23.6 C
Los Angeles
Friday, October 24, 2025

Why Marc Short Attacks the White House Ballroom Plan

Key Takeaways • Marc Short, former chief of...

Could Migrants Be Held on Military Bases Abroad?

Key Takeaways • A judge asked if the...

Why Epstein Files Must Finally Be Unsealed

Key Takeaways • The Epstein files contain names...
Home Blog Page 7

DOJ Shakedown: What You Need to Know

Reginald Edward
-
0
DOJ Shakedown: What You Need to Know

Key Takeaways

  • A former Justice Department attorney slammed Trump’s $200 million demand as an obvious conflict.
  • The attorney said asking DOJ to pay Trump is both illegal and unethical.
  • Two Trump appointees could face professional discipline if they help with this “shakedown.”
  • Legal experts warn that handling this case could trigger Bar Association probes.

A top former DOJ attorney spoke out on MSNBC about President Trump’s demand for over $200 million from the Justice Department. He said this request is a clear example of a DOJ shakedown. In his view, Trump cannot be both the complainant and the judge in his own case. The attorney called the ethics rules “absolutely clear” and warned of major legal troubles if the demand moves forward.

Why the DOJ Shakedown Raises Big Questions

First, Trump asks the Justice Department to pay him money. Then, he would oversee any complaint about how DOJ treats him. That setup makes no sense under U.S. law. Even if Trump proves that DOJ targeted him unfairly, a career attorney must handle the claim, not the president. This safeguard ensures fair treatment for every American.

Moreover, a DOJ shakedown would shift a huge burden onto taxpayers. As the former DOJ attorney put it, “That’s the last thing on God’s green earth that he wants.” If successful, the president would effectively use taxpayer money to settle a personal dispute. Critics say this choice bends justice to private ends.

Legal and Ethical Issues Explained

According to the former DOJ lawyer, ethics rules forbid a public official from pursuing personal claims with public funds. He stressed that DOJ rules require an objective review by career attorneys. These experts have no political ties and guard the department’s integrity.

Additionally, the attorney warned about conflicts of interest. If Trump’s loyalists oversee his payment demand, they breach ethical duties. Such conflicts risk undermining public trust. In turn, they could face investigations by professional oversight bodies.

Finally, the attorney pointed out that even proving a targeting claim is tough. Trump would have to convince a judge that DOJ actions violated his rights. He would need to gather strong evidence. That process would put Trump in court, something his team likely wants to avoid.

A Warning to Bondi and Blanche

The former DOJ official called out Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. He told them that helping with the DOJ shakedown could trigger Bar Association reviews. These reviews can lead to formal discipline. They can even suspend a lawyer’s license.

He said Bar Associations watch closely when attorneys handle cases with clear conflicts. In this case, the conflict exists because the president is the client and the boss. Bondi and Blanche would face serious questions if they choose to work on Trump’s claim. The attorney’s warning shows that professional ethics can carry real penalties.

What Could Happen Next?

If the administration pushes ahead, a few things could unfold. First, DOJ career staff might refuse to open the case. Then, Trump would need to find lawyers willing to risk discipline. These lawyers would face formal complaints filed with their state Bar.

Next, a judge would review whether the president can file such a claim. Courts often reject attempts to mix personal and official roles. Legal experts expect a motion to dismiss early in the process. If it reaches trial, the spotlight would shift to evidence of targeting.

Finally, the public debate would intensify. Opponents would cry foul over misuse of taxpayer money. Supporters would argue Trump deserves justice. Meanwhile, ethics investigators would review every step.

Conclusion

The former DOJ attorney’s criticism underscores serious legal and ethical flaws in Trump’s plan. He framed it as a “shakedown” because it forces taxpayers to fund a personal fight. He stressed that career lawyers must handle any DOJ claim. Otherwise, public trust in justice suffers. Bondi and Blanche now face tough choices. If they assist, they risk professional discipline. The coming weeks will reveal if the DOJ shakedown moves forward or collapses under its own conflicts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a DOJ shakedown?

A DOJ shakedown is when a person, including a president, demands money or favors from the Justice Department for personal reasons. This demand pulls funds from taxpayers and raises conflict concerns.

Why can’t Trump handle his own DOJ claim?

Ethics and legal rules require claims against the department to be managed by career attorneys. This independent process prevents conflicts and protects public trust.

What risks do Bondi and Blanche face?

They could face Bar Association investigations for conflicts of interest. Such probes might lead to formal discipline, including license suspension.

How might courts react to this demand?

Courts often dismiss cases with mixed official and personal roles. Judges may reject the claim early, citing lack of jurisdiction or conflict of interest.

Inside the GOP Group Chat Scandal: Shocking Revelations

Reginald Edward
-
0
Inside the GOP Group Chat Scandal: Shocking Revelations

Key Takeaways

  • Racist and xenophobic remarks surfaced in Republican text threads.
  • Leaders used insecure texting and encrypted apps like Signal.
  • The GOP group chat scandal highlights deep hubris and risk.
  • Few members face real consequences despite clear evidence.

GOP Group Chat Scandal Exposes Deep Problems

The recent GOP group chat scandal has stunned many. It shows how some party members speak without fear. They share hateful messages in text threads and on encrypted apps. In fact, their main worry seems to be job security, not national security. This scandal reflects a core arrogance in the party’s communications.

The scandal began when reporters uncovered thousands of messages. These texts revealed praise for Hitler and slurs against various groups. Some members blamed internal rivalries for leaks. Yet the uproar has not led to serious punishments. Instead, it underscores a sense of impunity within the party.

Why the GOP Group Chat Scandal Matters

First, these messages create a clear paper trail. Anyone can screenshot and share them. As a result, they become proof of extremist views. However, the people involved seem to treat leaks as minor mishaps. They send a quick “lol, oops” and carry on.

Second, using text threads and apps like Signal is risky. These platforms are unreliable for secret talks. Texts can be stored, forwarded, and exposed. Therefore, party insiders leave evidence of their worst opinions. That behavior itself poses a security risk for the country.

Third, the scandal reveals a culture of hubris. Members believe they will face no real fallout. They assume that, no matter what they text, they can avoid serious harm. This overconfidence erodes trust in the party’s leadership.

