful, very energetic, very happy all the time. I have already missed her so much.”
“It broke my heart because she shouldn’t have had to go through that. She was the sweetest person, and she had so much life left to live,” echoed Caitlyn Shellenbarger, a friend of Kylie’s since preschool.
“Kylie was known for her caring heart and the way she made everyone around her feel included,” reads a GoFundMe page dedicated to the beloved teen. “She was a loyal friend, a devoted sister, and someone who could brighten any room simply by being in it.”
Rivera is currently in police custody and had been denied parole. No date has been set for the start of his trial.
Our thoughts go out to Kylie’s loved ones during those incredibly difficult time.
We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
Recently, Olivia Munn made an innocuous, offhand comment about what sort of television her children watch at home.
In remarks that were surely relatable to millions of parents, Munn joked that she finds certain characters, such as Bluey and Ms. Rachel, a tad irritating.
But because this is 2025, a time when the most casual utterance can lead to absurd backlash, the actress and mother of two now finds herself on the receiving end of “violent threats.”
John Mulaney and Olivia Munn attend the 96th Annual Academy Awards on March 10, 2024 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images)
Olivia Munn jokes about Ms. Rachel, prompts nuclear reaction from social media weirdos
“I know kids love [Ms. Rachel],” Munn said in an interview with People.
“But the thing is, if I can’t watch it, I’m not going to spend the rest of my life going crazy. These kid shows drive me crazy.”
You’ll notice that Munn didn’t say anything about politics in general or the situation in the Middle East in particular.
And yet, an army of weirdos interpreted her anti-Ms. Rachel stance as a veiled indication of her support for Israel in their ongoing war with Gaza.
John Mulaney and Olivia Munn attend the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences’ 14th Annual Governors Awards at The Ray Dolby Ballroom on January 09, 2024 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images)
John Mulaney expresses concern, outrage
The situation got so bad that Munn’s husband, comedian John Mulaney, felt the need to issue a statement
“An innocent comment my wife Olivia Munn made about what children’s programs we like has somehow — unbelievably — been conflated with not caring about the deaths of children in Gaza,” he wrote on Instagram (per BuzzFeed).
“Because of this, my wife and my two kids are now receiving violent and threatening comments and messages in her DMs,” Mulaney continued. “This is absolutely insane and needs to stop.”
In an exceedingly rare move, the editors of People removed the article from their website and issued a statement.
Ms. Rachel attends the Sesame Workshop 2024 Benefit Gala at Cipriani 42nd Street on May 29, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)
“On June 11, we took the unusual step of removing the post titled ‘Olivia Munn Doesn’t Let Her Kids Watch Ms. Rachel. Here’s Why,’ due to the violent threats that escalated towards the interview subject and her family,” the outlet wrote, adding:
“There is no excuse for these abhorrent attacks, and we will always prioritize safety above all else.
In reaction to the initial coverage of Munn’s comments, Ms. Rachel issued a statement that seemed to be her way of saying that she has bigger concerns than the opinions of one celebrity.
“I’d rather you cover my advocacy for kids in Gaza,” the popular children’s entertainer wrote on Instagram.
Adult Ms. Rachel fans might be feeling more defensive than usual in light of criticism she’s received as a result of her activism.
But attacking Olivia Munn — who’s given no indication that she’s even aware of that particular controversy — is obviously not the answer.
Donald Trump is calling for the arrest and execution of United States senators.
For months, the Trump regime has been carrying out extrajudicial killings of at times random fishing boats in the Caribbean, claiming that these illegal bombings aid America’s national security.
ICE, Border Patrol, and other Federal Agencies have also been weaponized and are terrorizing American communities.
A group of patriotic lawmakers crafted a PSA reminding service members that they have a legal duty to refuse to carry out illegal orders. Naturally, Trump is lashing out — and calling for their executions.
Donald Trump attends a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Cabinet Room of the White House on November 7, 2025. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Members of the military have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders
Living in interesting times is not all that it’s cracked up to be.
Donald Trump is sowing terror in international waters and right here at home, sending his brownshirts into American cities.
The imminent release of Epstein documents has Trump feeling trapped. And, like any cornered beast, this may be when he is at his most dangerous.
With all of this in mind, it is more important than ever that members of all branches of the United States military remember that “just following orders” is not an excuse. And that they have a legal obligation to refuse any order that violates the law, that violates the Constitution of the United States.
