Killer mom Susan Smith will argue she should be paroled because she’s been (mostly) well behaved: ‘Just let me live my life’

Submit your questions for Jennifer Rubin’s mail bag newsletter and live chat.

Concerns about Ava's whereabouts first surfaced in March, following the Homeland Security raids on the rapper's Miami and Los Angeles homes.

Prevention starts now.

A brutal collapse Sunday against the Rams led to an even bigger gut punch Monday with three notable injury developments.

The lovebirds have been married since October 1980 and share four children: Jake, 43, Rebecca, 41, Max, 40, and Alexandra, 36.

"Maybe I should've worn underwear, but I never do," Plaza admitted. 

The Rockies' most prolific player of the last decade is saying goodbye to baseball.

One of my favorite things about America is its limitless tolerance for personal reinvention. In Britain, where I live, lingering, unspoken remnants of the class system define you from birth to death. But you can make a brand-new start of it in old New York. There is no better place to live unburdened by what has been.However, this same tendency also makes Americans easy prey for hucksters, mercenaries, and narcissists who cycle through identities to find the best version for their current situation. Which brings me to Tucker Carlson’s interview this past weekend with his friend J. D. Vance, the Republican candidate for vice president.Carlson, who is appearing with right-wing luminaries on a coast-to-coast preelection tour, did not host the Vance event as a member of the media. You might have been confused about this, because he has a newsy podcast with guests and sponsors, but no. He is sui generis, a renegade, a lone wolf. He has been liberated from the shackles of the corporate media, he told his most recent audience, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, “although no amount of sauna-cold plunge-hot bath combinations can scrape off the moral stain of all the time I spent there.” Another way of putting this trajectory is that he was fired from Fox News in April 2023.[Read: What Tucker Carlson’s spin on World War II really says]“Every news outlet I’ve ever worked at, which is a lot of them, they’re all controlled, obviously,” Carlson said later in the evening. “X is the place that free speech lives.” By complete coincidence, X is now the best shop window still available for Carlson to promote his media empire, the Tucker Carlson Network. (He gave this publication a less enthusiastic endorsement: “If you want to know the totalitarian impulses of your ruling class, read The Atlantic magazine, where they announce all of it, ahead of time.”)Carlson’s lone-wolf rebrand is born of necessity, then. But it neatly aligns him with many guests on his tour—people who have also been, as they say, on a journey. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began this electoral cycle as a Democrat and is now on Donald Trump’s transition team. Nicole Shanahan was a member of the tech elite—she was married to the Google co-founder Sergey Brin for five years—before she became Kennedy’s running mate. Tulsi Gabbard left the Democrats two years ago, saying the party was “now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.” (Yes, the cowardly warmongers are the ones you really have to look out for.) Another of his guests, Roseanne Barr, had a beloved sitcom, and then unfortunately went on Twitter.As a Briton, though, I’m most transfixed by Russell Brand, who started his career here as a shock jock—he went to work at MTV UK the day after 9/11 dressed as Osama bin Laden—and more recently has been accused of multiple sexual assaults. (He has denied the allegations, which police are investigating.) Brand, who was baptized earlier this year in the River Thames by the TV survivalist Bear Grylls, spoke with Carlson in Phoenix about his acceptance of Christianity. At one point, he ostentatiously fell to his knees and led Carlson’s audience through a verbose prayer about the “demonic forces of the deep state.” Perhaps his sudden fervor is sincere, but it’s jarring in comparison with his previous public persona.Carlson’s latest interviewee, however, has been through one of the most dramatic conversions of all. Vance used to be an insightful critic of the Republican Party’s excesses and a formidable analyst of Trump’s flaws. Now he has gone full MAGA, and I keep inspecting his eyes for signs of pain at the humbling contortions he is required to make. Twice, he mentioned the backlash to his and Trump’s comments on Haitians in Springfield, Ohio—without ever mentioning the source of the complaints, which was that he helped spread the false rumor that Haitians were kidnapping and eating their neighbors’ pets.Vance is a smart guy who has chosen to play dumb for power—just like the man sitting opposite him on Saturday night.Carlson likes to begin his events with a short homily, hitting a few key themes. At the Vance event, Carlson warmed up with a light indictment of media bias, indicating the presence of Politico and New York Times journalists covering the event, and asking them “to announce who they’re voting for, if they would.” (He didn’t wait for an answer.) Another favored riff is that everyone thought Kamala Harris was a dud until she became the presidential nominee. At the Brand event, Carlson dismissively and incorrectly referred to her as “Montel Williams’s sidepiece,” as if being associated with light entertainment were somehow discrediting to anyone with political ambitions. It obviously wasn’t for Trump, a reality-television star.Carlson’s speech template also includes an unparalleled bit of bull about the importance of unity. “If you make people hate each other, I’m not sure there’s a graver sin than that,” he told his Phoenix audience. Various hits from Tucker Carlson Tonight, his former Fox News show, floated across my mind: We have to fight to preserve our nation and heritage, which