What This Means for the Republican Party

The GOP group chat scandal could drive voters away. People expect leaders to act responsibly. When they don’t, trust fades. Meanwhile, opponents will use these revelations to attack the party’s integrity.

At the same time, party leaders have done little to address the problem. Few, if any, have punished the chat participants. Without consequences, the message is clear: you can express hate without fear. This stance could alienate moderate voters and damage future campaigns.

Moreover, the scandal highlights poor communication habits. Relying on casual texts for sensitive talks is unwise. Leaders should use secure, professional channels. Otherwise, they risk exposure and embarrassment.

How the Scandal Unfolded

Initially, journalists got hold of internal text archives. These contained racist jokes and extremist praise. Some messages even discussed deporting entire populations. Once published, the texts sparked outrage across the country.

Despite the backlash, the involved members shrugged it off. They blamed leaks on internal feuds. Then they kept right on texting. As one analyst noted, the scandal proves they feel untouchable.

Furthermore, the scandal shows that slurs still exist at the highest levels. It defies efforts to present a more inclusive party image. If leaders cannot control their own chats, how can they promise better governance?

The Security Angle

Interestingly, the scandal also raises national security questions. When party figures use unreliable systems, they put sensitive data at risk. Encrypted apps like Signal might seem safe. Yet they can still leave logs and invite leaks.

Meanwhile, texting leaves a clear record. In an age of digital forensics, no message truly disappears. Thus, risky communications can expose plans and strategies. They can even reveal personal details.

Ultimately, the GOP group chat scandal shows why secure, formal channels matter. Governments worldwide treat classified data with strict rules. Yet these party members treat serious topics like casual chat. That mismatch poses dangers beyond just embarrassment.

Lessons for Political Teams

First, always assume someone will see your messages. Treat digital talks as permanent. Use secure, vetted platforms for sensitive matters. Avoid casual group texts for strategy or confidential ideas.

Second, set clear rules for online behavior. Leaders should ban hate speech in any form. They must enforce real penalties when rules break. Without consequences, bad habits thrive.

Third, train staff on digital hygiene. Teach them to use strong passwords and two-factor authentication. Remind them that leaks can come from anywhere, even trusted allies.

Finally, foster a culture of respect. Encourage open dialogue, but ban hateful language. Show that the party values all citizens. This approach not only prevents scandals, it builds voter trust.

What Comes Next

For now, the scandal remains in the headlines. Yet without serious fallout, the cycle may repeat. Party insiders will keep using risky apps and texting freely. They will feel shielded by a lack of punishment.

However, voters and watchdogs will remember these messages. Opponents will cite them in debates and ads. Over time, the GOP group chat scandal could shape public opinion. It may force the party to clean up its act or face deeper losses.

FAQs

What exactly happened in the GOP group chat scandal?

Reporters revealed private texts filled with racist and xenophobic content. The messages came from various party members messaging on text threads and encrypted apps.

Why are these chats considered a security risk?

Text and Signal messages leave a paper trail that hackers or insiders can leak. That puts personal data and party strategies at risk.

Will any Republican leaders face consequences?

So far, few have faced real punishment. Many involved posted a quick apology and continued as before. That lack of action highlights a sense of impunity.

How could this affect upcoming elections?

The scandal may erode trust among moderate voters. Opponents will use it to paint the party as intolerant. If leaders don’t act, the fallout could hurt their chances at the polls.

Trump Slams Report on Long-Range Missiles in Ukraine

Reginald Edward
-
0
Trump Slams Report on Long-Range Missiles in Ukraine

Key Takeaways

  • President Trump denies U.S. support for Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles.
  • The Wall Street Journal reported a policy shift letting Ukraine strike targets inside Russia.
  • Control over these weapons moved from the Pentagon to U.S. European Command.
  • Trump labeled the story “fake news” on his social platform.
  • The debate highlights growing tensions over U.S. aid and Ukraine’s defense strategy.

Why Trump Denies Long-Range Missiles Claim

President Trump strongly rejected a recent news report. The Wall Street Journal said the U.S. secretly let Ukraine use long-range missiles inside Russia. But Trump insists the story is false. He claims the U.S. played no role in supplying or approving those weapons. The argument has stirred fresh debate about U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

The Long-Range Missiles Debate

In recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal published a detailed story. It said the Trump administration lifted a key restriction. This change allows Ukraine to carry out deeper strikes against Russian targets. The move, according to the report, aims to pressure the Kremlin and slow its advances.

What the Wall Street Journal Report Says

The Journal explained that the U.S. quietly approved Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles. Previously, American policy barred them from hitting Russian soil.
Moreover, the report noted a shift in decision power. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth once held authority over these strikes. Now that role belongs to General Alexus Grynkewich at U.S. European Command. He also commands NATO forces in Europe. As a result, Ukraine can now receive direct approval for deep-strike missions.

Trump’s Response on Truth Social

President Trump took to his social media platform to respond. He wrote that the Journal’s account is “fake news.” Trump said the U.S. has no connection to those missiles. He added that Ukraine’s actions and weapons come from other sources.
In addition, Trump accused the media of spreading misinformation. He asked followers to ignore the report and trust his version of events. His bold denial has fueled more questions about the actual policy.

How U.S. Policy on Long-Range Missiles Changed

Before this report, official U.S. policy banned Ukraine from using American-supplied missiles on Russian territory. The goal was to avoid a wider war. However, Ukrainian leaders pressed for stronger support as their forces faced heavy pressure. They argued that deeper strikes could disrupt Russian supply lines and slow attacks.
Therefore, U.S. officials began debating whether to grant new authority. They weighed risks of escalation against the need to strengthen Ukraine’s defense. Ultimately, the decision shifted from the Pentagon to U.S. European Command. This move created a streamlined approval process.

Why the Shift Matters

First, giving Ukraine more missile reach shows stronger U.S. backing. Second, it pressures Russia on multiple fronts. Third, it signals to allies that the U.S. remains committed to Ukraine’s security. However, opponents worry it could spark retaliation from Moscow. They fear a broader conflict if Russia views strikes inside its borders as a direct threat.

Analysts Weigh In

Many experts say this change could tilt the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor. They note that long-range missiles can hit supply hubs far behind enemy lines. This could force Russia to divert resources.
However, some caution that any strike inside Russia risks escalation. They remind readers that wars often spiral out of control. Consequently, the U.S. must act carefully to balance support with restraint.

