U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.) will be officially on the ballot to attempt to win the Governor’s race as a Democrat.

“Our kitchen has been filled with petitions for months and months, it seems, and now we will be able to claim our kitchen counter back,” Bennet said in a media briefing to CBS Colorado.

Bennet was very thankful to his supporters during interactions with them after he left the Colorado Secretary of State’s office earlier last Friday.

In a public statement from his campaign, he will skip the caucuses and focus on the Democratic Primary Election on June 15th.

Senator Schmitt on Rogue Judges, Calls for Boasberg’s Impeachment, Senate Trial:

Senator Schmitt: “Mr. Chamberlain, why do federal Judges wear black robes?”

Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel, Article III Project: “I actually don’t know the answer that.”

Senator Schmitt: “Well, it’s to show impartiality, right? They’re certainly not wearing red jerseys or blue jerseys. They wear them to symbolize the impartiality that’s supposed to come with that very important commission. Do you know what color robes Judge Boasberg wears in the court room?”

Mr. Chamberlain: “I would assume they’re black.”

Senator Schmitt: “Well, it turns out, it’s probably blue. And I’m going to explain why. I’d like to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice July 28 Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Boasberg, which reads as follows: ‘On March 11, 2025, Judge Boasberg attended a session at the Judicial Conference of the United States where they went. While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal Judges by straying from the traditional topics to expand on his belief that the Trump administration would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’, and ‘trigger a constitutional crisis’. This was on March 11. What happened on March 15, Mr. Chamberlain, later that week?”

Mr. Chamberlain: [MIC WAS NOT TURNED ON]

Senator Schmitt: “That’s right, Judge Boasberg issued the ‘turn the planes around’ order just a few days after that. Within the next week, Judge Boasberg was acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump administration would not follow court orders. Although he lacked authority to do so, he issued a temporary restraining order preventing the government from removing violent Tren de Aragua terrorists, which the Supreme Court, by the way, summarily vacated shortly thereafter. Not only that, [Judge Boasberg] forced his way onto the case in the dead of night, while he’s on vacation. Judge Boasberg abused his power as Chief Judge to force himself onto that case. Judge Boasberg doesn’t Judge cases involving President Trump impartially. He has made it clear, time and time again, in his rulings and his comments that he, instead of wearing that black robe, wears, in fact, a blue jersey. He has continually abused the power as Chief Judge in five separate ways: (1) Forcing himself onto hot button cases; (2) Abusing his power in the Judicial Conference to fear monger to the Judiciary about the specter of a nonexistent Constitutional crisis; (3) Rubber-stamped gag orders and subpoenas against U.S. Senators; (4) Trying to hold DOJ lawyers in contempt for a case the Supreme Court said he had no jurisdiction over; (5) He sits on the Circuit Judicial Council, which would be able to overturn any disciplinary action taken against him. Interestingly, Article III has not policed itself. That’s the reality. We have to be able to check a rogue Judge through the impeachment process, and I don’t say that lightly. The House [of Representatives] must exercise that power.”

Senator Schmitt: “Professor Luther, it’s good to see you again. I appreciate your testimony. You’re an expert on the American judiciary and judicial power. Article III states that Judges should hold their offices during ‘good behavior’. If a Judge then steers a case involving that litigant from another Judge to himself by reassigning that case outside of normal procedure, is that good behavior or abuse of the judicial process?”

Rob Luther, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University: “That is not good behavior. There’s surely an internal operating rule on how cases are assigned and to violate it would be violation of his judicial duty.”

Senator Schmitt: “If a Judge were aware of a federal statute prohibiting him from issuing a certain type of order and then issues that prohibited order — is that good behavior or abuse of judicial power?”

Mr. Luther: “I think that’s a violation of the judicial oath, so abuse of judicial power.”

Senator Schmitt: “On the flip side, if that Judge were unaware of the statute, the facts of the case, or the parties being subject to the prohibited order, yet granted the order anyways — is that good behavior or a violation of the Article III duty in an abuse of judicial power?

Mr. Luther: “Well, if he didn’t know about the rule, that’s maybe a little vaguer. But you know, we expect our federal Judges to be aware of the law, just like we expect citizens to be aware of the law, and we hold them accountable, even if they weren’t. So, in that case, it would probably be a violation of judicial duty.

