Fox News RSS Feed

House Democrats are launching an investigation into FBI Director Kash Patel following a bombshell story from The Atlantic alleging he had "alarmed colleagues" with excessive drinking and erratic behavior. 

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and House Judiciary Democrats are demanding that Patel complete a 10-question test identifying "hazardous drinking behaviors" under the penalty of perjury.

"These glimpses of your relationship to alcohol would be alarming to see in an FBI agent; for us to see them in the FBI Director himself is shocking and indicative of a public emergency," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Patel late Tuesday evening. 

Patel has vigorously denied the allegations in The Atlantic story and said Tuesday he has "never been intoxicated on the job."

LEFT-WING GROUP CHASES PROOF OF KASH PATEL'S ALLEGED 'EXCESSIVE DRINKING' AS DEMS EYE FBI DIRECTOR'S OUSTER

"I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia, and as when they get louder, it just means I’m doing my job," he added, during a joint press conference with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Raskin also sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Chairman Jim Jordan, demanding that the top Republican require Patel to testify under oath in person if he does not provide the requested information.

The missive is likely to fall on deaf ears, with a spokesperson for the committee Republicans slamming the letter as "unserious" in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"Crime is down to record-low levels. Criminals are behind bars, and America is safer thanks to the leadership of President Trump and Director Patel," the spokesperson said. "This is just another unserious effort from anonymous sources and partisan actors to attack the President and his Administration." 

Democrats’ probe comes after Patel on Monday sued the outlet and Sarah Fitzpatrick, the story’s author, for $250 million in a defamation lawsuit alleging "actual malice."

 KASH PATEL CALLS ‘BULLS**T’ ON SWALWELL IN HEATED EXCHANGE OVER EPSTEIN FILES

The story, relying completely on anonymous sourcing, cited several officials detailing an alleged "emotional outburst" Patel had after being logged out of his computer. The outlet also reported officials alleging several instances of the FBI director engaging in copious drinking that led to difficulties waking him up.

"Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office," the lawsuit states. 

The Atlantic released a statement defending its reporting and argued Patel’s lawsuit is "meritless."

Trump administration officials have publicly defended Patel following the viral story.

Blanche told reporters Tuesday that he had "a lot of concerns" with the report’s anonymous sourcing, but said he had not read it.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Atlantic that "Director Patel remains a critical player on the administration’s law and order team."

Fox News Digital reached out to the FBI for comment.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/bO8FQ5h
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill Tuesday allowing nursing home residents to drink alcohol, clearing the way for "happy hour" in senior living facilities.

Previously, Minnesota law barred facilities from organizing events that included alcohol without a liquor license. The new "Grandparents’ Happy Hour" law allows nursing homes and assisted living facilities to serve alcohol without one.

The measure also updates the state’s liquor laws, allowing some cities to issue licenses and easing rules for certain businesses, including nursing homes and University of Minnesota facilities.

Walz announced the bill in a post on X, encouraging seniors to enjoy a drink.

STATE OFFICIALS AND DAYCARE MANAGER PUSH BACK ON VIRAL VIDEO FRAUD ALLEGATIONS IN MINNESOTA

"Living in a nursing home shouldn’t mean giving up everyday freedoms," Walz wrote in a post on X. "I just signed a bill allowing seniors living in nursing homes to consume alcohol - so that everyone can enjoy happy hour!"

The law requires staff serving alcohol to be at least 18 years old, and facilities are responsible for ensuring residents do not overindulge.

The bill drew attention during the legislative session, largely due to Anita LeBrun, an 88-year-old resident of an assisted living facility whose support went viral.

FEDERAL PROSECUTORS OPEN INVESTIGATION INTO WALZ, FREY OVER ALLEGED IMPEDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

"My friends and I love happy hour, just like many of you do, I am sure," LeBrun said before the House Commerce, Finance and Policy Committee last month. 

"Over a shared drink, we get to reminisce about parts of our lives, military service, raising a family, the loss of a friend, and celebrating the golden phase of our lives too," she said.