appeared beneath a picture of Representative Ilhan Omar in 2020; This man is a danger to the country, a 2021 reference to General Mark Milley; and, not long before Carlson’s ouster last year, Biden uses your tax dollars for “Homosaurus.”At many points during Carlson’s interview with Vance, my own brain provided similar split-screen comparisons of past and present. The Vance of 2024 says that accusations of racism are being used against working-class voters to “silence them and shut them up,” but the Vance of 2017 conceded that “race definitely played a role in the 2016 election … Definitely some people who voted for Trump are racist, and they voted for him for racist reasons.” The Vance of 2024 is on a ticket that backs mass deportations; the Vance of 2012 didn’t believe the policy was practical, never mind desirable, calling it a “notion that fails to pass the laugh test.”The man sitting opposite Vance on Saturday, however, was in no position to call out hypocrisy. The Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News revealed the contempt that Tucker Carlson has for Trump—and his own audience. In Hershey, he listened to Vance praise Trump’s keen business mind, and the men shared an awestruck anecdote about the former president’s interest in the difference between Quarter Pounders and Big Macs. In a text to his producer four years ago, however, Carlson suggested of Trump’s business ventures that “all of them fail. What he’s good at is destroying things.”These turnabouts make one repeated theme of this year’s Republican campaign all the more ironic. Trump and his allies are furious at the legacy media for failing to highlight Harris’s own reversals, which have taken her from the über-progressive of 2019—she really did agree that America should do “transgender operations on illegal aliens,” as Trump put it—to the tough ex-prosecutor of 2024. I have limited sympathy with this complaint. The MAGA right gleefully smashed up the more fact-enthusiastic parts of conservative media, driving out actual reporters at right-leaning outlets, to be replaced with a galaxy of self-important talk-show hosts, podcasters, and propagandists. Is Tucker Carlson going to painstakingly hunt down every Harris utterance from 2019 to lay out how her positions have changed? He is not. He’s going to do a whiffy one-liner about her having dated Montel Williams and wait for the audience to laugh.The tone of Carlson’s Vance interview was never anything less than cordial. The pair met, they said onstage, at a bankers’ conference, and the conversation made several references to mutual friends. Carlson responded to Vance’s points with phrases like “I couldn’t agree more.” The senator from Ohio came off as far more likable than he does in adversarial encounters, in which he has a tendency to become peevish and condescending. The most interesting section of the interview by far came when Vance described his political philosophy, a blend of populism, isolationism, and protectionism. His vision for America involves lower immigration, more house-building, fewer outsourced jobs, and far less military intervention around the world. Parts of that pitch are also attractive to the anti-capitalist left, which would frame similar policies as opposition to neoliberalism—as are other bipartisan concerns, such as the danger of food additives and the power of Big Pharma. (And as someone who has both eaten a gas-station hot dog and watched incessant cancer-drug ads in prime time, I understand the appeal of these last two positions.)To Vance and Carlson, non-MAGA Republicans and Democrats are natural allies: Both want to keep “flooding” the United States with foreign workers, Vance claimed, because it’s “good for business.” Added to that, both establishment parties are filled with military hawks. Vance dismissed recent announcements by two such Republicans—former Representative Liz Cheney and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney—that they will support Kamala Harris. “Their entire politics for the past 30 years,” he said of the Cheneys, “has been using American power to inflame tensions in the world, to draw the United States deeper and deeper into foreign conflicts, which either shouldn’t exist at all, or certainly the United States shouldn’t have any business in.”Megan Garber: Tucker Carlson’s final moments on Fox were as dangerous as they were absurd.Vance dates his own skepticism about foreign intervention to Iraq. He signed up for the Marines in April 2003, he told Carlson, because he believed in the necessity of the invasion, but he came to realize it was a “stupid war.” Anyone younger than Vance, who has just turned 40, might struggle to understand what an incredible statement this is from a would-be Republican vice president. In the 2000s, the GOP clamor for war was so great that anyone who opposed it was painted as a pinko and probably a terrorist sympathizer.And that is a reflection of just how far the mainstream of the party has shifted in less than a decade. Vance is now MAGA’s leading in-house intellectual, and Carlson—who turned against the Iraq War before most other Republicans did—is its unofficial minister of propaganda. After slipping the surly bonds of Fox News, Carlson no longer faces any real restraint on his crankiest tendencies. (Since leaving the network, he has interviewed both a Nazi apologist and a man who claims to have slept with Barack Obama.) Vance, meanwhile, has ascended through right-wing politics thanks to Trump’s patronage, to which he owes his Senate seat. He seems to feel very little loyalty to the Republican Party as an institution, or to its long history and traditions. He appeared on a tour whose next stop, in Reading, Pennsylvania, was an event with the conspiracy theorists Alex Jones and Jack Posobiec.“For 40 years, we haven’t had a real political opposition in this country,” Vance told Carlson at the end of their interview. “And now we do.”