Senator Schmitt: “Just want to close. Chief Justice Roberts said, ‘you don’t impeach Judges you disagree with, you get them overturned on appeal’. With Judge Boasberg, this is not about disagreeing with some interpretation of the law. Judge Boasberg has abused his role as Chief Judge, which are non-appealable ministerial acts. He is a rogue Judge. The House should vote to impeach Judge Boasberg based on the articles they have before them. Once the house impeaches, we should hold the trial and hold Judge Boasberg accountable.”

Background:

• On November 17, 2025, Senator Schmitt wrote to D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan calling for the administrative suspension of Chief Judge James Boasberg while Congress considers Articles of Impeachment.

_Senator Eric Schmitt Press Releases_

Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) joined the Ingraham Angle with Laura Ingraham to discuss how the US is taking back power in the hemisphere.

“Well, I think there is a difference; Venezuelan people want to get back to democracy, and it was only 25 years ago that they were taken over by a dictatorship.”, Mullin said

Mullin pointed out that before Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro took over, Venezuela was a democracy.

“It was a part of the region people looked to, and Venezuela was a very successful country that was a democracy in the middle of not-so-wealthy countries that surrounded it.”, said Mullin

Mullin followed up by saying that Venezuela now has the ability to return to the way it used to be.

“President Trump is giving them that opportunity, and with Maduro being gone, it allows the people to choose, and I know they’ll choose correctly.", Mullin said

Mullin also talked about how people are seeing everybody celebrate this except the Democrats, who he thinks hate Trump.

Ingraham and Mullin would also react to a video of Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) on CNN’s State of the Union, talking about how Trump was starting an illegal war in Venezuela.

In that CNN video, Murphy also said that he thought Venezuela is not a national security threat to the United States and that they are not trying to invade us.

Murphy would later bring up how he thought there were no terrorist groups in Venezuela, and Trump is just trying to make money for his allies with oil-related deals.

Mullin responded to the clip by quoting a 2019 statement from Murphy, in which he said that if Trump cared about consistency, he would make an illicit case for an intervention in Venezuela, and that getting rid of Maduro is good for the US.

“Now, those were his words in 2019, criticizing Trump for not doing enough, but what President Trump did is having a backbone.", said Mullin

Mullin brought up that he thought this was the first time we’ve had real backbone in the western hemisphere since 1989, when we got rid of Noriega in Panama under former President George Bush.

“This has a very similar case, and we went into Panama on December 20th of 1989, and we said we are plucking out a dictator who is in the western hemisphere.", said Mullin

Ingraham and Mullin would agree that these actions being done in the western hemisphere also help preserve America’s national independence.

“When we focus on the western hemisphere, like we are right now, everybody else goes on warning, and China won’t be able to operate in the western hemisphere when we have such a huge naval presence out there, and when we cut off the oil from Venezuela that was feeding Cuba.”, Mullin said

Mullin also said that China can’t get ships into Cuba, and that the people of Cuba will have an opportunity to return alive.

“We are giving that opportunity, and when you see what is happening in Colombia, where President Trump already put Colombia and Mexico on notice, not necessarily because of the government, but instead it’s because of the cartels that are poisoning our streets.

Ingraham would finish the conversation by asking Mullin if he thought the military would go into countries like Cuba, Mexico, or Colombia.

“No, I don’t think so, not at all, but we will go after those who are feeding and poisoning the drugs in our country, and so if the President wants to go after the drug cartels, not the government of Mexico, but the drug cartels that are killing our friends and family in our own streets, then we will go where we need to go to protect the interest and the sovereignty of the United States.”, Mullin said

Mullin ended his statement by saying that President Trump has real backbone and the full ability to do what he wants to do in the western hemisphere.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was on The Faulkner Focus on FOX News with Harris Faulkner, where they discussed the fraud scandal in Minnesota amid Minnesota Democrat Governor Tim Walz’s resignation.

“In fact, I’ll be introducing some legislation that will make it easier to denaturalize individuals who have committed this kind of fraud in our country, and we need to go after this fraud.”, Schmitt said

Schmitt also mentioned that there should be more tools in place to ensure fraud like this doesn’t happen.