LeBrun also told a state Senate committee that living in an assisted facility "doesn’t mean that we should have fewer freedoms than anyone else."

BIDEN-ERA HEALTH OFFICIALS QUIETLY URGED LIMITING ADULT ALCOHOL INTAKE AS TRUMP TAKES REINS FOR NEW GUIDANCE

She later appeared on "Fox & Friends," describing social gatherings with snacks and music where residents previously had to bring their own alcohol due to restrictions.

While policies vary, senior living communities in many states allow residents to drink or host informal social hours.

Minnesota’s rules stood out because they limited how facilities could organize and serve alcohol in communal settings.

"Living in a nursing home or assisted living facility should not mean giving up everyday freedoms," Walz said in a statement. "This bipartisan bill increases independence and safety under clear regulations, while ensuring residents are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve—including the ability to get together for happy hour."

As the bill was considered, industry advocates said it would preserve small routines that support quality of life.

"Ultimately, the ‘free the happy hour’ bill is about restoring a fundamental expectation — that moving into a senior living community does not mean giving up one’s autonomy," LeadingAge Minnesota, an industry group that represents senior living providers, said in a statement last month.

Fox News Digital's Deirdre Bardolf contributed to this report.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/06n3bIz
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Reserve for the next four years, heads into a high-stakes confirmation hearing Tuesday with lawmakers on Capitol Hill set to scrutinize his views on inflation, independence and the Fed’s role.

The hearing comes as the Federal Reserve faces mounting political, legal and economic pressure, making it a key test of how the next chair could reshape the central bank’s independence at a critical moment for the U.S. economy.

And with current Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term coming to an end on May 15, 2026, Republicans are scurrying to get a nominee confirmed even though they face pushback within the party.

THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO

No institution has more influence over what people can afford than the Federal Reserve — an impact Americans feel every month. But that influence isn’t always obvious.

The Fed doesn’t set the price of groceries or cars, but it does determine how expensive it is to borrow money to pay for them. And right now, borrowing is costly. High interest rates mean larger monthly payments on mortgages, car loans and credit cards — even if sticker prices haven’t changed.

This makes the Fed’s leadership especially consequential.

Against that backdrop, Warsh’s potential ascent would come at a turbulent time for the institution.

The pressure is coming from multiple fronts: the Justice Department is conducting a criminal probe involving Powell, the Supreme Court is weighing limits on the Fed’s independence and rising costs are testing Trump’s affordability pledge—intensifying the stakes for the next chair.

Adding to the uncertainty, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has signaled he may not support Warsh’s nomination in committee unless the Justice Department drops its investigation into Powell.

Taken together, what began as tension over interest-rate policy has since broadened into a wider confrontation, marking one of the most challenging stretches of Powell’s eight-year tenure leading the Fed.

TRUMP VS THE FEDERAL RESERVE: HOW THE CLASH REACHED UNCHARTED TERRITORY

Powell has called the DOJ investigation "unprecedented," describing it as another example of what he sees as escalating pressure on the central bank. His unusually public response — after days of private consultations with advisers — marks a sharp departure from his typically measured approach.

In March, Powell told reporters at the Federal Reserve he has "no intention of leaving" the central bank until the DOJ investigation is "fully resolved with transparency and finality." His term is slated to end next month.

Like Powell, Warsh is not an economist by training, instead bringing a background in law and finance that has shaped his views on the central bank.

He earned a bachelor’s degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1992 and a law degree from Harvard in 1995, before building his career at Morgan Stanley. At 35, he became the youngest person to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors in 2006.

Though he stepped down in 2011, Warsh was widely seen as the Fed’s key liaison to Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. He previously served in the Bush administration as a special assistant to the president for economic policy and executive secretary at the National Economic Council.

Warsh was also among Trump’s leading candidates to replace then-Fed Chair Janet Yellen in 2017, though the president ultimately selected Powell for the role.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/CKhE6qu
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Let’s not get carried away here.

