NewsNation

Nolan Wells’ second autopsy results 'hampered' by several factors: Expert

3 days agoCenter

Dr. Michelle DuPre said the second autopsy is somewhat difficult because it comes after someone's already examined the body.

Read Full Story at Source

Compare Perspectives

Found 8 stories

Watch a Heroic Police Officer Take Down This Dangerous Mass Shooter in Less Than 15 Seconds (VIDEO)

The Gateway Pundit

6 hours ago

Watch a Heroic Police Officer Take Down This Dangerous Mass Shooter in Less Than 15 Seconds (VIDEO)

Footage has emerged showing the moment that a heroic Tucson police officer took down a dangerous mass shooter last week, who should never have been free to start with. The post Watch a Heroic Police Officer Take Down This Dangerous Mass Shooter in Less Than 15 Seconds (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Far Right

Read →

U.S. pauses attacks on Iran for a second straight day and Tehran does too

NPR Topics: News

8 hours ago

U.S. pauses attacks on Iran for a second straight day and Tehran does too

The United States paused attacks on Iran for a second straight day Sunday and Tehran said it had done so too, as efforts continued to bring the countries back to negotiations on an interim ceasefire.

Center

Read →

Judge's 'unexpected' Epstein files demand reveals dark truth about Todd Blanche: expert

Raw Story

10 hours ago

Judge's 'unexpected' Epstein files demand reveals dark truth about Todd Blanche: expert

A federal judge's “unexpected” demand to Attorney General Todd Blanche regarding the Epstein files proves a bedrock judicial principle is “on life support," a legal expert argued Sunday.Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Blanche five days to provide the court with unredacted versions of certain Epstein-related files for private review as it litigates a lawsuit filed by lawyer and media figure Katie Phang. Phang sued Blanche for allegedly violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act by unlawfully redacting certain files.Blanche provided the court with an explanation as to why certain files were redacted, but Sullivan, doubting Blanche’s explanation, demanded he provide proof supporting his claims. Such a demand, as noted by Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, demonstrated how the Trump administration had all but gutted the key judicial principle known as the “presumption of regularity.”“It was commonly used to advance the idea that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, courts should presume government employees, including DOJ lawyers, acted properly in the execution of their duties. Now it’s on life support and Judge Sullivan’s order is another nail in its coffin,” Vance wrote in an analysis published Saturday on her Substack.“This most recent order suggests that Judge Sullivan doesn’t believe the government when it says something is the case, even when that ‘something’ is as simple as the identity of the person in a ‘to’ line in an email. But the government has acted like it has something to hide, even after Congress passed the Transparency Act and Trump signed it into law.”Specifically, Phang has raised doubts that redacted names on a handful of Epstein-related files were lawfully withheld. The Justice Department (DOJ) has claimed the redactions in question were permitted under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but Sullivan is refusing to take the DOJ at their word.“So the Judge isn’t accepting what the government has represented to it as truthful, and is requiring documentation to support its claims,” Vance wrote.“Under any other president, the Attorney General would have been disturbed by the suggestion prosecutors couldn’t be trusted. There would be disciplinary review. But here, the acting Attorney General is the defendant in the case. It’s paradigmatic of how far DOJ has fallen.”

Far Left

Read →

Trump's 'get-out-the-vote' fail exposed by laughing expert: 'Doing it for the other side!'

Raw Story

11 hours ago

Trump's 'get-out-the-vote' fail exposed by laughing expert: 'Doing it for the other side!'

President Donald Trump’s pitch to GOP voters this election cycle may very well be what hands Democrats a historic midterm victory, former Trump official Miles Taylor predicted on MS NOW’s “The Weekend" Sunday.“I genuinely think that we are seeing Donald Trump mount an absolutely historic get-out-the-vote effort," said Taylor, a former senior advisor for the Department of Homeland Security. "The only problem for him is he's doing it for the other side."His fellow panelists burst out laughing. Earlier this month, Trump claimed that if his controversial voter ID bill known as the SAVE America Act became law, Republicans would maintain control of Congress for 100 years. He also told Christian GOP voters that if they supported him in 2024, they “don’t have to vote again” as he and Republicans would have it “fixed so good.”“Almost three in four Democrats in this country say this is the most important midterm in their lifetimes, extraordinary enthusiasm about getting out to vote in this election. On the other hand, Republicans, their enthusiasm is very soft this election cycle,” Taylor said.“It's because there's been a guy at the head of their party for the past two years who's said, 'if you re-elect me, you'll never have to vote again,'" Taylor said. "Unfortunately for him, they seem to be listening! They seem to be thinking, 'maybe we don't need to vote again!' This is the same man who weeks ago on July 3 said, 'if you let me pass the SAVE America Act, Republicans will win for 100 years' – he's telling his side, 'we don't need you to show up, we've got it covered!'”Taylor continued, “That's showing up in the data, and if that holds until election day, it's gonna be a rout for Donald Trump.”Eugene Daniels, “The Weekend" co-hi concurred with Taylor’s prediction, noting that Trump’s claims about supposed Chinese efforts to influence the 2024 election could also have a suppressing effect on GOP voter turnout.“And he's telling his voters that your vote won't count, he's telling them over and over again that they're gonna steal the election! So if I'm a voter, why would I vote?” Daniels said.“If China or Venezuela or these random countries that he chooses are going to make my vote not count, why would I vote? I've talked to Republican strategists who would love for him to stop talking about this, but it's been 10 years and I don't think he's going to.”Taylor argued that while Trump’s own words may very well suppress GOP voter turnout, they were also a key factor in Democrats’ enthusiasm heading into November.“If you look at the data right now, there is a remarkable enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans, and it's largely driven by Trump himself,” Taylor continued. “Donald Trump has made Democrats feel like the fundamental right to vote is at stake, and a lot of folks worry that would result in voter suppression.”

