Jill Biden Exposed as Villain of Cover-Up; David Hogg Reveals All
Jill Biden Exposed as Villain of Cover-Up; David Hogg Reveals All! Robby Soave
Robby Soave delivers radar on DNC vice chair David Hogg shown exposing Jill Biden on a Project Veritas sting for shielding former President Joe Biden's cognitive decline.
Trump's Sweeping Tariffs Blocked By Federal Court | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss a federal court blocking President Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under an emergency power law.
Rubio: Trump Admin Will 'Aggressively Revoke' Chinese Student Visas | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that the U.S. State Department will work with the DHS to aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party.
Elon Musk Slams 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' Says It's Bad For DOGE | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss Elon Musk saying that he is disappointed in President Trump's 'big beautiful bill.'
Trump Says Putin Playing With Fire, Doubles Down On Criticism | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss President Trump saying that he is disappointed in Russian attacks on Ukraine.
Taylor Lorenz Bashes Pete Buttigieg as 'Far-Right Eugenicist' for Opposing School COVID Closures
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger react to Taylor Lorenz lashing out at Pete Buttigieg accusing him of embracing, 'far right eugenics.'
David Sacks Blasts Elizabeth Warren, Says She Called Shots On Biden Crypto Policy | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss President Trump's A-I Czar David Sacks blasting Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.) over her views on crypto regulations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
8 minutes ago
- Axios
Phoenix to announce police chief finalists soon
Phoenix expects to name finalists for the city's next police chief next week. Why it matters: Phoenix's next police chief will oversee a department that is now free of the threat of federal oversight following a damning U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report that had highlighted violations of civil and constitutional rights, but has still publicly committed to following through on reforms. Catch up quick: The city named four finalists for the position in March, but restarted its search in early April after Michael Sullivan, who'd served as interim chief since 2022, withdrew from consideration. City officials expected to get additional candidates who didn't previously apply because of a perception that Sullivan was a likely shoo-in. Sullivan's last day on the job was in late April, and acting chief Dennis Orender has led the department since. State of play: Phoenix received 39 applicants by its May 5 deadline, per spokesperson Dan Wilson, but the city won't release names until after the Police Executive Research Forum, a firm hired to assist with its search, reviews the candidates. The city expects to name finalists the week of June 9, Wilson said. A public candidate forum will be held June 16. The public can submit feedback and questions for the finalists though the city's community survey. The city expects to announce its new chief sometime in July. Flashback: The DOJ under the Biden administration issued a report last year following a three-year investigation that found a pattern of discriminatory enforcement and violations of constitutional rights by Phoenix police. Those patterns and practices included: Using excessive force, including unnecessary deadly force. Arresting people experiencing homelessness without reasonable suspicion of crimes and improperly seizing or destroying their property. Engaging in discriminatory enforcement against Black, Latino and Native American people. Violating the rights of protesters engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Discriminatory enforcement against people with behavioral health problems. Yes, but: Now-President Trump's election in November, which occurred before Phoenix began its search for a police chief, was widely expected to end any chance of federal oversight, including a potential consent decree opposed by most of the City Council. Trump's DOJ last month ended its investigation and retracted the report, taking similar steps in several other cities where the feds had investigated police departments and scrapping proposed consent decrees in Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis. What's next: City officials after the election committed to moving forward with reforms, regardless of what happened with the investigation under the Trump administration.
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Rwanda nears migrant hosting agreement with U.S.