The Democrats’ chances of winning the Senate are somewhere between nearly impossible and non-existent.

And yet it’s suddenly the subject of considerable media chatter.

It’s like a Rube Goldberg contraption: If this happens and that happens and this other long-shot thing somehow falls into place, the ball ends up in the cup.

TRUMP COMMANDEERS CABINET MEMBERS TO CAMPAIGN IN MIDTERMS, ORDERING THEM TO DROP OR MUTE CONTROVERSIAL STANCES

Virtually everyone, including many Republicans I’ve spoken to privately, agrees that the Democrats will take the House in November. The margin may not be huge, given that most incumbents win reelection, but having the opposition party control the floor, the committees and a blizzard of investigations would utterly change the last two years of Donald Trump’s presidency.

The latest NBC poll has 63 percent of those surveyed strongly or somewhat disapproving of Trump’s job performance, and 67 percent strongly or somewhat disapproving of his handling of the Iran war. Ouch.

But now mainstream pundits are so absorbed by such sinking poll numbers, and the war’s unpopularity, that they believe Democrats can walk on water and quite possibly ride that flood into Senate control.

They’re even talking about Texas.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING 'FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS'

I mean, come on. Remember the endless puffery around Beto O’Rourke, who lost for Senate and governor? Texas hasn’t elected a Democrat statewide since the 1990s. And yet every couple of years we get "this is it! Texas is ready to turn blue!"

I know, Democratic contender James Talarico has raised truckloads of money since CBS refused to air his Stephen Colbert interview.  

And in politics you can never say never.

Much will depend on whether Sen. John Cornyn or Attorney General Ken Paxton wins the GOP runoff. Cornyn is viewed by many Republicans as too moderate. But Paxton was impeached (then acquitted) of charges including bribery in 2023, settled criminal fraud charges by paying restitution, and divorced by his wife who said he’d had an affair.

So yeah, it’s a crazy year.

And yeah, if the war is over, much will depend on the economy bouncing back – a tired cliché that happens to be true.

The New York Times examines the question in a piece so loaded down with caveats that its corporate butt is fully covered:  

"A blue wave is not guaranteed, of course, and Democrats would not be assured to flip two reliably Republican states even if it were. But a feasible path for the party to win the Senate is coming into focus."

That’s called tiptoeing into the water. The carefully crafted Nate Cohn piece admits that Democratic candidates would have to win seven out of seven competitive races. Seven out of seven!

GOP STRATEGISTS CALLED TO DC AS TRUMP TEAM CONFRONTS RISING MIDTERM HEADWINDS

I mean, that’s as likely as the world getting to see the dark side of the moon.

Uh, let’s try another analogy.

Seven out of seven is less likely than winning the lottery. 

It’s less likely than gas prices suddenly sinking. Which is why Trump contradicted Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who told CNN that gas prices below $3 a gallon "might not happen till next year."

"Totally wrong," says the president.

So here’s the rundown.

Every Dem in the Senate today represents a state that Joe Biden carried in 2020, because the party has fared so poorly in red states. (One example: When West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who drove Biden crazy, retired, he was replaced by Republican Jim Justice.) 

And – here’s another Times caveat! – no party has managed to flip even two states that leaned the other way politically since 2008.

GOP SENATE HOPEFUL MICHELE TAFOYA ACCUSES WALZ, ELLISON OF IGNORING MINNESOTA FRAUD SCHEME

The assessment basically rests on the quality of the Democratic candidates heading into the midterms.

In North Carolina, that’s former governor Roy Cooper.

In Ohio, it’s former senator Sherrod Brown, who lost his seat in 2024 during the Trump victory.

In Alaska, former Rep. Mary Peltola is already ahead in the polls.

But Maine is weird. The strong contender was supposed to be Gov. Janet Mills. But she’s trailing in the primary, by 2 to 1, behind progressive first-time contender and military veteran Graham Platner. 