What Comes Next

Moving forward, two things will shape this story. First, Ukraine’s choices on where and how to use these missiles. They must balance military gain with diplomatic risk. Second, Russia’s response. Will Moscow retaliate or seek a ceasefire? Both sides now watch closely.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s denial keeps the debate heated. His claim of “fake news” contrasts sharply with the Journal’s detailed account. Americans and allies await further clarity from official U.S. channels.

Why This Matters to You

This dispute affects global security and U.S. leadership. It could redefine how far America will go to support allies. In addition, it shows the power of media and politics in shaping public view. Whether you follow foreign policy or media battles, this story has real-world impact.

FAQs

What did the Wall Street Journal report claim?

The Wall Street Journal said the U.S. lifted restrictions. This change lets Ukraine use long-range missiles inside Russia. The goal was to tighten pressure on the Kremlin.

How did President Trump respond?

Trump called the story “fake news” on his social media platform. He denied any U.S. involvement in those missile strikes.

Who now approves Ukraine’s missile strikes?

Control moved from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to General Alexus Grynkewich. He leads U.S. European Command and NATO forces in Europe.

Why are long-range missiles important?

Long-range missiles can reach targets far behind enemy lines. They help disrupt supply routes and weaken enemy advances. However, they also carry a risk of broader conflict.

Unreasonable Demand Rocks ACA Tax Credits Debate

Reginald Edward
-
0
Unreasonable Demand Rocks ACA Tax Credits Debate

 

Key Takeaways

• A government shutdown hinges on extending ACA tax credits.
• Rep. Marianette Miller-Meeks calls the demand “unreasonable.”
• Millions face higher health costs if credits lapse.
• Some Republicans show signs of compromise.
• Negotiations stall until Congress reopens the government.

ACA tax credits debate heats up

A major fight in Washington now centers on ACA tax credits. These credits help lower monthly insurance costs for millions. Yet extending them is at the heart of the current shutdown. Representative Marianette Miller-Meeks described the demand to make these credits permanent as “unreasonable.” Her words have intensified the debate over health care and budgeting in Congress.

Why ACA tax credits matter

The ACA tax credits lower health insurance premiums for about nine in ten enrollees. Without them, many families would face steep price hikes. Enrollment for next year’s coverage opened recently. Experts warn that delayed action on the credits could lead to chaos for those signing up.

As it stands, enhanced ACA tax credits expire at the end of 2025. Democrats set that date when they passed relief packages in 2021 and 2022. Now, they want to remove the sunset date and lock in the credits. Republicans, led by Miller-Meeks, resist without first reopening the government.

What Rep. Miller-Meeks said

During a Monday interview, Miller-Meeks voiced strong criticism. She said the ACA has proven “unaffordable” due to waste and fraud in premium tax credits. She argued high-income earners unfairly benefit. In her view, insurance companies keep the extra money, so they lack any push to cut premiums.

“Obamacare is the Unaffordable Care Act,” she declared. She pointed out that Democrats chose an expiration date for the enhanced ACA tax credits. Now, she added, they demand permanence on the very credits they set to expire. She labeled that demand as unreasonable.

Political stakes for Republicans

Miller-Meeks represents a swing district in Iowa and faces a tough re-election. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quickly highlighted her remarks. They aim to paint her and other Republicans as blockers of affordable health care.

Meanwhile, some GOP lawmakers indicate they could back extending the credits. They hope to shield vulnerable incumbents. Yet they remain firm that Democrats approve votes to reopen the government first. This gridlock leaves vulnerable Republicans in a tight spot.

Where talks stand now

Negotiations have stalled. Republicans demand a clean vote to end the shutdown. Democrats insist on a broader agreement that includes ACA tax credits. Without compromise, millions risk losing financial help for health insurance. The standoff threatens to drag on, leaving Americans unsure about their coverage costs.

In addition, voters are watching closely. Health care remains a top concern. Rising costs could shape opinions before next year’s midterm elections. Lawmakers on both sides know time is short to find a path forward.

Impact on everyday families

For families relying on health insurance subsidies, the debate feels personal. Imagine a married couple earning a modest salary. Today, they pay $150 a month for a plan. Without ACA tax credits, their bill might jump to $400. For parents with young children, that increase can hurt the household budget.

Similarly, small-business owners who buy plans on the ACA marketplace face uncertainty. They decide whether to hire new staff or invest in growth. Pending health care costs often push them to postpone these decisions. This economic ripple effect adds pressure on lawmakers to act fast.

Potential compromise paths

Some suggest a short-term extension of the credits. This would keep health plans affordable while broader talks continue. Others propose tying the credits to spending cuts in other areas. Yet both sides fear political backlash if they appear to give ground.

Still, there is room for creativity. One idea involves capping eligibility to lower earners. Another suggests spreading the cost through a small fee on higher premiums. Either option could win support from moderates. However, crafting such deals takes time—and time is running out.

Looking ahead

Congress must vote soon. The budget clock is ticking, and health care enrollment season adds urgency. If lawmakers do not act, insurers could freeze new sign-ups or raise rates. That outcome risks a public relations disaster for both parties.

Therefore, keeping the ACA tax credits alive seems vital. Yet agreeing to a permanent extension remains a major hurdle. Republicans want a full government reopening first. Democrats see the credits as nonnegotiable.

In the end, leaders must balance fiscal concerns with public needs. They face pressure from constituents, party strategists, and lobbyists. As tensions rise, many wonder if compromise still exists in today’s Washington.

FAQs

What happens if ACA tax credits expire?

Families will face significantly higher insurance premiums, potentially pricing many out of coverage.

Who qualifies for ACA tax credits?

Households earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level may qualify, depending on their income and local plan costs.

Why do some Republicans oppose making the credits permanent?

They argue that open-ended subsidies can lead to waste and that insurers lack incentive to lower premiums.

Can Congress extend the credits temporarily?

Yes. A short-term extension could maintain affordability while broader budget talks continue.

What role does the government shutdown play in these talks?

Republicans demand a full government reopening before discussing credit extensions, creating a stalemate.

