Missouri AG suing New York over Alvin Bragg's 'unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump'
Despite their routine concern-mongering about threats to democracy, Democrats have worked hard in recent months to eliminate President Joe Biden's rival from contention ahead of the 2024 election. Some have referred to this effort to deny voters a choice and thereby decide the election by undemocratic means as "lawfare."
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) revealed Thursday that such attacks will not go unanswered.
Bailey noted on X that he would be "filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump. It's time to restore the rule of law."
According to the Republican, the efforts of "rogue prosecutor" New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg to "take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail ... sabotages Missourians' right to a free and fair election."
Last week, Bailey testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He noted in his written statement that the "left has prioritized its hatred of President Trump above the rule of law."
'The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error.'
"Government officials at the federal and state levels have censored President Trump, filed civil suits in order to sanction him, illegally removed him from the ballot, and perverted the law in order to prosecute him," wrote Bailey.
The Missouri AG indicated further that Bragg's prosecution of Trump, in particular, "represents one of the most morally abhorrent volleys in the left's on-going barrage of lawfare. The prosecution was politically motivated and replete with legal error."
Among the issues Bailey highlighted with Trump's prosecution in New York — which are likely to be raised in his forthcoming lawsuit — were:
- Bragg's "disqualifying impropriety," reflected in part by his refusal to recuse himself despite an obvious self-interest in the case;
- the indictment charges' "reference to an unspecified and unidentifiable other crime," which altogether "constitutes a deprivation of due process by denying the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the crimes with which he is charged";
- the prosecutor's efforts to have Trump silenced with an "unconstitutional gag order";
- Bragg's perversion of "the law to meet the facts rather than objectively apply the facts to the law," namely through the expansion of the charges beyond the text of the statute at issue in order to criminalize "that which he does not like rather than that which the law forbids"; and
- Bragg's failure to "correct the Court's error in instructing the jury that unanimity was not required as to the predicate offense that forms the basis for the fallacious charges."
Bailey further highlighted in his testimony the apparent "collusion" between the Biden Department of Justice and the New York District Attorney's Office regarding the initiative to take Trump off the board.
Bailey's office expects that lawsuit will go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and will be titled "Missouri vs. New York," reported Fox News Digital.
Extra to announcing that Missouri would be suing New York Thursday, Bailey filed an amicus brief with 23 other red states urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which is overseeing Trump's classified documents case, to reject Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's request for an "unconstitutional gag order" on Trump.
Smith asked Judge Aileen Cannon that the conditions permitting Trump to await trial outside of jail should be updated to include a gag order, prohibiting him from commenting about details of his case, particularly about the raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence.
Trump's attorneys said in a filing last week, "Like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Smith seeks to restrict President Trump’s campaign speech as the first presidential debate approaches at the end of this month," reported CNN.
The amicus brief filed by Bailey and other Republican attorneys general, stressed that fair and free elections "depend on candidates' ability to speak about important issues of the day."
"When agents of one candidate seek a court order to muzzle discussion on matters relating to important electoral issues, that restraint raises even more fundamental First Amendment concerns," continued the brief.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Calif. Innocence Project director may have established romance with murderer to free another alleged murderer
The director of a California organization that attempts to help the supposedly wrongfully convicted is now accused of establishing a romantic relationship with one convicted murderer to help free another, according to the San Francisco Standard.
The case
The complicated case relates to two friends who grew up in the projects of San Francisco as well as a woman who died because of a drug deal gone wrong. In 1991, a jury found Maurice Caldwell, a local drug dealer, guilty of fatally shooting the woman, and he was soon afterward locked away in prison.
That same year, Caldwell's childhood friend Marritte Funches, who was allegedly present at the time of the shooting, was convicted of a separate murder in Reno. Funches was then sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
During that time, city attorneys in San Francisco began reinterviewing some of the witnesses identified by Funches and found inconsistencies in their stories. In court documents, they even accused Kaneb of 'manipulating the facts.'