The son of alleged would-be Trump assassin Ryan Routh was arrested Tuesday morning on child pornography charges, according to a report. Oran Routh is accused in a North Carolina federal court of receiving and having child porn – a fact which the feds discovered on Sept. 21 when they were searching his Greensboro home in...

Jake Paul raised questions about his appearance after posting a video lifting weights while shirtless recently.

A 64-year-old US woman this week became the first person to use a "suicide pod'' to end her life -- and several people have now been detained in Switzerland over the death.

Lawyers for a Missouri man have filed a late appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging there were racial bias and constitutional errors at his trial

COLUMBUS, Oh. — The Republican party’s campaign to reduce taxes on everyday Americans crossed a thin blue line last Friday when senate candidate Bernie Moreno promised to install new limits on federal income tax for law enforcement officers and other first responders.

Many scholars and judges today argue that the right way to ascertain the correct meaning of the Constitution’s text is through a search for its “original” meaning. They say it’s not just the right way as a matter of accuracy and respect for democracy’s rules, but it’s also the method that the Constitution itself requires.In all of this is one practical problem: Originalism was impossible—at least until modern times.For just about the first third of the Constitution’s lifetime, virtually no lawyer in the United States had any way to investigate the text’s original meaning. The resources to do it either didn’t exist or were completely out of reach. Originalism, whatever its merits, simply couldn’t have been done.I’ll make the point with Hill v. Kessler, a case litigated in the courts of North Carolina in the late 1860s. In 1866, a woman named Sarah Hill filed a lawsuit against a man named Tobias Kessler in the superior court of Rowan County, in Salisbury, a town of about 2,500 people. Salisbury was home to 10 lawyers at that time; Hill’s attorney, William Bailey, and Kesler’s attorney, James McCorkle, were among them.The federal constitutional issue in the case arose not from the subject matter of the complaint but from a procedural turn the case took. The rules required a plaintiff to post a bond when filing suit, to cover the defendant’s costs in case the plaintiff lost. Hill did this in 1866, naming someone by the last name of Hodge as her surety to guarantee payment.In 1868, North Carolina adopted a new constitution that included a so-called homestead law. The provision was an effort to insulate North Carolinians from the worst economic pain of the immediate post–Civil War years. It shielded up to $1,500 in real and personal property from the reach of anyone trying to collect on a debt.The homestead law got the defendant, Kessler, nervous. Hodge didn’t have $1,500 in assets to his name, so all of his property now appeared to be out of reach. Hill’s bond looked worthless. So Kessler’s lawyers asked the court to require Hill to produce some new security.Hill said there was no need. Her surety contract with Hodge preceded the 1868 homestead exemption by two years. If the 1868 homestead law protected property retroactively, she argued, it would violate Article I of the United States Constitution, which said no state could enact a law “impairing the obligation of Contracts.”The trial court agreed with Hill, concluding that the homestead law could not apply to the surety agreement she’d made with Hodge before the homestead law existed. Hodge’s property wasn’t out of reach. Kessler, unconvinced, appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.What did the word impairing in the contracts clause mean in this context? That was the issue over which the Salisbury lawyers Bailey and McCorkle squared off.[Read: The Supreme Court once again reveals the fraud of originalism ]Let’s suppose the lawyers had wanted to take an originalist approach. They would have had to build arguments about what the word impairing had meant in 1789. They would have immediately faced a challenge: finding sources to construct those arguments.Originalists today can look to a couple of different places to uncover the meaning of constitutional text. They can try to understand what the Framers themselves intended their language to mean; they can try to determine what the participants in the various states’ ratifying conventions understood the language to mean; and they can try instead to ascertain what a reasonable member of the public in 1789 would have understood the language to mean. For these inquiries, practitioners of originalism can turn to, and accord varying weights to, the delegates’ comments at the Constitutional Convention, the notes the delegates took there, their private correspondence and published writings, the comments and notes of the delegates to the various state ratification conventions, the published arguments of contemporaneous advocates for and opponents of ratification, and period dictionaries, pamphlets, and newspapers.Would Bailey and McCorkle have had such material at hand in their Salisbury offices? It seems highly unlikely. Surviving collections suggest that mid-19th-century lawyers—if they acquired significant numbers of books at all—collected practical volumes to support their day-to-day practice. Lawyers had neither the need nor the resources for costly compendia of ratification debates and works of Enlightenment-era political philosophy.Consider, as one particularly rich example, the remarkable Smith Nicholas collection housed at the Filson Historical Society in Louisville, Kentucky. It preserves the law library of three lawyers who practiced during the 19th century—lawyers, it should be noted, a good deal more prominent than the North Carolina attorneys handling Hill v. Kessler. Most of the collection’s 112 legal titles are works on English law. Included, in the words of an expert on the collection, are “texts and reports in equity, common law, criminal law, family law, mercantile and international law, real and personal property, conveyancing, contracts and obligations, trial practice and pleading, evidence, appellate practice, tax law, and chancery practice.” Only one book in the collection would have