Platner has acknowledged wearing a Nazi tattoo. In 2021, CNN reported on a series of posts in which Platner also called himself a communist, said rural Americans are "racist" and "stupid," described all police officers as "bastards," and used the word "retard" several times. He says these were stupid jokes. And Elizabeth Warren campaigned with him over the weekend.

What’s more, would either candidate be able to oust independent Republican fixture Susan Collins?

At the same time, the Democrats have to defend seats in Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire. 

Even the fiercely nonpartisan Cook Political report shifted four Senate races to the Democrats, but that’s from Solid Republican to Likely Republican, or Lean Republican to Tossup. Not exactly a slam dunk.

But the Times story has started to echo on television.

"Republicans Are Starting to Worry About Losing the Senate," an MS NOW banner blared.

The ultimate Times hedge: "If a blue wave materializes, Democrats have a chance to ride it to Senate control."

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

But here’s the thing. It’s an off-year election. Let’s not forget: everything depends on turnout. 

If Trump voters are demoralized, many may stay home. If Democratic voters are ticked off but not to the point of driving themselves to the polls, that will muffle the impact.

If politics were predictable, the pontificators and the junkies would have far less material for their never-ending arguments.

Footnote: I’m prepared to eat crow on November 3rd.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/ow6hbPZ
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Two men recently attempted to carry out an alleged terrorist attack in New York City, an attack that, according to investigators, was intended to kill as many as 60 people. Details are still unfolding, but the intent appears unmistakable: mass casualties and maximum fear.

For many New Yorkers, the immediate question wasn’t just how the plot was stopped. It was how the city’s new leadership would respond — specifically, how Mayor Zohran Mamdani would react. The answer was not encouraging, and it’s not a reassuring sign for the next four years.

After the 9/11 attacks, the city faced profound uncertainty. I was here then, working as a cop in Manhattan. No one knew what would come next or whether the city could recover. We initially didn’t even know who had attacked us.

SUSPECT IN NYC TERROR PROBE PLANNED ATTACK 'BIGGER THAN THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING,' PROSECUTORS SAY

What steadied New York was leadership. Mayor Rudy Giuliani projected calm and resolve, offering reassurance when it was needed most. Just as critical was the role of the NYPD, which secured Lower Manhattan, restored order and helped normalize life. There was no prolonged military presence. The police handled it.

What followed was a remarkable recovery. Under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, crime fell to historic lows, tourism surged and neighborhoods flourished. It worked so well that, over the ensuing years, many came to believe terrorism was no longer an immediate threat. In the Intelligence Bureau, where I served, we had a saying: "The further we get from 9/11, the closer we get to 9/10."

Now, as we approach the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and with global tensions rising — including conflict involving Iran — New York once again faces that reality. And once again, it has been the NYPD that stepped forward. When the two suspects allegedly attempted to deploy improvised explosive devices, it wasn’t rhetoric that stopped them. It was police work — officers pursuing and tackling a fleeing suspect in real time.

NEW YORK'S MAYOR MAMDANI PROMISED CHANGE — NOW HE’S GUTTING THE NYPD

The response from city hall, however, was less inspiring. Mamdani appeared to pivot quickly to a favored political narrative, initially focusing on "White supremacy" before grudgingly admitting the terrorist attack. It is telling that the mayor’s and other city leaders’ reflex was to immediately focus on the idiotic — but peaceful — demonstration the terrorists were targeting rather than two allegedly ISIS-inspired perpetrators.

Compounding that concern was a highly publicized Ramadan event at Gracie Mansion featuring Mahmoud Khalil, who was previously taken into federal custody following his involvement in disruptive protests at Columbia University. 

The optics were hard to miss, particularly coming on the heels of a near mass-casualty attack. Khalil, facing deportation for campus activism, is the hero. The police, who just days earlier apprehended two terrorists, are not. None of the cops involved got their Gracie Mansion moment.