In 2007, 16 years after Caldwell and Funches were convicted of those respective murders, Paige Kaneb joined the Northern California Innocence Project — an organization that is based out of Santa Clara University and is independent of the more widely known Innocence Project established in New York City in 1992 — to advocate on behalf of Caldwell.
Three years later, Kaneb met Funches in the Nevada prison where he was then incarcerated. The two developed a friendship of sorts, and Funches eventually began making suggestive comments to Kaneb in letters and in some of their phone conversations. Kaneb reciprocated some of his romantic overtures, the Standard said, though whether she ever used explicit language with him at that time is unclear.
In 2010, the NCIP was ready to take Caldwell's case to a judge after Kaneb secured statements from several witnesses, including Funches and others identified by him. At the time, Kaneb and Funches reportedly made an agreement that these witnesses could remain anonymous. However, Kaneb then released their names to the public, prompting Funches to end his relationship with her.
The legal ploy worked, though. Funches claimed that he and another associate had killed the woman during the drug deal and that Caldwell was innocent. As a result, a judge granted Caldwell a new trial, determining that he had received inadequate counsel in the original.
In March 2010, Caldwell walked out of prison after serving nearly 19 years. A city attorney later declined to retry him.
Several years later, Caldwell unsuccessfully attempted to have the courts declare him factually innocent. During that time, city attorneys in San Francisco began reinterviewing some of the witnesses identified by Funches and found inconsistencies in their stories. In court documents, they even accused Kaneb of "manipulating the facts."
They also discovered the previous infatuation between Kaneb and Funches and found that Kaneb may have offered Funches legal and medical aid or even passed along money to his daughter. Kaneb later denied rendering him legal aid. She also reportedly insisted that her efforts to help Funches did not cross any ethical lines.
In 2021, even with the inconsistencies in the witnesses' stories and Caldwell's failed attempts to secure legal innocence, San Francisco agreed to pay Caldwell an $8 million settlement.
The flame burns hot once again
In 2023, two years after Caldwell reached the settlement with the city, Kaneb and Funches reconnected, and their romantic relationship rekindled in earnest. Between March and December 2023, the two exchanged nearly 9,000 messages that included videos and pictures.
'I love you too. Always have, always will.'
In one message, Kaneb admitted to Funches that on their first meeting, she was jealous that he seemed to pay more attention to her female colleague. "I wanted you to look at me — I’ve never admitted that before ... I remember when she left for a few minutes. It was like my chest would explode. And we began talking ... ❤" she reportedly wrote.
In his messages, Funches frequently described Kaneb as "beautiful" and claimed he wanted to "protect" her.
"I love you. I always have. Never stopped. Always will," he apparently wrote last July.
"I love you too. Always have, always will," she reportedly replied.
Several weeks later, she sent him a few racy photos. In one, she is wearing a thin wrap. She wrote in the attending message that she had "nothing" on "underneath." He assured her in his reply that his "imagination was going crazy."
Kaneb sent at least one other selfie that suggested she was wearing minimal clothing. She also sent multiple videos that included a virtual kiss, the Standard report shows.
The Standard reviewed many of the former couple's messages as well as many of their recorded phone calls. The outlet claimed these messages and phone calls "corroborate many aspects of Funches’ relationship with Kaneb and the aid he claims Caldwell promised him."
'Your career is done': Apparent blackmail leads to another break-up
Last December, their relationship soured once again after Funches began hinting that Caldwell was actually guilty. "Maurice isn’t everything you think he is," he told Kaneb. Kaneb insisted she believed the case involved "an innocent person."
Funches also allegedly began blackmailing Kaneb, demanding $2 million in exchange for his silence about their relationship. "I recorded every phone call, kept every text. And copies of every video," he allegedly warned her in an email.
"You can try to clean it up. But you'll never practice law again. Your career is done."