“It’s a really stunning development, and it also tells you, Harris, that this is just the tip of the iceberg and this is the Somali-based fraud that had to do with these day care centers and a bunch of money that went out the door after the Biden administration.", Schmitt said

Schmitt also stated that he thought many of the funds shipped out had nothing to do with the COVID stuff. Schmitt thought that former President Biden’s administration said they were handing that money out for.

“It was under the auspices of these COVID funds, and I think you are going to see another wave of fraud.", Schmitt said

Schmitt thought that the fraud was probably at the heart of Walz’s demise, and it’s catching and making headlines.

“You know the other fraud was perpetrated when he was picked as the running mate, when he was supposed to be governor, jazz hands where he would come out on stage, and he wasn’t appealing to young men while the Democratic party thought he was the best they had to offer to deal with the fact that their party had completely tacked to the left in the last decade", said Schmitt

Schmitt finished his point by saying he thought Walz was showing how out of touch the Democratic Party really is and how corrupt they are when they actually govern.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) joined Sunday Briefing with Jacqui Heinrich on FOX News earlier today. During this conversation, Schmitt went over his thoughts on the US military’s capture of Nicolas Maduro, which President Trump’s administration completed early Saturday morning.

“I think this is clearly a law enforcement action, and the military was there to provide support to make sure an indicted criminal would be arrested.", Schmitt said

Schmitt believed that the military posture would be different if the situation were much bigger than just Maduro himself being taken into custody by US military forces.

“The Vice President in Venezuela has now been sworn in as President, and Jacqui, if you take a step back, there are two very important points to mention about this.”, Schmitt said

The first point Schmitt mentioned was that on the mission itself, no military on the planet could pull this off.

“Just like no military on the planet could drop bunker-busting bombs on something the size of a kitchen table to disarm the nuclear program of Iran, and so the world is watching.”, Schmitt said

Schmitt followed up his point by noting that the military might was used to its fullest yesterday during the Venezuelan mission they completed.

“Secondly, I do think it’s important to note that it’s a fundamental shift, and when President Trump talks about this corollary to the Monroe Doctrine with a shift away from so many, over the last 30 years, with their obsession with the Middle East and Europe, there is now finally a pivot to the western hemisphere. Homeland and, of course, the Indo Pacific is also a big concern for us.”, Schmitt said

Schmit wrapped up his time on the Sunday Briefing by saying the US is simply not going to tolerate these tin-pot dictators who flood our country with criminals who bring drugs that host US adversaries like China for their operations.

“It will not be allowed in the western hemisphere and when President Trump says that he means that.”, Schmitt said

Self-proclaimed Democrat Socialist Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as New York City’s new Mayor in a private ceremony on New Year’s Day at 12 am, where he was sworn in with the Quran. He was joined by his wife, Rama Duwaji, and New York State Attorney General Letitia James.

Mamdani had his public swearing-in ceremony on New Year’s Day morning, at which Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would lead the swearing-in.

Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) was also in attendance for the ceremony in New York City.

Mamdani has now become the first Muslim mayor of New York City in its long history.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Full Speech below:

My fellow New Yorkers—today begins a new era.

I stand before you moved by the privilege of taking this sacred oath, humbled by the faith that you have placed in me, and honored to serve as either your 111th or 112th Mayor of New York City. But I do not stand alone.

I stand alongside you, the tens of thousands gathered here in Lower Manhattan, warmed against the January chill by the resurgent flame of hope.

I stand alongside countless more New Yorkers watching from cramped kitchens in Flushing and barbershops in East New York, from cell phones propped against the dashboards of parked taxi cabs at LaGuardia, from hospitals in Mott Haven and libraries in El Barrio that have too long known only neglect.

I stand alongside construction workers in steel-toed boots and halal cart vendors whose knees ache from working all day.

I stand alongside neighbors who carry a plate of food to the elderly couple down the hall, those in a rush who still lift strangers’ strollers up subway stairs, and every person who makes the choice day after day, even when it feels impossible, to call our city home.