As part of President Donald Trump's escalating efforts to curb illegal migration, the United States is reportedly in final talks to designate Rwanda as a potential host nation for asylum seekers and migrants turned away at the U.S. border. The United States is considering a partnership with Rwanda to host asylum seekers and migrants rejected at the U.S. border. Concerns have arisen regarding Rwanda's ability to manage the asylum seeker population and potential issues with human rights adherence. The U.S. has reportedly already tested Rwanda as a deportation destination, citing an incident involving the deportation of an Iraqi national. The Trump administration appears to be positioning Rwanda as the latest addition to a growing list of partner nations—including El Salvador, Mexico, and most recently, South Sudan—willing to accept deportees as part of its intensified migration crackdown. The US appears to be adopting a version of the UK's previously discarded plan to deport asylum-seekers to certain countries. San Diego-based immigration lawyer, Jacob Sapochnick notes that space in U.S. detention centers is not only running out but also driving up costs as per Bloomberg. In response, the State Department is seeking to establish 'transfer agreements' with more countries to alleviate the strain on domestic facilities. UK's botched Rwanda deportation scheme The UK's "Rwanda scheme," introduced by the Conservative government in 2022, was met with controversy and ultimately scrapped by new Prime Minister Keir Starmer shortly after taking office, with him labeling it a "gimmick" that was ineffective. Despite spending approximately £715 million—including £290 million paid directly to Rwanda, £50 million on flights that never took off, and £95 million on detention centers—The plan had only resulted in a few voluntary removals. In 2024, the newly elected Labour government terminated the scheme, labeling it a costly failure. Rwanda has since demanded an additional £50 million, claiming unmet obligations. Around 280 contractors were laid off as operations wound down. US moves to adopt similar template The US now seems to be following a similar approach, looking to partner with Rwanda to accept deportees. Bloomberg reports that the U.S. administration appears to have already tested Rwanda as a deportation destination. Earlier this year, reports emerged that the U.S. deported an Iraqi national, Omar Abdulsattar Ameen, to Rwanda, paying $100,000 to cover relocation costs. Ameen has long been a controversial figure, having drawn attention since the Trump administration's earlier attempt to extradite him to Iraq. Despite these developments, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has not been briefed on any formal U.S.-Rwanda agreement. UNHCR spokeswoman Kathryn Mahoney stated that while no proposal has been presented, ' any transfer arrangement should ensure access to asylum and due process.' According to Bloomberg, Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe revealed earlier this month that the country is ' in talks with the United States about a deal on migration. ' While a State Department spokesperson declined to confirm the discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly stated that the U.S. is 'actively searching for other countries to take people'—preferably, he added, 'the further away from America, the better, so they can't come back across the border.'
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court to consider reviving GOP challenge to Illinois mail ballot deadline
The Supreme Court will consider reviving a lawsuit challenging Illinois' ability to count mail ballots received after Election Day, the court announced in a brief order Monday. Lower courts ruled Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of President Trump's 2020 electors from the state had no legal standing to bring their lawsuit. More than a dozen states allow mail ballots to be received after Election Day so long as they were postmarked or certified by the time polls close, and Republicans have looked to demolish the practice in court. The legality of the practice is not yet before the Supreme Court, but the new case enables the justices to weigh in on who is able to bring such lawsuits. The case will be considered during the court's next annual term, which begins in October. Oral arguments are likely to be held late this year. Bost, who represents Southern Illinois and chairs the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, sued in May 2022 alongside Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, who served as some of Trump's presidential electors in the state in 2020. A Trump-appointed federal district judge ruled they can't claim legal standing by asserting they face injury as voters and political candidates. The judge ruled their case failed to state a legally viable claim, anyway. A panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had no standing. In their petition to the high court, Bost and the two electors said the decision disrupts a long line of cases enabling federal political candidates to challenge election regulations. 'In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, however, for a variety of reasons, courts have limited candidates' ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest—and an extreme—example of this trend,' their attorneys wrote. The plaintiffs are represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative group known for unearthing government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Illinois's election board, represented by the state attorney general's office, urged the justices to turn away the case, saying the lower court was merely applying settled precedent. 'The case presents no sufficiently important—or even sufficiently discrete—legal question warranting the Court's review, it does not conflict with this Court's opinions, and it does not implicate a division of authority among lower courts. The petition should be denied,' the state wrote in court filings.