Funches then went to the Standard. In statements with the outlet, Funches claimed that he and Caldwell "shot two people" in 1990. He also added that Kaneb engaged with him only so that he would help her on Caldwell's case.
"She pretended to take a personal interest in me. We began a romantic relationship," he wrote to the Standard. "It was the art of seduction at its finest. All to get me to finally help Mr. Caldwell."
Response to the accusations
California law does not expressly prohibit romantic relationships between lawyers and witnesses, but the experts whom the Standard consulted indicated that the courts would've disregarded much of the evidence brought to assist Caldwell, had they known about Kaneb and Funches' communications.
'It’s the most compelling case for innocence that I’ve ever seen.'
An NCIP spokesperson from Santa Clara University countered that Kaneb, who is now the legal director of the NCIP, began sexting Funches only last August, more than a decade after Caldwell was released from prison.
"As with any unit of the university, when we receive any allegations of inappropriate conduct by an employee, we refer the matter to the university for investigation," the spokesperson said. He also claimed that Caldwell's exoneration remains safe.
However, a statement from city prosecutors indicates they are "looking into the matter" as it relates to Caldwell's settlement. "We take this information seriously," the statement said.
Neither Kaneb nor Caldwell responded to the Standard's "repeated" requests for comment.
"Maurice has always proclaimed his innocence," Kaneb said of Caldwell in 2021. "It’s the most compelling case for innocence that I’ve ever seen."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Stu Burguiere: Trump’s conviction is an example of how to ‘rig a trial’
Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial has been celebrated by leftist politicians and the media all week long.
The New York Times has joined in, with a headline reading: “Trump Convicted on All Counts to Become America’s First Felon President,” while Joe Biden has also begun happily calling his opponent a convicted felon.
Stu Burguiere believes that headline “conveys two possible things.”
“Trump is worse than every other president we’ve ever had. That is one way you can read that headline. Another way you can read that headline is that never before in the history of this great country, over 200 years, has any political party attempted to do this to their opponent,” Stu says.
“The rules were set up against Donald Trump ever getting to a fair trial,” he continues, adding, “The trial itself was a rigging.”
“This was a misdemeanor that was beyond the statute of limitations. That means this is over, right?” he adds. “They went after every little technicality to try to get him to convert this past the statute of limitations and into a felony by charging it in conjunction with another felony.”
“That in and of itself is freaking crazy,” Stu says. “This is how you quote unquote ‘rig a trial.’”
“After all this goes down, they tell the jurors that not only do you not have to convict him on one of these other felonies, you don’t even have to know which one it is. Let me give you a few options and if you disagree on which one it is, well that’s ok too,” Stu continues.
“It’s like me calling into work and saying, ‘Well, I can’t come to work, I’ve got the flu or cancer or leprosy. Pick one.'”
Want more from Stu?
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Trump's 'banana republic' conviction won't be Democrats' last — unless there is 'retaliation in kind': UC Berkeley law prof
UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo made clear this week that President Donald Trump's conviction before a Democratic judge in a Democratic enclave on charges brought by a Democratic prosecutor effectively obliterates any remaining pretense that the justice system is a means for resolution and restitution. The courtroom is now instead apparently a vehicle for seeking retribution and political advantage.
With this transformation, Yoo says its high time for "retaliation in kind" by Republican district attorneys.
Ahead of President Donald Trump's conviction, Yoo noted in National Review that it was abundantly clear the hush-money case was built around "farcical charges" and aimed not at delivering justice but at protecting a decrepit Democratic president from facing his top competitor in November.
"The superficiality of the facts and the vagueness of the crimes magnify the harm that Democrats have inflicted on our political norms," wrote the former deputy assistant attorney general. "Make no mistake, Democrats have crossed a constitutional Rubicon."
Yoo issued a note of caution: The "weakness of the case against Trump lowers the bar for prosecuting future presidents below that for prosecuting garden-variety criminals in New York City."
'Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents.'