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
With all of this in mind, six Democratic members of Congress (all of whom served in the military, intelligence, or both) took to social media to remind current service members of their legal obligations.
Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is a former CIA analyst who served multiple tours in Mark Kelly of Arizona is a Navy veteran. Representative Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania also served in the Navy.
The message is simple, citing: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”
In fact, as the inspiring video adds: “You must refuse illegal orders.”
Right now, the vilest criminals feel Trump’s protection. But Trump is not forever. There will — there must — be accountability for all of his enablers, from his cabinet to collaborators to the individual boots on the ground (literally and metaphorically) who carry out crimes in his name.
After members of the House and Senate reminded current service members that they have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders, Donald Trump accused them of sedition. (Image Credit: Truth Social)
As you can imagine, Donald Trump is not taking this well
The past two weeks have not gone well for Donald Trump.
And with his control over the Republican base slipping, votes not going his way, and the Epstein files poised for release, things are looking almost as bleak for him as he has made life for the rest of us.
On Thursday, November 20, Trump took to his ironically titled “Truth Social” platform to lash out at the legal reminder.
“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country,” he wrote. “Their words cannot be allowed to stand.”
He continued, screeching: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
Trump is calling for the six Democratic lawmakers who urged the military not to follow any illegal orders to be arrested, and he’s reposting replies saying they should be hanged and calling them terrorists.
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump ranted and raved in another post.
He continued: “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”
Trump shared another post, from someone with a dubious emblem as their user photo, who had written: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD.”
(Actually, the framers of the Constitution structured many laws and safeguards specifically in the hopes that members of Congress would stand up to a hypothetical worse-case-scenario president like Trump)
“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH,” Trump blasted in another post.
After accusing members of the United States House and Senate of “sedition,” Donald Trump also threatened execution. (Image Credit: Truth Social)
Trump presents a clear and present danger to the Constitution of these United States
This is deeply ominous and downright un-American.
And while the idea of a grown man like Donald Trump throwing a tantrum may be funny in a sad way, he has many thousands of fanatical followers and wields tremendous power. That makes him dangerous.
On January 6, 2021, Trump instigated the worst attack on the federal government since 9/11.
We cannot and must not put anything past him.
To their credit, Democrats are pushing back against Trump’s extremely menacing words. But is it enough?
Across social media, the Democratic response to Donald Trump’s rant about arresting and executing members of the House and Senate offered stern words, but no promise of real action. (Image Credit: Bluesky)
On Thursday, following Trump’s string of dangerous and Unconstitutional threats, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries posted a response.
While it is good to see pushback from Congress against violent rhetoric from the occupant of the Oval Office, many were quick to point out that it is not enough.
Protecting these Senators and members of Congress is only the first step.
Folks on social media are asking where the Articles of Impeachment are. Clearly, Democratic leaders fear that they don’t have the votes, and that a filing could “distract” from other urgent matters.
We’re sure that many would like to wait until 2027, where a potential Democratic majority could make a difference in the legislature. But critics ask if we can really wait that long.
How much worse will America be after another year and a half of these horrors under Trump?
At only 33, the Canadian actor launched his career by working alongside major, established names in the entertainment industry.
More recently, he had not been part of the acting world.
Now, authorities are investigating his death, and his family is in mourning.
Spencer Lofranco attends the KING COBRA Cast Dinner Hosted By Yale Productions And Digital Ignition Entertainment on April 15, 2016. (Photo Credit: Theo Wargo/Getty Images for KING COBRA)
After making his acting splash, he continued to work in films, proving himself in multiple genres.
However, his filmography ends around 2018.
2018 is also a year in which Lofranco began voluntarily living on the beach.
Not in a beach house. Seemingly, it was of his own volition.
Clearly passionate about art and more, he pivoted away from acting.
Actor Spencer Lofranco attends the KING COBRA Cast Dinner Hosted By Yale Productions And Digital Ignition Entertainment on April 15, 2016. (Photo Credit: Theo Wargo/Getty Images for KING COBRA)
What was the cause of death?
What was Spencer Lofranco’s cause of death? We do not yet know.
Judging by the tone of some of the contents under his brother’s post and from Lofranco’s own posts, there may have been some sort of mental health event in his life.