had any value for a constitutional originalist: the first volume of the Federalist Papers.Another example of an extant 19th-century-law-office library is the Colcock-Hutson collection held at the University of South Carolina Law Library. It represents the acquisitions of five generations of attorneys in South Carolina’s Beaufort, Jasper, and Hampton Counties, stretching from 1744 to 1939. The collection consists of 419 donated physical volumes and an inventory of an additional 285 books that were not donated. Among the 704 items, only two touch on American constitutional law: the fifth edition of Thomas Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, published in 1883, and William Rawle’s A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, first published in 1825. Neither of these offer much, if anything, in the way of contemporaneous evidence of constitutional meaning in 1789. The rest of the collection consists mostly of English and American case reports and treatises on English and American common law and court practice.So Bailey and McCorkle would have had to leave their offices if they were to develop arguments about the original meaning of “impairing” a contractual obligation. Where could they have gone?They could not have looked to their local public library, because there wasn’t one. A public library wouldn’t open in Salisbury until 1921. Charlotte, some 40 miles away, had almost twice Salisbury’s population, but it, too, had no library; that town’s Literary and Library Association first opened its subscription service in rooms above a bookstore in 1891.The lawyers might have been tempted to schedule a trip to Chapel Hill, to visit the University of North Carolina (where, in the present day, I teach law). There they could have perused the holdings of the state’s largest library—a collection whose size a librarian of the time estimated as “not far from seven thousand” volumes. It is unknown whether those included any sources useful to a lawyer trying to determine the original meaning of the verb impairing as written in the Constitution. But even if the lawyers could have hoped that that collection might contain something helpful—say, James Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention or Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—a trip to Chapel Hill would likely have been a lengthy and expensive fool’s errand: The university was in free fall after the Civil War ended, its functions largely suspended in 1868 and 1869 on the way to a complete shutdown in 1871. Getting to the university would have meant taking a full day’s train trip from Salisbury along about 100 miles of track and bridges still recovering from Civil War damage as far east as Hillsborough, and then switching to horse or carriage for the 12 miles south to Chapel Hill.If the lawyers were really intrepid, their best chance of finding a helpful source would have been to ride the eastbound train another 40 miles past Hillsborough to Raleigh, the state’s capital. There they could have sought permission to access materials from the North Carolina Law Library on the first floor of the capitol building. Those materials are listed in a catalog prepared in 1866 by the state librarian Oliver Hazard Perry, so we know exactly what attorneys Bailey and McCorkle would have found at the end of their journey to help them make their case about the original meaning of impairing: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary, and Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution. That’s all.[Read: The Fifth Circuit won by losing]Not Madison’s Notes. Not the Journal, Acts and Proceedings of the Convention, Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, Which Formed the Constitution of the United States, edited by John Quincy Adams and issued as a government publication in 1819. Not Jonathan Elliot’s The Debates, Resolutions, and Other Proceedings, in Convention, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, published in 1830. Not even the Federalist Papers. The lawyers litigating Hill v. Kessler would have had essentially nothing on which to ground an originalist argument about what “impairing” a contract meant in 1789.This is not to say that the lawyers couldn’t have developed any rival arguments about the meaning of the words in the contracts clause. The North Carolina Law Library held a complete set of the United States Reports, for example, so they could have mined the Supreme Court’s relevant precedents for possible arguments. (And as the proceedings played out, it was through analyzing precedents, not searching for original meaning, that the Supreme Court actually resolved the case in Kessler’s favor.)What they couldn’t have done was litigate distinctively as originalists. Whatever they might have wanted to tell the North Carolina Supreme Court about the original meaning of impairment, they would’ve been stymied by a judge simply asking, “How do you know?”Nothing about the constitutional issue in Hill v. Kessler or the Salisbury lawyers William Bailey and James McCorkle is unusual. The same resource problem would have hamstrung lawyers in Dover, Maine, or Johnstown, Pennsylvania, or Hopkinsville, Kentucky, or Jackson, Mississippi, litigating any question of constitutional meaning.“To figure out what the law is, we go to the source.” So said Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett (then a U.S. circuit judge) at a 2019 Federalist Society panel on originalism. Going to the source today is a real option—easy, in fact. Anyone with an internet connection can do it. Going to the source in the early and mid-19th century was practically impossible. Originalism today is an available strategy for ordinary lawyers only because of modern technology and resources.Does this mean that originalism is the wrong way to interpret the Constitution? No. Lawyers have windows on meaning today that can reveal all sorts of things about what its text may have connoted. They’d be foolish not to look through them.But can we insist, as so many do, that originalism must be the right way—the single one?Only if we believe that lawyers throughout the 19th century practiced law inaccurately, ignorant of the truth. And that would be a strange thing for anyone to think—especially someone committed to looking for the truth in the past.