DAVID MARCUS: THE MORE AMERICA GIVES MAMDANI, KHALIL AND THE MAD BOMBERS, THE MORE THEY HATE US

Mamdani represents a younger generation that did not experience 9/11 in the same formative way. For many New Yorkers, that day still defines how seriously threats are taken. Yet the mayor’s dogged ideological posture — particularly his embrace of "collectivist" themes — suggests a naive worldview that risks prioritizing theory over hard-earned lessons. In short, when it comes to public safety, he does not appear to be learning.

At a time when New York is still recovering from COVID-19, that carries real-world consequences. Financial warning signs are already visible, with three different rating agencies raising concerns about the city’s fiscal outlook by downgrading New York’s bond rating.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

New York’s history makes one point clear: Everything begins with public safety. Investment, tourism, the economy and quality of life, all depend on it — and on a supported NYPD. There was a time when Wall Street could be counted on to drag us out of the doldrums. But in a remote worker economy, that cushion is gone.

So, at the 100-day mark of Mamdani’s administration, residents here — and indeed, in many blue cities around the country — are forced to consider: do we have leadership that is up to handling crisis?

Based on what we’ve seen so far in New York, the answer is far from reassuring.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM PAUL MAURO

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/KWgzR1N
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

A strong earthquake took place off the northern coast of Japan Monday afternoon, prompting the Japan Meteorological Agency to put out a tsunami alert in the area.

The quake, registering a preliminary magnitude of 7.5, occurred off the coast of Sanriku in northern Japan at around 4:53 p.m. local time, at a depth of about 10 miles below the sea surface, the agency said.

NHK public television indicated that a tsunami of as high as 10 feet could impact the region soon.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated

The Associated Press contributed to this report

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/QuBdEMh
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

President Trump struck a ceasefire with Iran that didn’t seem possible.

Doesn’t matter.

Trump pressured Israel into halting its attacks on Lebanon.

So what.

TRUMP RENEWS BRIDGE, POWER PLANT THREAT AGAINST IRAN IN PUSH FOR DEAL, MOCKS 'TOUGH GUY' IRGC

The stock market reached record highs as investors concluded the war is about to end.

Big deal.

No matter what the guy does, his opponents won’t give him credit.

TRUMP PUSHED IRAN TO THE BRINK — BUT DID WE WIN ANYTHING THAT LASTS?

And when the murderous mullahs again shut down the Strait of Hormuz–in retaliation, they say, for the U.S. enforcing its own blockade of Iranian ports–you could practically hear the sighs of relief that the peace deal might be crumbling.   

Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl yesterday that Iran has committed a "serious violation" of the ceasefire, but he was still confident about a deal: 

"It will happen. One way or another, The nice way or the hard way. It’s going to happen. You can quote me."

VANCE WARNS IRAN WILL 'FIND OUT' TRUMP IS 'NOT ONE TO MESS AROUND' IF CEASEFIRE DEAL FALLS APART

On X, Karl got hammered for–get this–calling the president for comment on a significant setback in the war.  

"Why compromise yourself as a journalist & post BS from a pathological liar?" one woman said.

"Jon, just stop," said another female poster. "You know he doesn’t have a clue so he just feeds you guys lies."

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM TRUMP’S IRAN ADDRESS

After the Karl exchange, Trump tweeted: "NO MORE MR. NICE GUY1"

A banner headline on Drudge read "LEAK: TRUMP GRIPPED WITH FEAR." This was tied to a Wall Street Journal piece about Trump’s frustrations with the war, sometimes losing focus, and musing about awarding himself the Medal of Honor.

When Tehran fired on two Indian-flagged ships in the strait, it was a troubling sign. The speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad Ghalibaf, says the two sides are far apart on a final agreement. Maybe that’s a negotiating tactic.

HEGSETH DECLARES 'DECISIVE MILITARY VICTORY' OVER IRAN

The larger point is that most Democrats and many in the media won’t acknowledge it when the president does something that turns out right. Because it’s Trump.   

Now some of this is rooted in Trump’s decision, under pressure from Israel, to launch his war of choice, conduct airstrikes against Iran without so much as a nod to Congress or our supposed European allies.