I stand alongside over one million New Yorkers who voted for this day nearly two months ago—and I stand just as resolutely alongside those who did not. I know there are some who view this administration with distrust or disdain, or who see politics as permanently broken. And while only action can change minds, I promise you this: if you are a New Yorker, I am your Mayor. Regardless of whether we agree, I will protect you, celebrate with you, mourn alongside you, and never, not for a second, hide from you.

I thank the labor and movement leaders here today, the activists and elected officials who will return to fighting for New Yorkers the second this ceremony concludes, and the performers who have gifted us with their talent.

Thank you to Governor Hochul for joining us. And thank you to Mayor Adams—Dorothy’s son, a son of Brownsville who rose from washing dishes to the highest position in our city—for being here as well. He and I have had our share of disagreements, but I will always be touched that he chose me as the Mayoral candidate that he would most want to be trapped with on an elevator.

Thank you to the two titans who, as an Assemblymember, I’ve had the privilege of being represented by in Congress—Nydia Velázquez and our incredible opening speaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You have paved the way for this moment.

Thank you to the man whose leadership I seek most to emulate, who I am so grateful to be sworn in by today—Senator Bernie Sanders.

Thank you to my teams—from the Assembly, to the campaign, to the transition and now, the team I am so excited to lead from City Hall.

Thank you to my parents, Mama and Baba, for raising me, for teaching me how to be in this world, and for having brought me to this city. Thank you to my family—from Kampala to Delhi. And thank you to my wife Rama for being my best friend, and for always showing me the beauty in everyday things.

Most of all—thank you to the people of New York.

A moment like this comes rarely. Seldom do we hold such an opportunity to transform and reinvent. Rarer still is it the people themselves whose hands are the ones upon the levers of change.

And yet we know that too often in our past, moments of great possibility have been promptly surrendered to small imagination and smaller ambition. What was promised was never pursued, what could have changed remained the same. For the New Yorkers most eager to see our city remade, the weight has only grown heavier, the wait has only grown longer.

In writing this address, I have been told that this is the occasion to reset expectations, that I should use this opportunity to encourage the people of New York to ask for little and expect even less. I will do no such thing. The only expectation I seek to reset is that of small expectations.

Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed. But never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try.

To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this—no longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers’ lives.

For too long, we have turned to the private sector for greatness, while accepting mediocrity from those who serve the public. I cannot blame anyone who has come to question the role of government, whose faith in democracy has been eroded by decades of apathy. We will restore that trust by walking a different path—one where government is no longer solely the final recourse for those struggling, one where excellence is no longer the exception.

We expect greatness from the cooks wielding a thousand spices, from those who stride out onto Broadway stages, from our starting point guard at Madison Square Garden. Let us demand the same from those who work in government. In a city where the mere names of our streets are associated with the innovation of the industries that call them home, we will make the words ‘City Hall’ synonymous with both resolve and results.

As we embark upon this work, let us advance a new answer to the question asked of every generation: Who does New York belong to?

For much of our history, the response from City Hall has been simple: it belongs only to the wealthy and well-connected, those who never strain to capture the attention of those in power.

Working people have reckoned with the consequences. Crowded classrooms and public housing developments where the elevators sit out of order; roads littered with potholes and buses that arrive half an hour late, if at all; wages that do not rise and corporations that rip off consumers and employees alike.

And still—there have been brief, fleeting moments where the equation changed.

Twelve years ago, Bill de Blasio stood where I stand now as he promised to “put an end to economic and social inequalities” that divided our city into two.

In 1990, David Dinkins swore the same oath I swore today, vowing to celebrate the “gorgeous mosaic” that is New York, where every one of us is deserving of a decent life.

And nearly six decades before him, Fiorella La Guardia took office with the goal of building a city that was “far greater and more beautiful” for the hungry and the poor.

Some of these Mayors achieved more success than others. But they were unified by a shared belief that New York could belong to more than just a privileged few. It could belong to those who operate our subways and rake our parks, those who feed us biryani and beef patties, picanha and pastrami on rye. And they knew that this belief could be made true if only government dared to work hardest for those who work hardest.