Far Left

Read →

Trump expert exposes how his team shields him after latest 'bombed' speech

Alternet.org

Yesterday

Trump expert exposes how his team shields him after latest 'bombed' speech

President Donald Trump will probably never hear the tough truth about his latest "bombed" speech, because according to his one-time biographer, his team has consistently done everything they can to protect his ego from reality.Michael Wolff is a longtime author and reporter best known for his extensive coverage of Trump's political career, including several books about his tumultuous first term in the White House. In the latest episode of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," Wolff discussed Trump's speech at Friday evening's White House Correspondents' Dinner (WHCD) and claimed that his staff will almost certainly have told him "you were fantastic," despite how poorly the address went. In turn, Trump will almost certainly believe that he did great."I can tell you that he came off that stage, everybody said that 'you were fantastic,' and that's exactly what he will believe," Wolff told co-host Joanna Coles, after she suggested that Trump was aware that his speech had been a flop. "Donald Trump, I feel safe to say, has never once in his life even entertained the possibility that he has bombed."Wolff further argued that Trump appeared "desperate" throughout the address as he continually flubbed jokes, but nonetheless, the former biographer suggested that he felt some level of "fondness" towards the president for his approach to the WHCD crowd. “Sometimes I get something like almost a little flash of fondness, could it be for Donald Trump? I mean, I hate this White House Correspondents’ crowd,” Wolff told Coles. “I hate them for their self-satisfaction, for their shared references, for their shared jokes, for their profound lack of originality at any level. So the idea that Donald Trump would go in there and say, you know, ‘I basically I don’t give a s——t about you.’"He added: “And the interesting thing is that so many other politicians and presidents certainly have tried to adapt to what the White House press corps wants, what the press wants. And Donald Trump, even in his symbiotic relationship with the press, has just never done that.”Coles responded that Trump, despite his attacks on press freedom, "loves the press," largely because "He couldn’t exist without the press." Even with that being true, Wolff asserted that Trump "has never done what they want him to do.""He has never become what they want him to be, which every other politician has,” Wolff explained. “I feel this is a somewhat awkward position to suddenly be defending Donald Trump... but, you know, he doesn’t grovel.”Coles added: “He was flailing. We’ve said he feels desperate. You know, the White House is leaking. He’s stuck in a war he can’t do anything about. And he read like an old Catskill comedian who was on his last desperate material.”

Left

Read →

Body language expert exposes Trump's signs of 'anger and embarrassment' on live TV

Alternet.org

Yesterday

Body language expert exposes Trump's signs of 'anger and embarrassment' on live TV