Why DOJ Threats Go Unpunished Against Swalwell

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why DOJ Threats Go Unpunished Against Swalwell

Key takeaways

• Rep. Eric Swalwell says DOJ threats against him went unpunished
• Swalwell referred several people for threatening his life and family
• The DOJ sent letters refusing to prosecute those threats
• Attorney General Pam Bondi has offered to reexamine the cases

Rep. Eric Swalwell accused the Justice Department of ignoring serious danger. He spoke with Brian Tyler Cohen, a progressive YouTuber, about threats made against him and his family. Despite promises to prosecute all threats against elected leaders, Swalwell says nothing happened.

Swalwell Raises Alarm on DOJ Threats

Swalwell says he reported multiple calls and messages that threatened violence. He even shared details about threats to his children. Yet the DOJ sent formal letters stating they would not charge anyone. Those letters arrived just weeks after U.S. Attorney General claimed she’d go after anyone who threatened a public official.

In his interview, Swalwell pointed to a social media post by the attorney general. She pledged to “aggressively pursue any threats against elected officials.” However, Swalwell said the pledge rang hollow for him. He called out this clear gap between words and action.

Threats Reported and Rejected

First, Swalwell described the exact threats he received. He called the messages direct and specific. Then, he referred those threats to federal agents. Still, the Justice Department closed those files without a single charge.

Next, Swalwell noted the formal letters he got. Each letter said the DOJ would not prosecute the individuals responsible. Those letters arrived shortly after the administration vowed tougher enforcement. Swalwell said he felt frustrated and let down.

He added that many Americans might feel the same if their reports ended in rejection. He appealed to the idea that every citizen deserves fair treatment from the DOJ.

Broader Context of Indictments

Meanwhile, other Trump critics face criminal charges. For example, former FBI Director James Comey was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to Congress. New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted for alleged mortgage fraud.

Both Comey and James deny the allegations. Yet their indictments highlight a shift in the DOJ’s focus. Swalwell worries that his own cases got lost in that shift. He fears his criticism of the president made him a lower priority.

Bondi’s Offer to Reexamine

In response to Swalwell’s public claims, Attorney General Pam Bondi reached out. She asked to review the threat reports. Bondi promised an honest look at the evidence. Swalwell called that offer a positive first step.

He said he welcomes any new review. After all, he only asks for equal treatment. Swalwell stressed that no one should face more or less justice based on politics.

The Stakes for Elected Leaders

Threats to public officials have risen in recent years. Such threats can intimidate leaders and chill debate. When threats go unpunished, they risk inviting more violence.

Furthermore, selective enforcement could undercut democracy. If some threats get ignored, while others lead to swift arrests, people lose trust. Swalwell’s case shows how uneven the system can look.

Finally, the idea that no one stands above the law matters most. Elected officials must feel safe. Voters must trust that threats get taken seriously. Otherwise, democracy itself can suffer.

Next Steps and Public Reaction

As news of Swalwell’s claims spread, social media lit up. Supporters urged the DOJ to act quickly. Others questioned whether politics drove the decision to drop charges.

Congressional leaders responded by calling for hearings. They want to demand answers from DOJ officials. Meanwhile, legal experts say the department must explain its criteria.

Swalwell vows to keep pushing. He plans to meet with DOJ lawyers again. He wants clear guidelines on how threat reports get handled.

Conclusion

Rep. Eric Swalwell’s claim that the Justice Department ignored threats against him raises serious questions. The DOJ threats pledge once seemed firm, but now appears shaky. With more reviews promised, the public will watch how fast the DOJ responds. Elected officials and everyday Americans alike deserve equal protection under the law.

FAQs

Why did Swalwell go public about these cases?

He wanted to highlight a gap between the DOJ’s promises and its actions. By speaking out, he hopes to ensure fair treatment.

What did the DOJ letter say?

The letters stated that the department decided not to prosecute the individuals who threatened Swalwell and his family.

Could politics influence the decision to drop cases?

Some believe so. Critics argue that Swalwell’s role as a Trump critic may have affected the DOJ’s priorities.

What happens next with these threat reports?

Attorney General Pam Bondi has offered to reexamine the files. Swalwell plans to work closely with DOJ officials to seek justice.

Secrets Behind Nick Anderson Cartoons

Reginald Edward
-
0
Secrets Behind Nick Anderson Cartoons

Key takeaways

• Nick Anderson won a Pulitzer Prize for his bold editorial cartoons
• His simple style packs a powerful punch on politics and society
• He uses clear sketches and sharp messages to spark public debate
• Over four decades, his work shaped how readers view current events

Nick Anderson crafts images that speak louder than words. He started drawing in local papers. Over time, his bold style earned top awards. Indeed, his cartoons blend art and sharp criticism. Consequently, readers pause and ponder each scene.

Early Life and Career

Nick grew up sketching heroes and villains in childhood. Later, he studied art and journalism in college. Additionally, he learned to spot news angles that matter. Soon, he joined newspapers as a staff artist. There, he fine-tuned his editorial voice.

Defining a Unique Style

Anderson’s visuals feel simple at first glance. Yet each line carries strong emotion. Moreover, he often uses minimal color to highlight key parts. This choice ensures the core message pops out. Then, readers find themselves drawn to his clear focus.

Major Themes in His Work

Political leaders and social issues top his topics list. He often tackles freedom, justice, and power abuse. Furthermore, he draws attention to human rights and global events. As a result, people worldwide relate to his pointed cartoons. Indeed, he turns complex subjects into clear, digestible images.

How Nick Anderson Cartoons Speak Truth

Nick Anderson cartoons cut through noise to expose hidden truths. He asks tough questions without stating them outright. For instance, he might show a leader holding puppet strings. Immediately, readers grasp the idea of hidden control.

He avoids long captions or speech bubbles. Instead, Anderson lets visuals carry the load. Thus, his work remains timeless and borderless. Moreover, he updates his approach as new tools emerge. In this way, his core message always shines through.

The Pulitzer Prize and Its Impact

In the mid-1990s, Nick Anderson won journalism’s highest honor. His portfolio included shocking takes on war and politics. Certainly, the award boosted his platform and reach. Consequently, more papers picked up his cartoons. Soon, millions saw his work every week.

Additionally, the prize inspired younger artists to follow his path. Many cite his name as a key influence. Therefore, his legacy grows in art schools and newsrooms alike.