Over the years to come, my administration will resurrect that legacy. City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability, and abundance—where government looks and lives like the people it represents, never flinches in the fight against corporate greed, and refuses to cower before challenges that others have deemed too complicated.

In so doing, we will provide our own answer to that age-old question—who does New York belong to? Well, my friends, we can look to Madiba and the South African Freedom Charter: New York “belongs to all who live in it.”

Together, we will tell a new story of our city.

This will not be a tale of one city, governed only by the one percent. Nor will it be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor.

It will be a tale of 8 and a half million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together.

The authors of this story will speak Pashto and Mandarin, Yiddish and Creole. They will pray in mosques, at shul, at church, at Gurdwaras and Mandirs and temples—and many will not pray at all.

They will be Russian Jewish immigrants in Brighton Beach, Italians in Rossville, and Irish families in Woodhaven—many of whom came here with nothing but a dream of a better life, a dream which has withered away. They will be young people in cramped Marble Hill apartments where the walls shake when the subway passes. They will be Black homeowners in St. Albans whose homes represent a physical testament to triumph over decades of lesser-paid labor and redlining. They will be Palestinian New Yorkers in Bay Ridge, who will no longer have to contend with a politics that speaks of universalism and then makes them the exception.

Few of these 8 and a half million will fit into neat and easy boxes. Some will be voters from Hillside Avenue or Fordham Road who supported President Trump a year before they voted for me, tired of being failed by their party’s establishment. The majority will not use the language that we often expect from those who wield influence. I welcome the change. For too long, those fluent in the good grammar of civility have deployed decorum to mask agendas of cruelty.

Many of these people have been betrayed by the established order. But in our administration, their needs will be met. Their hopes and dreams and interests will be reflected transparently in government. They will shape our future.

And if for too long these communities have existed as distinct from one another, we will draw this city closer together. We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism. If our campaign demonstrated that the people of New York yearn for solidarity, then let this government foster it. Because no matter what you eat, what language you speak, how you pray, or where you come from—the words that most define us are the two we all share: New Yorkers.

And it will be New Yorkers who reform a long-broken property tax system. New Yorkers who will create a new Department of Community Safety that will tackle the mental health crisis and let the police focus on the job they signed up to do. New Yorkers who will take on the bad landlords who mistreat their tenants and free small business owners from the shackles of bloated bureaucracy. And I am proud to be one of those New Yorkers.

When we won the primary last June, there were many who said that these aspirations and those who held them had come out of nowhere. Yet one man’s nowhere is another man’s somewhere. This movement came out of 8 and a half million somewheres—taxi cab depots and Amazon warehouses, DSA meetings and curbside domino games. The powers that be had looked away from these places for quite some time—if they’d known about them at all—so they dismissed them as nowhere. But in our city, where every corner of these five boroughs holds power, there is no nowhere and there is no no one. There is only New York, and there are only New Yorkers.

8 and a half million New Yorkers will speak this new era into existence. It will be loud. It will be different. It will feel like the New York we love.

No matter how long you have called this city home, that love has shaped your life. I know that it has shaped mine.

This is the city where I set landspeed records on my razor scooter at the age of 12. Quickest four blocks of my life.

The city where I ate powdered donuts at halftime during AYSO soccer games and realized I probably wouldn’t be going pro, devoured too-big slices at Koronet Pizza, played cricket with my friends at Ferry Point Park, and took the 1 train to the BX10 only to still show up late to Bronx Science.

The city where I have gone on hunger strike just outside these gates, sat claustrophobic on a stalled N train just after Atlantic Avenue, and waited in quiet terror for my father to emerge from 26 Federal Plaza.

The city where I took a beautiful woman named Rama to McCarren Park on our first date and swore a different oath to become an American citizen on Pearl Street.

To live in New York, to love New York, is to know that we are the stewards of something without equal in our world. Where else can you hear the sound of the steelpan, savor the smell of sancocho, and pay $9 for coffee on the same block? Where else could a Muslim kid like me grow up eating bagels and lox every Sunday?

That love will be our guide as we pursue our agenda. Here, where the language of the New Deal was born, we will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home. Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again—we will overcome the isolation that too many feel, and connect the people of this city to one another.

The cost of childcare will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family—because we will deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few.