"Regardless of the trial's outcome, its consequences will have a profound effect on the presidency. The weaker the Trump cases are, the more open the invitation is to future prosecutors of presidents of the opposite party," wrote Yoo. "After this Trump trial, any city, county, or state prosecutor might be encouraged to prosecute any federal officer for conjured violations of a state's criminal law or other patently partisan reasons."
To remedy "this breach of constitutional norms," Yoo indicated that Republicans' only recourse is to observe the Golden rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents."
For instance, a Republican district attorney will have to do the work the Biden Department of Justice appears unwilling or at the very least incapable of doing: Hold Hunter Biden to account for one of his various alleged crimes.
"Another Republican DA will have to investigate Joe Biden for influence-peddling at the behest of a son who received payoffs from abroad," continued Yoo. "Only retaliation in kind can produce the deterrence necessary to enforce a political version of mutual assured destruction; without the threat of prosecution of their own leaders, Democrats will continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint."
"We must rely on Republicans to threaten an escalation of banana-republic politics in order to prevent actually becoming a banana republic," concluded Yoo.
Early in its critique of Yoo's argument, New York magazine admitted that "the Alvin Bragg prosecution is weak. That's not to say Trump is innocent, but that it's a borderline case that did not need to be charged."
Time will tell whether Republican district attorneys will rise to the challenge. In the meantime, several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate have indicated that bipartisanship under the current regime is over.
Republican Sens. Michael S. Lee (Utah), J.D. Vance (Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) issued a statement Friday, noting, "The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways. As a Senate Republican conference, we are unwilling to aid and abet this White House in its project to tear this country apart."
"To this end, we will not 1) allow any increase to non-security related funding for this administration, or any appropriations bill which funds partisan lawfare; 2) vote to confirm this administration's political and judicial appointees; and 3) allow expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people," said the statement.
The original eight invited other senators to join them in taking a stand in the wake of the unprecedented conviction of Biden's political opponent.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Pro-abortion terrorist who firebombed pro-life organization on Mother's Day given light sentence
Pro-abortion terrorist Hridindu Sankar Roychowdhury firebombed the Wisconsin Family Action office in Madison on Mother's Day in 2022. Before he could flee the country, he was caught by police with the help of genetic evidence lifted off a half-eaten burrito.
U.S. District Judge William M. Conley sentenced Roychowdhury Wednesday to 7.5 years in prison for the terror attack — only two years more than the mandatory minimum sentence for his crime and possibly years less than what the pro-life activists behind the 2020 Washington Surgi-Clinic demonstration may end up serving for their peaceful protest.
Wisconsin Family Action president emeritus Julaine Appling expressed disappointment that the bomber, whom the Department of Justice recognized as a domestic terrorist, had gotten off lightly.
"May, 8, 2022, is forever emblazoned on my mind. It was a very visual reminder that people who disagree with us can and will use violence to try to silence us. We recommended the defendant receive 15 years imprisonment," said Appling. "We based that on justice — on the punishment fitting the crime, not on retribution or vengeance. This was a serious, premeditated crime that was the first of nearly 100 attacks on pro-life organizations across the country. In light of this, we are disappointed in the judge's decision regarding a crime the judge called 'terrorism' multiple times."
"A civil society does not exist if violence is the default reaction to disagreeing with people," added Appling.
Christine File, the current president of WFA, similarly expressed disappointment, stressing that the "court missed an opportunity to strengthen the protection of constitutional rights like free speech and free exercise, rights that have themselves been under assault in recent years."
"Given the severity of his crime and the charges he pled guilty to, the sentence lacks proportionality. However, as we've said since the day of the attack, no act or threat of violence or terrorism will deter us from our mission — being a voice for the voiceless," said Appling.
Roychowdhury's sentencing happened to take place the same day that an Antifa radical who had showcased pro-abortion agitprop as well as other leftist messaging online was arrested for allegedly setting off a nail bomb in February outside the Republican attorney general's office in Montgomery, Alabama.