We do not know that. This is simply the impression from social media comments. It appears that he was in recovery, and that there were a lot of people rooting for him.
(For example, Lofranco had a large tattoo on his forehead, but in the final months of his life, he began the process of removing it — possibly a sign that he was turning his life around)
Our hearts go out to Lofranco’s friends, fans, and loved ones as they grapple with this loss. We hope that the investigators can provide answers that grant them closure.
The fairy tale may truly be over for Chase Stokes and Kelsea Ballerini.
Despite ongoing rumoes that the Outer Banks cast member and the country arrist had reconciled — following their September breakup — Stokes took to social media on November 20 and strongly implied that their relationship is over.
Seemingly for good this time around.
Chase Stokes and Kelsea Ballerini attend “Netflix TUDUM 2025: The Live Event” at the Kia Forum in Inglewood, California, on May 31, 2025. (Photo by Michael Tran / AFP)
“Don’t believe the media,” Stokes posted to Instagram on Thursday. “I’m blocked, I did nothing wrong.”
Alongside a red heart, the actor added, “Sorry. I tried.”
In a subsequent message, the star made it clearer that he’s referencing Ballerini, as he wrote, “I’m sorry for those who believed in us.”
Yikes, huh?
(Instagram)
“It is what it is,” Stokes continued. “Onwards and upwards.”
The 33-year-old’s VERY cryptic posts arrived two months after Kelsea’s rep confirmed to E! News she and Chase had called it quits… only for the two to spark reconciliation rumors when Ballerini visited Stokes on set in Dubrovnik, Croatia, for Outer Banks’ final season on November 7.
Within days, the pair added fuel to the romantic fire when a video of them dancing in the streets of the European city went viral.
“After they got up, they walked together hand in hand towards Old Town. They looked very cute,” an onlooker told People Magazine at the time.
Perhaps it was just a moment of weakness, however.
It pretty clearly didn’t last.
Chase Stokes and Kelsea Ballerini attend The 58th Annual CMA Awards at Music City Center on November 20, 2024 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Jason Kempin/Getty Images)
Stokes and Ballerini first ignited dating rumors in January 2023, although they tried hard back then to remain out of the spotlight.
Indeed, it wasn’t until the following month that Chase coyly told People Magazine they were simply “spending some time together.”
“She is just the most genuine human being you will ever meet,” he gushed to People in April 2024. “She has time for everybody, which is such an admirable trait. She’s incredibly present. When you are with that human, you know you are getting her.”
The public eventually learned that Ballerini slid into her Chase’s DMs at the time.
“I’ve never seen his show,” she explained the Call Her Daddy podcast. “But I just knew of him, and I just swan dove right on in.”
We send our best wishes to both of these celebrities.
We wish each of them the best of luck moving forward.
Larry Summers once drove Cornel West out of Harvard in a very public fight. Now, Summers is back in the spotlight, and West can’t help but point out the irony.
“There’s a certain level of, not just hypocrisy, but a certain kind of chickens coming home to roost here,” West said in an interview Wednesday. “It’s just sad that [Summers] has been preoccupied with the 11th commandment, ‘Thou shalt not get caught,’ rather than the other 10.”
Last week, a tranche of newly released emails revealed that Summers had, over the course of a decade, corresponded with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including soliciting romantic advice as he pursued an extramarital affair. This week, Summers announced a retreat from public life, including stepping away from his teaching duties at Harvard.
Two decades ago, Summers chastised West for engaging in behavior that could be deemed “embarrassing” to the university or could interfere with his teaching, such as engaging in politics and recording a rap CD. The feud led to West’s resignation from Harvard.
Since leaving Harvard in 2002, West, a public intellectual and activist, has taken faculty positions at Princeton and Union Theological Seminary; he published eight books and recorded a pair of hip-hop albums; he ran for president in 2024.
West, reached by telephone, seemed unsurprised by the revelations that Epstein considered himself Summers’ “wing man.” (At the time of correspondence, Epstein had already been sent to prison on state charges of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18.)
“He’s a neoliberal gangster, the way Trump’s a neofascist gangster,” West said of Summers. “There’s not a lot of integrity, honesty and decency. There is a lot of cold-heartedness and mean-spiritedness in both of them, even though they come from different ideological camps.”
West, a devout Christian, quickly qualified his statement. “I don’t say that in order to trash them,” he said. “I think that they both could be better human beings, but they don’t seem to be interested in it too much.”