With still plenty to play for, the Yankees and Orioles open a three-game set on Tuesday night in the Bronx.

There's plenty more magic to come from the Russo family!

The son of Ryan Routh, the man arrested in the apparent assassination attempt of former President Trump, has been taken into custody on child pornography charges.

The injunction only applies in two states, but the judge wrote that the plaintiffs probably would win their lawsuit seeking to end the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise.

The state of Maryland has added to the legal troubles facing the owner and operator of the container ship Dali, which caused the deadly collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge after the massive vessel experienced an ill-timed electrical blackout and o...

Trump said the manufacturing shift to Mexico is hurting “our farmers” and “our manufacturing."

NEW YORK CITY—President Biden, in his final address to the United Nation's General Assembly, warning that the world is at an “inflection point," and explaining his decision to suspend his re-election campaign.

What's eating picky eaters?

Amber Heard made a rare public appearance with her daughter, Oonagh Paige, in Madrid, Spain.The actress was seen holding hands with her 3-year-old lookalike in photos taken of them while they were out and about. Watch the full video to learn more about the mother-daughter outing.  Subscribe to our YouTube for the latest on all...

Democratic strategist James Carville predicted there would be another "plot twist" this election cycle, with just 40 days until Election Day.

Diddy told his followers in 2020 that he adopted a girl named Ava Baroni.

Aaron Sorkin tapped into a new way of looking at politics. The two major parties were no longer seeking common goals through different approaches and policies.