From Sketch to Print

Anderson starts with rough pencil sketches on paper. Next, he scans his drafts into a computer. Then, he uses digital tools to refine lines and add sparse color. Finally, editors review his piece before it goes live. Throughout the process, he stays focused on clarity and impact.

Moreover, he keeps deadlines tight to stay relevant. News moves fast, so he adapts his workflow. As a result, his cartoons capture the latest events in near real time.

Why His Cartoons Matter Today

In a world crowded with soundbites, visuals cut through clutter. Nick Anderson cartoons deliver a direct punch. They ask us to see beyond headlines. Consequently, we stop and think about real issues.

His work also helps readers form strong opinions. By mixing humor with critique, he softens hard truths. This balance keeps audiences engaged. Meanwhile, his sharp wit ensures no one misses the point.

Teaching Future Cartoonists

Nick Anderson often visits schools and workshops. There, he shares tips on drawing and idea generation. He stresses the importance of research. Furthermore, he advises young artists to read news daily. In this way, they stay informed and inspired.

He also warns against copying others. Instead, he urges originality and bold thinking. Thus, aspiring cartoonists learn to find their own voice.

Adapting to the Digital Age

Initially, Anderson worked with ink and paper only. Now, he embraces digital tools without losing his core style. He posts cartoons on social media to reach teen readers. Moreover, he collaborates with online platforms to expand his audience. Consequently, his impact extends beyond print.

His adaptability shows that art and humor can evolve. He balances traditional methods with modern tech. As a result, he remains relevant in a fast-changing world.

The Art and Impact

Few forms of journalism deliver as fast and clear a message as editorial cartoons. Nick Anderson crafts each frame with care. He blends art, politics, and social critique. As a result, his work becomes a conversation starter.

His cartoons often spark letters to editors and social debates. Clearly, they push society to question actions and leaders. Moreover, they encourage readers to seek truth and justice.

Ultimately, Nick Anderson cartoons remind us of the power of a single image. They prove that art can shape public opinion and drive change.

Looking Ahead

Even after decades in the field, Nick Anderson still finds fresh topics. He watches global events and listens to public concerns. Then, he sketches ideas that challenge conventional views. Consequently, we can expect more thought-provoking cartoons from him in the future.

As media landscapes shift, his role as an editorial cartoonist remains vital. He continues to inspire new generations. Indeed, each drawing keeps a spotlight on the world’s biggest questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What inspired Nick Anderson to become an editorial cartoonist?

He loved art and news from a young age. Combining both felt natural. His passion for social issues and drawing led him to cartooning.

How does Nick Anderson find ideas for his cartoons?

He reads newspapers and listens to various viewpoints. Then, he notes moments that spark strong emotions. Finally, he sketches quick concepts and refines the best ones.

What makes Nick Anderson cartoons stand out?

His simple lines pack a powerful message. He uses minimal color and clear symbols. Consequently, his work remains timeless and easy to understand.

How has winning a Pulitzer Prize affected his work?

The award increased his visibility and credibility. It also inspired him to keep pushing creative boundaries. As a result, he continues to innovate in his field.

US Boat Strike in Pacific: What You Need to Know

Reginald Edward
-
0
US Boat Strike in Pacific: What You Need to Know

 

Key Takeaways

• The US military carried out a new boat strike in the Eastern Pacific, killing two people.
• This is the first strike outside the Caribbean in President Trump’s naval campaign.
• Critics call the action an unlawful extrajudicial killing and question its legality.
• Experts and world leaders warn of moral and political dangers from these attacks.
• Tensions rise with Colombia after the US imposed new tariffs and harsh words.

US Boat Strike Expands to Pacific

The US military launched a boat strike on Tuesday night. For the first time, it targeted a vessel in the Eastern Pacific. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said President Trump approved a “lethal kinetic strike” on a boat run by a “designated terrorist organization” involved in drug trafficking. According to the Pentagon, the attack killed two passengers aboard the vessel.

Previously, the US had struck seven drug-trafficking boats, all in the Caribbean. Those earlier strikes killed at least 32 people. Now, the fight has moved further west. Supporters say these boat strikes help stop drugs from entering the United States. However, critics argue the strikes break international law and skip basic justice.

Why the Boat Strike Stirs Debate

Critics have quickly condemned the latest boat strike. Conor Friedersdorf, a writer at The Atlantic, called it a “lawless extrajudicial killing.” He argued our military could have stopped and investigated the boat instead of killing its crew. Friedersdorf added that even convicted drug smugglers do not face the death penalty.

Similarly, Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, demolished the administration’s legal claims. He said there is no war against drug traffickers. In his view, the US cannot claim self-defense when no armed attack threatened its territory. Roth warned that treating drug smuggling like warfare sets a dangerous precedent.

Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor, also expressed alarm. She wrote that this campaign is illegal and risks the safety of all Americans. Wine-Banks urged lawmakers to halt further strikes and demand oversight of the military operations at sea.

Meanwhile, journalist Mark Jacob suggested another motive behind these actions. He noted Trump’s frequent falsehoods and said imperialism might drive these boat strikes. Jacob argued the real target could be Venezuela’s government, given its oil resources. He also mentioned Colombia’s growing criticism and potential intimidation.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro added to the outcry. He said the US had “committed a murder” after one strike killed a Colombian fisherman. Petro disputes the claim that his nation’s citizens pose a national security threat. In retaliation, Caracas slapped new tariffs on Colombian exports and labeled Petro an “illegal drug leader.”

Legal and Moral Concerns

Many experts say these boat strikes violate long-standing legal norms. Under international law, states must arrest suspects and offer them a fair trial. Instead, these operations kill without trial. Moreover, critics point out that no law allows the military to execute drug smugglers at sea.

The administration labels drug trafficking as an act of war. However, there is no formal armed conflict between the US and any trafficking group. As a result, calls to expand war powers to fight narco-traffickers face serious legal hurdles. In fact, some lawmakers believe Congress never granted the president authority for such actions.

From a moral standpoint, opponents ask whether any nation should wield such power over life and death. They note that courts punish drug crimes with prison time, not execution. Killing suspects without due process undermines the rule of law. It may also fuel anti-American sentiment in Latin America and beyond.