West’s much-publicized feud with Summers began shortly after Summers’ arrival to Cambridge in 2001. Per West’s account, chronicled in his 2004 book “Democracy Matters,” Summers, the newly installed Harvard president, summoned West — then a university professor in African American studies — to his office and chastised him for his political engagement, for recording a hip-hop CD, for contributing to grade inflation and for not producing philosophically rigorous academic work. He said West needed to “learn to be a good citizen at Harvard and focus on the academic needs of students, not the wages of workers,” per West’s account.
Summers “questioned my academic accomplishments and my political affiliations,” West later wrote, “without bothering either to read any of my work or to develop an understanding of how it has been regarded by the wider academic community.”
West claimed Summers apologized to him “more than once,” but Summers went on to tell The New York Times he had not apologized. “I then knew just what an unprincipled power player I was dealing with,” West wrote, calling him “a bull in a china shop, a bully in a difficult and delicate situation, an arrogant man, and an ineffective leader.”
Does that characterization still stand, two decades later? West thinks so. “The sad thing is that he, like Trump, has been able to get away with it for so long,” West said Wednesday. “Anytime you have that kind of gangsta behavior with impunity, no accountability, there’s no answerability. He doesn’t take responsibility up until now.”
That responsibility came by way of a terse statement, released Monday, in which Summers acknowledged he is “deeply ashamed” of his actions and decided he would “be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me.” On Wednesday, he announced he would resign from OpenAI’s board.
When West spoke to POLITICO Wednesday evening, Summer’s resignation from his teaching duties at Harvard were not yet public, even though the university was facing increasing pressure — including from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a former Harvard Law professor — to dump him.
West wasn’t so convinced that Summers should have been ousted from Harvard.
“I think people should be able to teach at Harvard who have a variety of different degrees of moral character,” West said. “I don’t think you have to be St. Francis of Assisi or have the spirit of Fannie Lou Hamer to teach at Harvard. … I always give Brother Summers, and anybody else, a chance to just choose to be a better person. He’s still alive. He can bounce back.”
It’s a “sad thing,” West continued, “when you have professors who are willing to hang out with gangsters like Epstein, and therefore, all of the criticism that’s moral and spiritual he deserves. I don’t know that the inference means that he can just no longer teach at Harvard or any other place. I’m a little reluctant to move in that direction. I tend to come out of the Black freedom struggle, which says, lift every voice, which makes me a very strong libertarian.”
The Democratic National Committee took out $15 million in loans in October, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission submitted on Thursday.
The national party committee framed the line of credit as an early investment to boost its candidates in New Jersey and Virginia earlier this month, and help build up state parties ahead of next year’s midterms. But the need for a loan still puts the DNC in sharp contrast with its GOP counterpart, the Republican National Committee, which was sitting on $86 million at the end of September.
DNC Chair Ken Martin said the early investment was already helping the party win elections this month and position itself for what is to come.
“We can’t win elections or fight back against Trump if the D.N.C. downsizes operations like it often does after a presidential cycle,” Martin said in a statement. “I made a bet that investing early would build power, rack up wins and rally supporters back to the table. That bet is paying off.”
The DNC also spent $16.9 million in October, the most it has spent in any single month this year. Driving that total was election-related spending: The national party spent over $6 million in New Jersey and Virginia to boost Democratic gubernatorial candidates, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Pennsylvania to help retain control of the state’s Supreme Court.
Democrats won all those races.
The national party committee also continues to send roughly $1 million each month to state party committees, and has a larger staff than it did at this time in 2017. It reported $18.3 million cash on hand at the end of October.
The DNC has taken out loans before, although usually not this early in the cycle or of this magnitude all at once. In Trump’s first term, when the national party similarly faced fundraising lags, it reported $3.2 million in debt in November 2017 — this same time in the cycle — and more than $7 million a few months later, according to past FEC filings. The DNC has not reported more than $15 million in total debt since February 2014.
But the national party has faced slower fundraising this year as many major donors have stayed on the sidelines amid the DNC’s rebuilding efforts. The party’s fundraising numbers have improved slightly in recent months, and it raised $7.5 million from donors in October, not far off from the same month in 2021.
The party committee’s cash totals were also hit earlier in the year as it paid off $18 million in lingering expenses from former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign.