The comedian made the grim prediction on his YouTube channel on Monday after Combs, 54, was tossed behind bars last week for allegedly running a sordid criminal empire in which he threatened women and forced them to take part in drugged-up "freak off" sex shows for more than a decade.

Pa'ina Place, on the Big Island of Hawaii, is now on the market for $3.75 million and features one bedroom, one bathroom and a guest house.

Drew Angerer/GettyThe leading figure behind a hard-right policy manifesto reportedly boasted about killing his neighbor’s dog with a shovel.Kevin Roberts—president of the Heritage Foundation, which produced the Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump presidency—bragged to colleagues and dinner guests about the alleged incident in 2004, during his time as a professor at New Mexico State University, according to The Guardian.The news comes as the Republican Party pushes claims, widely debunked as an internet hoax, that Haitian migrants are killing and eating people’s pets in vice presidential nominee JD Vance’s home state of Ohio.Read more at The Daily Beast.

There's more backlash after Dr. Jay Varma, New York City's former senior health advisor, admitted he ignored the same COVID-19 policies he insisted New Yorkers follow during the pandemic​.

Was it for fashion? Was it a joke?

Both Consuelos and Kelly Ripa flaunted their "insanely good-looking" chiefs of staff.

Kevin Owens is becoming the most interesting man in wrestling.

Sean “Diddy” Combs reportedly had a phone call with his kids from jail following his sex trafficking arrest. A source told People magazine that the rapper spoke “briefly to family members and his children via phone.” Watch the full video to learn more about the father of seven’s phone call. Subscribe to our YouTube for...

American consumers may soon have to do without some popular fruits, including bananas, as fruit aisles could be empty and prices may soar.

Before supporters of Donald Trump tried to overturn his election loss in an insurrection on January 6, 2021, American presidential politics had gone largely undisturbed by violence for decades. The Secret Service and other law-enforcement agencies had been able to protect presidents and major-party nominees from physical harm. Transfers of power had been peaceful after even close, bitter elections. But the country has clearly entered a grim new cycle. In July, a bullet fired by a would-be assassin struck Trump’s ear at a rally in Pennsylvania. This month, authorities thwarted another gunman, who had been hiding in the bushes near one of Trump’s golf courses in Florida as the former president and current Republican presidential nominee played an unscheduled round a few hundred yards away.Throughout history, political violence has tended to feed upon itself; groups that believe their opponents are seeking power by extralegal means have been more likely to turn to violence themselves. Some aspects of modern life exacerbate the risks. Social media allows extremists to summon like-minded people; the ready availability of dangerous guns increases the ability of individual bad actors to do serious harm. Unfortunately, law enforcement can prepare only so much for the varied threats that the nation may face from the right, the left, and people with idiosyncratic or even incoherent ideologies. [Read: A failure of security and democracy]Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would designate the January 6, 2025, electoral-vote certification at the Capitol as a “national special security event,” or NSSE—a classification that typically calls for extensive planning of security measures that usually include heavy police and National Guard presence, extensive surveillance, street closures, and other measures. This decision went largely unnoticed, but in the past, no one had thought precautions of that magnitude necessary. No losing presidential candidate before Trump had ever riled up a mob to interfere with a proceeding that had previously been viewed as a mere formality.The NSSE designation is a sign of how limited the options are, and it carries some costs. The presidential inauguration on January 20 is always treated as an NSSE. In effect, the federal government and the District of Columbia will be on high alert for a month—with no guarantee that the precautions taken will be adequate to thwart the unpredictable plans of opportunistic assailants.In security planning, American experts and public officials use a war-gaming technique often called red teaming to assess how to deal with adversaries with a known intent. If the expected enemy is, say, a Chinese spy or Russian ransomware hacker, some Americans—the red team—are assigned to emulate how the attacker would behave. A second group, the blue team, then has to come up with defensive measures. But this is a far harder task when the threat could come from any number of directions.At the center of the recent trend toward political violence is Trump. Although he has in recent months become the most vulnerable target of political violence, he has been its most prolific instigator for the past several years, as I and others have previously argued. Those concerns are still valid. He promotes chaos and confusion. He tells religious allies that if he wins this year, they will never have to vote again. He floats the possibility of imprisoning his political enemies. He threatens mass deportations of undocumented immigrants using military force. He dehumanizes immigrants who have come here legally by falsely claiming that they are stealing and eating pets, leading to unrest and threats against them.In short, Trump has helped normalize the idea that some political differences are too large to be settled by democratic means. Surviving an assassination attempt hasn’t convinced him of the need to de-escalate. Indeed, he’s doing the opposite. Trump claimed in his debate with Kamala Harris that “I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things they say about me”—an apparent reference to the vice president and her supporters. If Harris wins, Trump will almost certainly not concede; he will claim it was rigged and seek to confuse certification by supporting state election boards who refuse to follow the law, creating chaos at the January certification, as he did in 2021.[Read: Trump is no Gerald Ford]But if Trump wins a close election by pressuring state and local election boards—or indeed if he wins unambiguously—many Americans who supported Harris will surely rally to oppose his return to power. Even if the overwhelming number of them intend to do so peacefully, people with violent intentions may slip into their midst, perhaps at the behest of foreign or domestic forces eager to sow disruption. One survey conducted this summer by the University of Chicago researcher Robert Pape indicated that—contrary to past findings—the percentage of people supporting violence against Trump was larger than the percentage of people supporting pro-Trump violence.In practice, though, some perpetrators of political violence lack a clear worldview. Trump’s first would-be assassin, FBI officials have indicated, had previously shown an interest in public violence and may have settled upon the former president because he was a geographically convenient target. The suspect in the second attempt, who lived a life very much on social media, once supported Trump and then didn’t. His most dominant ideological commitment was to the Ukrainian war effort.The United States has experienced—and escaped—cycles of political violence within living memory. Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated amid the upheavals of the late 1960s; in the mid-’70s, President Gerald Ford survived two attempts on his life. America’s democracy proved resilient because enough people ultimately came to understand that the price of violence for everyone would be far greater than the political benefits for anyone.Fortunately, the Democratic Party has no leader equivalent to Trump who embraces threats as a political strategy. Yet the former president has poisoned the atmosphere so much that even a sound electoral defeat for him would not immediately reduce the danger of violence.