Pro-abortion terrorism
Blaze News previously reported that roughly one week after the U.S. Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overruling Roe v. Wade, was leaked to the public, pro-abortion extremists and other leftists ramped up their attacks on pro-life facilities, activists, and churches across the country. One of the hundreds of pro-life targets was the WFA office near Dane County Regional Airport.
In the early hours of Mother's Day, 2022, Roychowdhury tossed a Molotov cocktail into the WFA office. Since it failed to ignite, he started another fire nearby, then left behind graffiti that said, "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either" — a threat routinely used by the pro-abortion terror group Jane's Revenge.
The numbers "1312" were also spray-painted at the scene, which is a common representation of "ACAB," which means "all cops are bastards."
Thankfully, no one was inside the office at the time of the attack.
Police later found a broken glass jar with its lid burned black near a disposable lighter at the scene. They also found a second glass jar nearby with the lid on and a singed blue cloth tucked into the top. The second jar was half-full of a "clear fluid that smelled like an accelerant."
On the day of the attack, the Jane's Revenge blog posted what was supposedly Roychowdhury's "communiqué," which said, "This was only a warning. We demand the disbanding of all anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next thirty days. ... We will not sit still while we are killed and forced into servitude. We have run thin on patience and mercy."
The post added, "Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings. And we will not stop, we will not back down, nor will we hesitate to strike."
Julaine Appling, who was the WFA president at the time, stated, "Apparently, the tolerance that the left demands is truly a one-way street. Violence has become their answer to everything."
The WFA made abundantly clear in the immediate aftermath of the pro-abortion terrorist attack and in the years since that it will not bend to intimidation.
Appling said, "It strengthened our resolve. We will repair our offices, remain on the job, and build an even stronger grassroots effort."
Escape foiled by a burrito
According to the Department of Justice, local law enforcement officials collected DNA from the scene of the attack belonging to three individuals. None of the suspects' DNA were in the DOJ's genetics database.
Despite this setback, investigators continued digging while Appling posted a $5,000 reward for potential leads.
In January 2023, there was a break in the case. When poring over surveillance footage of a leftist protest, police noticed anti-cop graffiti that resembled the threatening message left at the WFA office. The police analyzed the footage further and observed that the vandals responsible left the scene in a white pickup truck, which in turn led investigators to Roychowdhury.
Suspecting that the biochemist was linked to the bombing, they surveilled him. On March 1, 2023, police were afforded an opportunity to check the bomber's DNA against that discovered at the crime scene: the terrorist had thrown a half-eaten burrito into a public trash can. Officials recovered the burrito and had a forensic biologist inspect the DNA on it at an AFT laboratory. They ultimately confirmed that Roychowdhury was their man.
There was still the matter of catching him.
Roychowdhury had recently departed Madison for Portland, Maine, where he purchased a one-way plane ticket for March 28 from Boston to Guatemala. Even though the U.S. has an extradition treaty with the southern nation, once in Guatemala, Roychowdhury may have been able to find his way beyond America's reach.
Law enforcement intercepted Roychowdhury at the Boston Logan International Airport on the day of his planned departure and permanently grounded him.
"The firebombing was an unacceptable attack on the safety and constitutionally protected rights of every citizen in the state of Wisconsin," said Michael Hensle, special agent in charged of the FBI Milwaukee field office.
Guilt and sentencing
Roychowdhury pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2023, to attempting to cause damage by means of fire or an explosive.
While he faced the potential of decades in prison, prosecutors agreed to recommend that Judge Conley reduce his sentence because the terrorist supposedly accepted responsibility for the crime, reported the Associated Press.
Following Roychowdhury's sentencing Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Timothy M. O'Shea reiterated in a statement, "Roychowdhury's arson was an act of domestic terrorism."