Those in rent-stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike—because we will freeze the rent.

Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you’ll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle—because we will make buses fast and free.

These policies are not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. Our City Hall will change that.

These promises carried our movement to City Hall, and they will carry us from the rallying cries of a campaign to the realities of a new era in politics.

Two Sundays ago, as snow softly fell, I spent twelve hours at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, listening to New Yorkers from every borough as they told me about the city that is theirs.

We discussed construction hours on the Van Wyck Expressway and EBT eligibility, affordable housing for artists and ICE raids. I spoke to a man named TJ who said that one day a few years ago, his heart broke as he realized he would never get ahead here, no matter how hard he worked. I spoke to a Pakistani Auntie named Samina, who told me that this movement had fostered something too rare: softness in people’s hearts. As she said in Urdu: logon ke dil badalgyehe.

142 New Yorkers out of 8 and a half million. And yet—if anything united each person sitting across from me, it was the shared recognition that this moment demands a new politics, and a new approach to power.

We will deliver nothing less as we work each day to make this city belong to more of its people than it did the day before.

Here is what I want you to expect from the administration that this morning moved into the building behind me.

We will transform the culture of City Hall from one of ‘no’ to one of ‘how?’

We will answer to all New Yorkers, not to any billionaire or oligarch who thinks they can buy our democracy.

We will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what we believe. I was elected as a Democratic socialist and I will govern as a Democratic socialist. I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical. As the great Senator from Vermont once said: “What’s radical is a system which gives so much to so few and denies so many people the basic necessities of life.”

We will strive each day to ensure that no New Yorker is priced out of any one of those basic necessities.

And throughout it all we will, in the words of Jason Terrance Phillips, better known as Jadakiss or J to the Muah, be “outside”—because this is a government of New York, by New York, and for New York.

Before I end, I want to ask you, if you are able, whether you are here today or anywhere watching, to stand.

I ask you to stand with us now, and every day that follows. City Hall will not be able to deliver on our own. And while we will encourage New Yorkers to demand more from those with the great privilege of serving them, we will encourage you to demand more of yourselves as well.

The movement we began over a year ago did not end with our victory on Election Night. It will not end this afternoon. It lives on with every battle we will fight, together; every blizzard and flood we withstand, together; every moment of fiscal challenge we overcome with ambition, not austerity, together; every way we pursue change in working peoples’ interests, rather than at their expense, together.

No longer will we treat victory as an invitation to turn off the news. From today onwards, we will understand victory very simply: something with the power to transform lives, and something that demands effort from each of us, every single day.

What we achieve together will reach across the five boroughs and it will resonate far beyond. There are many who will be watching. They want to know if the left can govern. They want to know if the struggles that afflict them can be solved. They want to know if it is right to hope again.

So, standing together with the wind of purpose at our backs, we will do something that New Yorkers do better than anyone else: we will set an example for the world. If what Sinatra said is true, let us prove that anyone can make it in New York—and anywhere else too. Let us prove that when a city belongs to the people, there is no need too small to be met, no person too sick to be made healthy, no one too alone to feel like New York is their home.

The work continues, the work endures, the work, my friends, has only just begun.

Thank you.

_NYC Mayoral Office Press Site_

Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) claimed in a video on The Big Money Show on FOX Business that she could win a presidential election against Vice President JD Vance in 2028.

Ocasio-Cortez said, “Listen, these polls like three years out, yeah, they are what they are.”

Once her discussion with the reporter was complete, she would walk to her car, saying she would stomp him in the 2028 election cycle.

This response to the reporter she gave on the 2028 election polls led to a discussion amongst the panel on the Big Money Show, consisting of Larry Kudlow, Taylor Riggs, Dagen McDowell, Brian Bernberg, and Jackie DeAngelis.

“Yep, I think that she was actually being funny and trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I don’t think she is taking this seriously, and I don’t think anybody else is either.”, DeAngelis said

DeAngelis followed up by saying she thinks the Democrats are caught in a problematic cycle of running the same failed candidates over and over again.