In little more than a year, a once-obscure South American street gang has taken hold in New York City, exploiting the migrant crisis to build a violent criminal enterprise from within the walls of city shelters. Tren de Aragua, a Venezuela-bred crew of thugs, now terrorize Gotham with gun-toting, moped-riding hoods, sell illegal guns under...

MSNBCDonald Trump blames the United States for the war in Ukraine and not Vladimir Putin, according to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.Lashing out at voters who say they may vote for Trump because they know where he stands, Scarborough said it was all too clear what the former president’s views on Ukraine were.“Zelensky for Donald Trump is the bad guy,” he said on Morning Joe. “Putin a victim.Read more at The Daily Beast.

He was once a backer of liberal causes. Then everyone seemed to turn on him. Now he wants to stay away from politics — if that’s possible.

Ahead of November’s election, Meta has de-emphasized political content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads and doesn’t want to talk about candidates or campaigns.

A Buffalo Bills fan's sign about leaving her husband for Josh Allen went viral on Monday night with NFL figures weighing in, including Sauce Gardner and Darius Slay.

The 36-year-old, who shares a son with husband Josh Wolfe, told her Instagram followers that the pregnancy loss was a "shock" that left her "hopeless."

President Biden said in what’s likely his final speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday that he thinks “every day” about the 13 Americans who died in a suicide bombing at Kabul’s airport — as Secretary of State Antony Blinken faces a possible House panel contempt vote later in the day. Thirteen brave...

Tropical Storm John came ashore near the town of Punta Maldonado late Monday night as a Category 3 hurricane.

It appears that Janet Jackson’s PR nightmare following her comments about Kamala Harris’ race all lead back to one person. Amid the fallout from her comments about Kamala’s race and her camp’s chaotic attempts to manage the situation, insiders are pointing fingers at her brother and manager, Randy Jackson. Watch the full video to get...

With a carefully orchestrated public profile, the president of El Salvador claims sky-high popularity after jailing gangs. The reality is more complicated.

The "Nashville" actress has been making headlines after she left fans concerned about her mental health in a viral video shared last week.

RFK Jr. is known for speaking out against vaccines.