Political Fallout and Global Reaction

The boat strike has strained US relations in the region. Colombia, long a key ally in the drug war, feels disrespected. After the latest attack killed a Colombian citizen who was simply fishing, President Petro and his cabinet condemned the move. They accused the US of violating their sovereignty and warned of diplomatic consequences.

In return, the Trump administration harshly criticized Petro. Officials claimed his government encourages drug production. They also announced new tariffs on Colombian goods. These measures could hurt Colombian farmers and traders, fueling further tension.

Beyond Colombia, other nations watch nervously. Mexico and several Caribbean countries have protested past boat strikes. They worry that the US could extend such operations to their own waters. Regional leaders fear that one day their fishing boats could become targets.

Moreover, this campaign raises questions about American values. In the past, the US has championed human rights and legal protections. Yet critics see this boat strike as a step toward unchecked military power. They warn that it sets a dangerous example for other nations.

Looking Ahead: Oversight and Accountability

As debate rages, many call for stronger oversight of military action at sea. Some senators plan to introduce bills requiring clear authority before any boat strike. They want detailed reports on targets, legal justification, and civilian risks.

Human rights groups urge independent investigations. They seek evidence on how targets are identified and confirmed. They also demand proof that no other option existed to avoid lethal force. Such steps, they argue, would restore some confidence in US operations.

Meanwhile, citizens and activists continue to speak out. Protests have taken place in Washington and major cities across Latin America. Many hold signs saying “Stop the boat strike” and “Respect international law.” Their goal is to pressure leaders to choose arrests over executions.

In the months ahead, the administration must balance drug-fighting goals with legal and moral responsibilities. If no action is taken, critics warn these boat strikes could expand further. That may lead to more deaths, more diplomatic rifts, and deeper questions about America’s role on the world stage.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is a boat strike?

A boat strike is a military operation that uses weapons to sink or damage a vessel. In this case, US forces targeted ships suspected of carrying illegal drugs.

Why do critics call these strikes unlawful?

Critics say these strikes are extrajudicial killings. They argue suspects deserve arrests and trials under international law, not executions at sea.

How many boat strikes has the US carried out so far?

This latest action is the eighth boat strike. Seven occurred in the Caribbean and one in the Eastern Pacific.

What could happen next?

Lawmakers and rights groups are pushing for more oversight. They may pass laws to limit the president’s power and require clear legal justification for future boat strikes.

Jasmine Crockett Senate Run: Could She Take On Texas?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Jasmine Crockett Senate Run: Could She Take On Texas?

 

Key Takeaways:

  • Representative Jasmine Crockett may challenge for the U.S. Senate seat.
  • Texas GOP redrew her district, making re-election tougher.
  • Crockett says she’ll run if she can boost voter turnout.

Jasmine Crockett Senate Run Gains Momentum

Representative Jasmine Crockett is thinking hard about a Senate run. She spoke about her plans on a popular radio show. The new Texas map pushed her to consider running for higher office. Because Republicans redrew her district, Crockett’s current seat now favors GOP candidates. As a result, she is eyeing the Senate as an alternative path.

Crockett said she wants fairness. She pointed out that Texas leaders cut five safe Democratic districts. Her district of 766,000 people now leans Republican. Therefore, she said she might aim for a seat that covers 30 million people. She joked that karma might demand she run for that bigger seat instead.

Why Is Jasmine Crockett Considering a Senate Run?

First, the redistricting forced Crockett to rethink her future. Texas Republicans passed a new map. It shifts district lines to favor their party. In turn, this removes safe Democratic areas. Consequently, Crockett’s path to re-election became harder.

Second, Crockett has grown as a national voice. She often speaks out against policies she dislikes. Earlier this month, she called the President an “old white nepo baby” and a bully. Naturally, that drew a lot of attention. It also showed she can take a strong stand. Thus, she may have enough name recognition to compete statewide.

Moreover, Crockett believes she can expand the electorate. She wants to speak directly to people who rarely vote. If she can bring new voters to the polls, she said, she will “strongly” consider a Senate run. In her own words, she is watching those cross tabs and voting trends closely.

The Challenge Ahead in Texas Politics

Running for Senate in Texas is no small feat. Texas is a huge state with nearly 30 million residents. A candidate must raise a lot of money. They also need volunteers across many cities and rural areas. For example, a campaign must set up offices in Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso.

In addition, a candidate must unite diverse voter groups. Texans vote based on many issues: economy, border security, education, and health care. Therefore, Crockett will have to build a message that appeals to farmers, small-town families, urban voters, and young people.

Furthermore, Crockett would join a crowded field. Other Democrats like Collin Allred and James Talarico have already said they are in. They each bring their own strengths and supporters. Meanwhile, Republicans will rally around the incumbent Senator or another candidate. Hence, Crockett must carve out her own lane in a noisy race.

What Could Change if Crockett Runs?

If Jasmine Crockett starts her Senate campaign, Texas politics could shift. First, her energy and speeches might rev up young and minority voters. She has a talent for social media and inspiring events. That could boost turnout in underrepresented areas.

Second, her entry might push other candidates to adopt bolder ideas. For example, they could focus more on voting rights, climate action, or student debt relief. That could shape debates and policy plans for years to come.

Third, a strong Democratic challenge might force Republicans to tweak their strategy. They may have to spend more money or change their message. As a result, spending on ads and town halls could spike across the state.

Finally, if Crockett wins, she would be one of the youngest U.S. Senators ever elected. She would also bring a fresh perspective from her time as a civil rights lawyer. In practice, she could push for more federal resources for Texas schools, healthcare, and infrastructure.

How Might Crockett Measure Voter Interest?

Crockett mentioned cross tabs as a key tool. Cross tabs are charts that show which groups plan to vote. They break down data by age, race, gender, and region. By studying them, campaigns see where growth is possible.

For instance, if young voters in Austin show rising interest, her campaign might host more events there. If rural counties in East Texas slip behind, she might send volunteers to knock on doors. This data-driven approach helps campaigns spend money wisely and target the right messages.

In addition, surveys and polls guide decisions. If polls show Crockett beating an opponent in a certain area, her team might pour resources there. Conversely, if another part of the state shows low support, they could launch ad campaigns or send staff to listen and engage.

Transitioning from her House role, Crockett would rely on a larger team and budget. Yet, her emphasis on voter expansion hints at a grassroots strategy. She clearly wants to find people who usually skip elections.