"Domestic terrorism is cowardly and profoundly undemocratic," continued O'Shea. "It is not speech; it is not an exchange of ideas; instead, it is an attempt to harm or frighten one's fellow citizens, thus driving Americans apart and weakening the fabric of our democratic society."
ATF Director Stephen Dettelbach underscored that the pro-abortion attack was indeed an act of terrorism.
"Engaging in an act of terror — in this case, firebombing a business because of their beliefs — is criminal and unamerican. As today's sentencing demonstrates, it won't be tolerated," said Dettelbach.
WFA President Christine File said Thursday, "The defendant's act of domestic terrorism to threaten our people, our families and friends, our neighbors, and our greater pro-life community is unconscionable. Ultimately, the defendant — and others who attacked pro-life groups they disagree with — attacked our civil society and the constitutional rights foundational to it."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Thug accused of smashing car's rear window with kids in back seat, pointing gun at their mom, head-butting her pleads guilty
The biker accused of stomping and smashing a car's rear window on a Philadelphia street last fall when children, ages 2 and 5, were in the back seat and then pointing a gun at their mother and head-butting her after she confronted him pleaded guilty Wednesday, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office said.
Cody Heron, 27, during a pre-trial status hearing pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of an instrument of crime, officials said, adding that the DA's office announced Heron's conviction Thursday.
What's the background?
Authorities said Heron and fellow bikers and drivers jammed traffic outside City Hall on Oct. 1 during an unauthorized "meet-up."
Nikki Bullock, the mother in question, told WCAU-TV shortly after the ordeal that she was delivering food with her girlfriend and their two children when the assailant hit her car.
"They’re not paying attention to lanes. They’re just doing whatever. So I’m turning in the lane, and he just hits the side of the car," Bullock told WCAU, adding that she argued with the biker afterward.
She noted to the station the biker at that point took things to another level, hopping up on her car's back bumper and stomping on the rear window before jumping high and smashing through the window with both feet.
After Bullock exited the car to confront the biker, the biker pointed a gun at her. Bullock told the station, "It was just, like, it was a little gun, and at that point, my windshield was already broken — so, what was he really going to do to me, for real?"
She continued trying to get in the biker's face, and the biker — who was wearing a helmet — head-butted her and shoved her. The DA's office confirmed that Heron smashed the car's window, head-butted the victim, and brandished a firearm at her.
Bullock still didn't back down, and video shows her shoving the biker back — and he falls sideways along with his two-wheeled ride.
Anything else?
The DA's office said Heron tried to evade authorities by destroying evidence and "even using another person’s online profile to deflect attention from investigators." Heron's sentencing is scheduled for June 5, authorities said.
Here's a report about the incident that aired after Heron's arrest:
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
Lacrosse coach FIRED for congratulating the ‘real woman who won’
In the name of transgender rights, women’s rights — as well as free speech — continue to take a beating.
The latest blow comes from Oberlin College, where administrators fired Kim Russell from her position as women’s lacrosse coach because she dared to voice the most controversial opinion: that men don’t belong in women’s sports.
In March 2022, Russell had shared an Instagram post congratulating Emma Weyant as the “real woman who won” the NCAA 500-yard freestyle, after Weyant had placed second to Lia Thomas, a man who identifies as a woman.
At the top of the post, Russell left comments: “What do you believe? I can’t be quiet on this…I’ve spent my life playing sports, starting & coaching sports programs for girls & women...”
A student had reported her comments to college authorities, prompting Oberlin’s athletic director to demand that Russell write a letter of apology.
Russell refused.
Pat Gray jokes that Russell is obviously “a danger to society," but Oberlin College isn't joking.
“It’s acceptable to have your own opinions, but when they go against Oberlin College’s beliefs, it’s a problem for your employment,” Creg Jantz, senior associate director of athletics at Oberlin College, reportedly said.
“So you don’t really believe that it is important or acceptable to have your own opinions,” Gray says, calling it “incredible.”
Want more from Pat Gray?
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.