President Donald Trump's reactions at a recent awards ceremony were extremely telling about his true feelings, with one body language expert highlighting all the signs of his "anger and embarrassment" that got caught on live TV.Trump was in attendance during Friday evening's White House Correspondents' Dinner, which was rescheduled after an attempted shooting at the previous attempt to hold the annual event. During the event, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer presented the Katharine Graham Award for Courage and Accountability to the team of Wall Street Journal reporters for their story relating to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his past connections to Trump, which included the bombshell revelations about the sexually suggestive birthday note the president sent to Epstein.Trump previously attempted to sue the outlet, owned by major conservative backer Rupert Murdoch, over the story, leading many to note his awkward and frustrated reactions during the presentation of the award.In a video shared Saturday, Dr. John Paul Garrison, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist with expertise in body language, broke down the segment moment by moment in order to highlight all of the signs pointing to Trump's unease.Early on in the video, Garrison noted Trump's "classic look of disapproval" as Blitzer introduced the award, something he has pointed out in numerous other past examinations of the president's body language.A short time later, as Blitzer is discussing the "thousands of documents" contained in the Epstein files, Trump appeared to look away momentarily."It's because this is too intense. It's too anger-inducing," Garrison explained. "He cannot continue to look at Wolf Blitzer because it's making him mad. So, he looks away to try to get support from someone else. So, right now he's turning to face [White House Press Secretary] Karoline Leavitt."While he was looking away, Garrison noted that Trump then gave a "half smile," which appeared to reveal his "contempt, because contempt is the only emotion that's only on one side of the face." The psychologist suggested that Trump might have been attempting to hide his feelings of contempt with the smile, but it was still unmistakably there. The president then transitioned to a look of "fake confusion.""Now he's trying to appear confused. He's feeling awkward," Garrison explained. "He doesn't know how to react to something like this. So he's facing away. He's looking confused, although not really confused, but trying to feign confusion. So, at this point right here, this is everything he can do to disengage from what's going on right now because he absolutely does not want to have to sit and listen to this."Several more times, Garrison noted how Trump showed looks of disapproval as Blitzer continued to talk. When the address turned to Trump's $20 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, Trump then appeared to show a happy expression over something he felt "pride" about, but Garrison suggested that "he's not actually feeling happy right now, but he's willing to show a fake smile to draw attention to himself."When the reporters were finally brought on-stage, Trump showed various signs of faux-embarrassment and disbelief over the situations, which Garrison said were meant to convey "I can't believe this just happened to me," before he moved on to an expression of "tension.""What we saw was anger and embarrassment, but he tried to cover it by playing to the audience," Garrison concluded.

Left

Read →

Experts dump cold water on 'massive' Trump attack rumors

Alternet.org

Yesterday

Experts dump cold water on 'massive' Trump attack rumors

Amid swirling rumors that President Donald Trump and his administration are plotting a "massive" renewed military assault on Iran, experts who spoke with The Hill dumped cold water on the idea, warning that such a thing likely would not be enough to subdue Iran.In a report published Saturday morning, The Hill cited conversations with various foreign affairs and defense experts who warned about the efficacy of "an intensified air strike campaign" against Iran, even one that might, as Trump has threatened repeatedly, target "bridges, water facilities and electricity plants." They warned that even this sort of plan would not be enough to extract major concessions from Iran in the ongoing peace talks.“I don’t think it will change Iran’s calculation in any way, because from Iran’s perspective, this is when they said it publicly, that this is a war of survival for them. So bombing from the air is not going to change Iran’s calculation, even if the U.S. intensifies it,” Sina Azodi, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University, told the outlet. “The only thing that will happen is that, first of all, the entire region is going to suffer more. The Iranians have made it very clear. I think it destroys any chance of diplomacy.” He added: "You can’t just do a ceasefire. You need a comprehensive agreement that it’s language is no longer open to interpretation. And quite frankly, U.S. has to, when it makes a commitment, it needs to abide by it."Another source, described as an anonymous "former senior U.S. defense official, told The Hill that airstrikes are unlikely to yield any meaningful progress, and argued that it would be impossible "without collectively enforcing the naval blockade, securing to some degree the traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz and absorbing some of the international economic cost as a long-term strategy.""But you’re not going to bomb yourself into a ceasefire," they said. "I think you’ve got to be able to put the economic instrument of power just as make it just as significant as what you’re doing [militarily]."Michael “Mick” Mulroy, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, also cast doubt on the efficacy of heavy airstrikes, but also noted that the options left to the U.S. at this point "aren’t good.""If we allow them to sell their oil, if we unfreeze assets, they’re going to use it to rebuild those capacities potentially faster than we really rebuild the precision munitions and interceptors that we use during a conflict, and we have to get into a new nuclear agreement," Mulroy explained. "If we don’t, then this, at least from the nuclear side, would be a perpetual conflict, because the other way of preventing them from ever getting a nuclear weapon is to periodically target the facilities that are making the potential nuclear weapon. So the options are not good.”

Left

Read →

Mark Kelly: Democrats can ‘win in Maine’ with Troy Jackson, Platner ‘wasn’t vetted well enough’

NBC News Politics

Yesterday

Mark Kelly: Democrats can ‘win in Maine’ with Troy Jackson, Platner ‘wasn’t vetted well enough’

In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) says he believes Troy Jackson is a “strong candidate” who can beat Republican Senator Susan Collins after Jackson replaced Graham Platner on the ballot.

Center Left

Read →

Nolan Wells’ second autopsy results 'hampered' by several factors: Expert

Summary

Related Coverage

Daily Analysis

More Headlines From July 23, 2026

Nolan Wells’ second autopsy results 'hampered' by several factors: Expert

Compare Perspectives