The Road Ahead for Jasmine Crockett Senate Run

Jasmine Crockett has not made a final call. Nevertheless, she is taking her time to weigh her chances. She will look at fundraising numbers, volunteer interest, and polling data. If she sees a strong path, she will announce her Senate bid.

Moreover, Crockett will hold conversations with community leaders. She wants to ensure her message reflects local needs. From ranchers in West Texas to tech workers in Austin, Crockett plans to listen first.

She also must consider her current House seat. If she runs for Senate, another Democrat would compete to replace her. That means her decision will ripple through federal and local politics.

Above all, Crockett wants to make an impact. She hopes that, no matter the result, she will inspire more people to vote. If she finds a way to boost turnout, she believes Texans will see the value of their voices.

Frequently Asked Questions

What would prompt Jasmine Crockett to enter the Senate race?

Crockett says she will jump in if she believes she can expand the electorate. She wants to bring new voters to the polls. If her data shows a path to win, she will run.

How has redistricting affected her decision?

Texas Republicans carved up Democratic seats to favor their party. Crockett’s district now leans Republican. This push led her to rethink re-election and look at a Senate bid.

Who else is running in the Democratic primary?

Other Democrats on the Senate track include Collin Allred and James Talarico. They each offer different backgrounds and voter appeal.

What challenges does a Senate campaign face in Texas?

A Senate run needs huge funding, wide volunteer networks, and messages that reach diverse voters. Candidates must visit every corner of Texas and address key issues.

Trump’s Bold Claim on Striking Drug Boats

Reginald Edward
-
0
Trump’s Bold Claim on Striking Drug Boats

Key Takeaways:

  • President Trump claimed his administration has legal authority to strike drug boats in international waters.
  • He suggested land strikes might need approval from Congress.
  • Trump warned traffickers could switch to land routes and pledged to “hit them hard.”
  • He asserted that each boat strike could save 25,000 American lives.

In a surprising moment, President Donald Trump spoke about using military power against drug boats. He made his remarks during a joint news conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. His words stirred debate over how far a president can go without Congress.

Understanding Legal Authority for Drug Boats

A reporter asked about the “legal authority” to strike seven boats near Venezuela and Colombia. Trump said firmly, “We have legal authority. We’re allowed to do that.” He meant the administration could act in international waters without extra permission. However, he added that strikes on land might require going “back to Congress.”

This claim raised many questions. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Yet presidents have often used force abroad through other laws. Still, experts wonder if trying to define the exact rules could spark a fight between the White House and lawmakers.

Why International Waters Matter

International waters lie beyond any single country’s border. There, no nation holds full legal control. That makes it easier for traffickers to move drugs on boats. Meanwhile, nations can cooperate under treaties to stop illegal trade. Trump’s claim suggested the U.S. could act alone under existing law.

However, some experts say major military actions still need a clear congressional nod. They worry a broad definition of “legal authority” might let presidents bypass checks and balances. Therefore, Trump’s comments became more than a policy point. They touched on the balance of power in Washington.

Potential Shift to Land Routes

Trump warned that if traffickers lose the safety of international waters, they may use land routes instead. He said, “If they go by land, we’ll hit them hard.” In other words, the administration plans to target roads, jungles, or tunnels that smugglers use.

This plan poses fresh challenges. Strikes on land could affect local communities. They might endanger civilians or spark diplomatic rows with neighboring countries. Moreover, land operations usually need more precise intelligence. As a result, critics question whether the U.S. military or other agencies are ready for such a shift.

Military Power and the 25,000 Lives

When pressed on how the operations were carried out, Trump cited U.S. military firepower. “We have the greatest military in the world,” he said. “You see a little bit of it there. One shot, everyone dead center.” Then he delivered a startling statistic: “Every time you see that happen, you’re saving 25,000 American lives. Every one of those boats that gets knocked out is saving 25,000 American lives.”

He meant that each boat hit stops a massive flow of drugs that could kill thousands of Americans. The figure shocked the room. Critics ask how he arrived at such a number. Meanwhile, supporters argue it shows the stakes of the fight against illegal drugs.

Legal Limits and Congressional Oversight

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Over time, presidents have used various laws to act without formal declarations. Yet major foreign actions often trigger heated debates in both chambers of Congress.

First, there is the War Powers Resolution. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits operations to 60 days without approval. Second, there are authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) passed after 9/11. These have been used to justify many actions against terror groups abroad.

However, using those tools against drug traffickers is new ground. Some lawmakers may push to pass a fresh authorization. Others might claim Trump already has the needed authority. Either way, the clash could shape U.S. foreign policy for years to come.

International Reactions and Diplomatic Risk

Striking drug boats near Venezuela and Colombia means dealing with both governments. Both nations have their own rules and disputes with the U.S. Colombia has cooperated with U.S. anti-drug efforts for decades. Venezuela, however, is often at odds with Washington.

Therefore, any U.S. military move near their waters risks diplomatic fallout. Countries typically demand notice or coordination before any strike. Acting unilaterally might anger local leaders and harm broader relations.

Moreover, international law experts say even in international waters, certain rules still apply. Countries must avoid harming neutral shipping and must follow treaties. Failure to do so could invite protests at the United Nations or rulings at the International Court of Justice.

How Traffickers Adapt

Drug traffickers are known for their creativity. When one route closes, they find another. Right now, many use fast boats in open sea lanes. Should those disappear, they could switch to semi-submersibles, tunnels, or drones.

Trump’s vow to “hit them hard” on land signals a tougher stance. Yet land-based drug operations are harder to track. They often blend into local communities. As a result, targeting them can be tricky and risky.

Furthermore, shifting to land could push more drug flows through Central America and Mexico. That may increase smuggling on highways and border crossings. This, in turn, could strain relationships with U.S. neighbors and frustrate local authorities.

What’s Next for Drug Boats Strategy

The debate over drug boats has just begun. In the coming weeks, Congress may hold hearings. Lawmakers will likely grill administration officials on legal grounds and rules of engagement. They will ask for evidence behind the 25,000 lives claim.

Meanwhile, defense and intelligence agencies will plan future operations. They will study how to balance quick strikes at sea with careful moves on land. Coordination with allied navies and local forces will also be key.