“She does not have national mass appeal, while she would appeal in New York City, for example, but that’s about it, and I really think they are thinking of running Kamala, again, which is why she has been out there the way she has been out there,” DeAngelis said

Taylor Riggs followed up on DeAngelis’s statement by telling fellow panelist Larry Kudlow that she thought the Democrats were trying to court younger generations with specific tactics, such as making Democratic Socialism seem sexy.

“I agree, by the way, and I think there will be a battle in the Democratic Party between the left and the far left.”, Kudlow said

Kudlow thought that former Vice President Kamala Harris would represent the left, while Ocasio-Cortez would represent the far left.

“I think AOC is a great politician and a great communicator, and I would be wary of her because the other side of me says hold on a second, because President Donald Trump’s policies, which are based on free market capitalism, are the best path to prosperity,” Kudlow said

He mentioned that Trump’s policies are going to work so well that the socialists in the Democratic Party are going to get blown up and wiped out.

“They don’t have any diversity, and they need a John F. Kennedy-type tax cutter or a Bill Clinton moderate or Al Gore moderate, but don’t have one,”, Kudlow said

McDowell would follow up on Kudlow’s point by saying she thinks AOC will blow up because of what McDowell called a disastrous socialist experiment the Democrat party is going with.

“She’s going to own this, and when it explodes, it’s going to cover her in detritus, and she won’t be able to wash it off.”, McDowell said

At a November 12 Congressional hearing, Republican Congressman Mark Alford (MO-4) was given time to respond to the topic of socialist ideology in America and the Republicans’ desire to denounce socialism nationwide.

“My blood pressure is up right now, I can’t believe just what I heard on the House floor.", Alford said

He followed up by talking about how some of the House Democrats he heard were failing to denounce the evils that he and other Republicans knew socialism was part of.

“I can’t believe a Ranking Member of this distinguished committee denouncing President Trump but will not denounce socialism on the House floor on the US House of Representatives.", Alford said

“History is clear; socialism kills people and leads to deaths of tens of millions, crushes religious liberty, and destroys free markets.”, he said

Alford followed up his remarks by discussing how the founding fathers of this nation were on a revolutionary idea of individual liberty, and that less government control is a source of human achievement and success.

“They understood that when the government owns the economy, it soon seeks to own the people.", Alford said

Alford ended his statement, telling viewers watching the hearing that they should understand how harmful the push for socialism can be and why capitalism is more representative of the absolute American dream.

“The right side is against socialism; that side is for socialism, and I am disgusted by what’s going on in this body, and I hope the American people see through the charade and gaslighting that is going on, and with that I yield back.”, said Alford

Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) joined Larry Kudlow on his Fox Business show, Kudlow, earlier last week to discuss how Congress should address rising healthcare costs nationwide and finding a way to avoid a possible government shutdown in January.

“Well, Larry, I hope we don’t have another shutdown.”, Daines said

He followed up by saying that if they don’t get a new CR done by January 30 of the new year, there might be a shutdown.

“We are working really hard right now on the Republican and Democratic side to get the last appropriations bills done, and I’m costly optimistic, Larry that we can get it done.”, said Daines

Senate Republicans needed eight Democrats to join them in their proposal to end the shutdown last fall.

Daines complimented his fellow Republican colleagues for holding so firm on what they wanted to put together to end the previous shutdown and reopen the government.

“No one should be allowed to hold a government shutdown hostage in an appropriations debate.”, said Daines

Kudlow continued the conversation with Daines, discussing the current healthcare crisis in America regarding drug costs and insurance affordability.

Kudlow mentioned that President Donald Trump has said that individuals should get the benefits of expanded health insurance choices, where people can choose more doctors and the benefits they want or need, rather than what a state network will offer.

He mentioned how Democrats never seem to like those types of choice benefit plans in the health insurance industry and government-funded health care systems nationwide.

“Larry, I’m not sure they want to solve this problem, and what I hear from folks across the aisle is they want to have this continue into the 2026 election cycle, with the thinking it could be a winning issue for them.”, said Daines

Daines went further into rising healthcare costs, noting that many Americans are hurting badly from these high costs and that he thought Obamacare was a failure for the American people and the healthcare industry.

“Obamacare premiums are now up half again as much as private insurance premiums.”, said Daines

Kudlow and Daines agreed that when the government takes over things like healthcare, the prices can rise very immensely because of less choice for the American consumer.