Maybe that was a bad decision. It certainly wasn’t a popular one.

IRAN WAR NEARS ‘COMPLETION’ AS TRUMP EYES DEADLINE — WHAT THE ENDGAME COULD LOOK LIKE

Seven weeks later, a new Politico poll finds 38% of those surveyed support the strikes–and almost half say Trump spends too much time on global affairs rather than domestic issues.

The president’s inflammatory rhetoric hasn’t helped, from "Close the F—in’ Strait" on Easter Sunday to vowing two days later that "a whole civilization will die tonight."

So I understand those who have principled objections to the war, especially Trump’s former acolytes in the conservative media.

STEVE FORBES: NO MORE DELUSIONS — AMERICA HAS TO FINISH THE JOB IN IRAN

But whether he was lucky or just stumbled into the right situation, he certainly deserves a belated bit of recognition.

Trump says his tough and sometimes erratic talk kept the Iranian leaders who survived the bombing off balance. And, of course, his latest delay in the bombing pause created the space for a tentative agreement (which theoretically expires Tuesday).

Come on: If President Biden had achieved a double ceasefire–with Iran and Lebanon–Democrats would be hailing him as a great commander-in-chief and powerful peacemaker. (And most Republicans would be critical.)

TRUMP’S IRAN STRATEGY SHOWCASES ‘DOCTRINE OF UNPREDICTABILITY’ AMID STRIKE THREATS AND SUDDEN PAUSE

Trump, never one to deflect credit, posted Friday: "The Failing New York Times, FAKE NEWS CNN, and others, just don’t know what to do. They are desperately looking for a reason to criticize President Donald J. Trump on the Iran situation, but just can’t find it."

Meanwhile, Trump hasn’t lost his talent for stepping on his own story.

By posting that fake AI picture of himself as Jesus, and a followup of Christ comforting him, the president angered many Catholic followers who viewed the images as blasphemous. Trump had to delete the first one within 12 hours, which he almost never does.

MORNING GLORY: THE US-IRAN NEGOTIATIONS IN ISLAMABAD BECAME REYKJAVÍK 2.0

I know why he did it. Trump wanted to draw attention to his war of words with Pope Leo, and this guaranteed the topic would dominate the news for days. He even had JD Vance, a converted Catholic, warn the American-born Pope to be careful about discussing theology.

By the way, I don’t agree with Pete Hegseth (who delivered a biblical verse actually lifted from "Pulp Fiction") unloading on the "Trump-hating" legacy media. I don’t believe they’ve portrayed the war as a failure.

But in watching show after show after Trump’s announcement, I saw a bit of straight reporting on the president’s update quickly fade into the Jesus uproar, dissing NATO, the Epstein files, RFK’s ostensible shift on vaccines, Victor Orban’s defeat–all the same stuff they would have been talking about had there been no progress on the war.

WHY TRUMP, IRAN SEEM LIGHT-YEARS APART ON ANY POSSIBLE DEAL TO END THE WAR

Despite the president’s repeated pronouncements of victory, we do have to ask where this would leave his main rationale for the airstrikes–to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Whether such an outcome was imminent or not, I haven’t seen the Iranians, who lie for a living, agree to forfeit their longtime ambitions.

What I’ve watched instead is Trump saying he would strongly consider unfreezing $20 billion in Iranian assets if the U.S. can remove the enriched uranium–and underground nuclear "dust" – from the country. Maybe with that supposed price tag, it’s worthwhile for the world’s biggest terror state.

BROADCAST BIAS: FROM SPACE TO CEASEFIRES, NETWORKS STILL PAINT TRUMP AS THE PROBLEM

But as we’ve just learned again, the devil is always in the details.

Let’s say the ceasefire holds, Hormuz is reopened, and a deal is made–putting aside, for the sake of argument, all the caveats about how this train could be derailed.

Will the Democrats and the mainstream media even grudgingly concede that Donald Trump pulled off something quite historic? 

I’m not so sure about that. 

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/WjluypQ
via IFTTT