Finally, public opinion could influence the outcome. If Americans fear a flood of dangerous drugs, they might back bold actions at sea. Yet worries about foreign interventions and civilian harm could shift sentiment the other way.

In short, President Trump’s claim about legal authority to strike drug boats in international waters has opened a major debate. It touches on presidential power, congressional oversight, international law, and the ongoing war on drugs. As the story unfolds, all eyes will be on Washington, D.C., and on the open seas.

FAQs

What exactly did President Trump say about striking drug boats?

He said the U.S. has legal authority to attack drug boats in international waters. He noted that land operations may require going back to Congress.

Why does Trump claim each boat strike saves 25,000 American lives?

He linked stopping a boat to cutting off a large flow of dangerous drugs. However, critics question how he calculated that number.

Could Congress block strikes on drug boats?

They could challenge the president’s authority or pass a resolution limiting operations. Yet international waters have unique legal rules that complicate congressional control.

How might traffickers respond to these strikes?

They could switch to land routes, use semi-submersibles, build tunnels, or try new smuggling methods. Each shift adds a fresh set of challenges for U.S. agencies.

Lindsey Halligan Texts Expose DOJ Misstep

Reginald Edward
-
0
Lindsey Halligan Texts Expose DOJ Misstep

Key Takeaways

• Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan exchanged 33 hours of texts with Lawfare reporter Anna Bower.
• Halligan corrected Bower’s summary of a New York Times story and shared details about a secret grand jury.
• All messages went public because Halligan never made the chat off the record.
• The Justice Department defended Halligan but also misspelled her name in its statement.
• This clash spotlights grand jury secrecy rules and how prosecutors work with reporters.

A private text chat turned into a big public story when Lindsey Halligan, interim U.S. Attorney, messaged Lawfare reporter Anna Bower. Halligan tried to fix Bower’s social media post about a New York Times report. However, Halligan ended up sharing extra details about a secret grand jury. In the end, the chat went public, and the Justice Department faced criticism for how it handled the fallout.

Why Lindsey Halligan’s Texts Matter

Lindsey Halligan oversees cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. These include probes involving a former FBI director and the New York attorney general. Grand jury details must stay secret by law. Yet Halligan, trying to help a reporter, revealed more than she should. This sparked concern among legal experts and media outlets.

First, Halligan reached out to correct Bower’s summary of the Times story. Then, she confirmed the report’s key points. She also discussed grand jury procedure, which is usually off limits. Because Halligan didn’t set the chat as off the record, all messages could be posted. As a result, the public saw her critique and her legal advice in real time.

How the Text Exchange Unfolded

The conversation began when Halligan texted Anna Bower after seeing Bower’s Twitter post. Bower had summarized the New York Times article. Halligan felt parts of that summary were wrong. Over the next 33 hours, they exchanged dozens of messages. Halligan defended the Times story and pointed to case facts. She also warned Bower about revealing grand jury information.

Meanwhile, Bower pressed for clarity. She asked pointed questions about the prosecution. Halligan replied with a mix of legal explanations and gentle rebukes. She insisted she could not break grand jury secrecy rules. Despite that, some of her messages skirted the edges of what’s allowed. Bower later published the full chat since Halligan never asked her to keep it private.

Justice Department’s Response

After Bower’s article appeared, Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre weighed in. Baldassarre criticized Bower for “tattling” about internal communication. She said Halligan tried to guide Bower toward facts, not gossip. Then Baldassarre misspelled Halligan’s name in her statement. Bower included Baldassarre’s correction in a later disclaimer.

This public slip-up added fuel to the fire. Critics said the department looked unprofessional. They noted that a spokesperson had not only sent a snarky comment but also failed to check a name. In the end, the department defended Halligan’s intentions while trying to shift blame to the reporter.

Grand Jury Rules and the Mistake

Federal law protects grand jury secrecy. Prosecutors must never reveal details about witnesses, evidence, or deliberations. Breaking these rules can lead to legal penalties. It can also harm ongoing investigations. Lindsey Halligan’s chat raised questions about how well prosecutors understand these rules.

On one hand, Halligan clearly tried to stick to the law. She repeatedly declined to share certain specifics. On the other hand, she did discuss the existence and scope of the grand jury. That alone can count as a violation. Moreover, by texting a reporter directly, Halligan bypassed formal Justice Department channels. That move broke typical newsroom etiquette.

As a result, experts warn that future sources may think twice before talking to the press. Reporters depend on trust with officials. If prosecutors blur lines, they risk losing that trust. Violating grand jury rules could also lead to court challenges or appeals in those high-profile cases.

What Happens Next

Now, the Justice Department will likely review its media policies. Supervisors may remind all staff of grand jury secrecy. They will also set clear rules on informal chats with reporters. For Anna Bower’s part, she proved that a reporter can stand her ground. Bower held Halligan accountable and published the full record.

Looking ahead, prosecutors must be extra cautious. They can’t correct the record in informal texts without strict ground rules. Reporters must ask if a chat is on or off the record right away. Both sides should write down those terms before talking. Otherwise, more private messages could end up online.

Meanwhile, the cases Halligan handles will go on. Defense lawyers might cite this exchange in court. They could argue that the prosecution disclosed too much and ask for sanctions. Judges may also remind prosecutors about the limits on sharing grand jury details.

Key Lessons

• Always set ground rules for on- or off-the-record talks.
• Prosecutors must keep grand jury information secret at all times.
• Spokespeople should proofread and avoid unprofessional comments.
• Reporters should push for transparency and hold sources accountable.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is grand jury secrecy?

Grand jury secrecy means no one can reveal who testified, what evidence was shown, or how jurors decided. It keeps the process fair and protects witnesses. Violating these rules can lead to legal trouble or thrown-out charges.

Why did Lindsey Halligan text a reporter?

Lindsey Halligan reached out because she disagreed with how a reporter summarized a New York Times article. She wanted to straighten out details and point to accurate facts about the case she oversees.

Can a prosecutor share grand jury details with the press?

No. Federal law bars prosecutors from disclosing grand jury witness names, evidence, or discussions. They can confirm a grand jury exists but must avoid any specific details.

How can reporters protect themselves in interviews?

Reporters should ask if a chat is on or off the record at the start. They can also keep written proof of the agreement. That way, they avoid surprises if messages become public.

1...678...2,014Page 7 of 2,014