“It’s all about providing more choice to the patient, and what Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) discussed is an idea for sure.”, Daines said

He mentioned that associations should be formed within large corporations and other companies to offer more expansive corporate health insurance group plans for employees to join, saving money on health care.

Another problem Daines had with the health care system today is the subsidies Democrats fight to protect that go to insurance companies rather than consumers.

“Let the consumer control how the health care subsidies are spent.”, Daines said

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was on ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos earlier Sunday morning, where he was asked about his thoughts on President Trump’s military unit that has been striking boats that contained drug traffickers. These drug traffickers have been seen by the President and his cabinet members and colleagues as trying to bring Fentanyl into the United States and hurt American citizens.

Stephanopoulos first asked Schmitt if he supports President Trump’s pardon of the former Honduran president, to which Schmitt said that most of the controversy surrounding the pardon of the former foreign leader was a one-sided controversy and wasn’t important to where he wanted to answer the question.

Schmitt would expand on this point further when he said, “Well, I’m curious about your pushback on that particular point. With your previous guest, you had zero pushback because he was giving the Democrat talking points like you spew every single week, which is probably why your ratings are so bad. However, to make the point, what I’m saying is that you’re trying to divert attention from what the American people actually support.”

Schmitt would follow up by talking about how a study he saw said that over 75 percent of Americans support us blowing narco-terrorists out of the water in the Caribbean who are trying to poison Americans. 

Once he was done answering the first question, Stephanopoulos was quick to try to ask his real first question again about whether he supported the pardon of the Honduran man and former leader.

Schmitt restated his previous point as he said, “George, as I said, what we’re talking about here are the narco-terrorists poisoning Americans. This attempt to try to focus on a pardon is classic because you’ve lost the debate now on the narco-terrorist question. Because at the beginning of the week, you had Democrats actually on camera saying you should disobey orders. That’s what Senator Kelly and Slotkin were saying: you should disobey orders. And then they went so far as to say that if you do — if you don’t do that, you might get prosecuted down the road.”

Schmitt talked about when he read the Inspector General of the Department of Defense that the report on a possible threat to national security, with the bombings that the Inspector saw the Trump Administration do was a nothingburger.

He would compare the previous Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who worked with the Biden Administration with the current Trump administration by talking about how Democrats didn’t get worried about these national security problems when Austin was getting a medical procedure without telling former President Biden or his other cabinet members.

“I think the bigger concern that you didn’t have a hue and cry about from the Democrats was when Secretary Lloyd Austin went in for a medical procedure, was incapacitated, and didn’t tell the president. Literally, we had a secretary of defense who wasn’t on duty, and nobody knew about it. Like that’s a real problem.”, said Schmitt

Stephen A. Smith appeared on an episode of Hannity this week, where he discussed with Sean Hannity why the Democratic Party is no longer what it used to be.

Hannity began his conversation with Smith by stating that the main concern for Democrats is that they have gone too far left, adopting socialist policies in the eyes of voters.

“It’s no wonder that socialists and Marxists are continuing to ascend from within the shattered remains of what used to be the Democratic party.”, Hannity said

Hannity followed up his statement by calling New York City’s Democratic Mayoral Candidate Zoran Mamdani a renowned socialist who has been seen hanging out with US politics mainstays like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

“Well, first of all, I’m not a fan of anybody who is for socialism instead of capitalism in the United States of America”, said Smith

Smith admitted that he is a registered independent and is very proud of it. Smith referenced a Gallup poll online saying that 54 percent of independent voters in America prefer capitalism over socialism.

Smith was on the record in the interview with Hannity, saying that he does vibe with and respect Governor Wes Moore (D-MD) and Gov Josh Shapiro (D-Penn.).

“Kamala Harris should regret that she didn’t pick Shapiro as her running mate in 2024 when instead she wrongfully picked Tim Walz of Minnesota.”, said Smith

Smith thinks that too many Democrats in Congress and around the nation aren’t following in line correctly with their voter base, especially more moderate people in the party.

Smith and Hannity hope the Democrats can start paying more attention to all people in their base, especially during election times.