>>24729234 Hunter Biden tells Joe Rogan why the UFC event offended him. Accepts Don Jr. cage match challenge.PNBullshit

So this is Hunter Biden that desecrated the White House when he hid his Cocaine near the Press Room, yes Hunter was fucking high every day of his life. How many times did Hunter give the WH a bad name when he entered it drugged up and probably had sex in the historic rooms of the WH. Apparently he didn’t remember the war of North and South that tried to destroy the WH.

The very fact that 1,000s of people spent the day or two at the WH this year means it’s is the people’s house.

Huntet doesn’t remember the desecration of the WH when Joe put on a gay, perverted event with Trans and barely clothed weirdos day. Nothing that day was honoring the peoples house.

No one should be doing shows with Hunter, it doesn’t matter how much he says hes changed, the federal and international crimes and disgusting acts he’s done for decades should have put him in jail for life.

Hunter will never be President no matter how hard he lies and tries.

BILLIONS STOLEN: Major unemployment FRAUD uncovered

Rep. Richard McCormick, R-Ga., joins ‘Mornings with Maria’ to discuss Iran nuclear negotiations, the Labor Department's unemployment fraud crackdown and Democrats' opposition to President Donald Trump's agenda

6.23

https://youtu.be/1lTz2N97wAY

DANGEROUS TERRITORY': GOP rep sounds URGENT warning ahead of major US events

Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, joins 'Mornings with Maria' to discuss Republican efforts to advance Reconciliation 3.0, renew FISA authorities and expand affordable housing opportunities nationwide.

(The FISA bill is more important than the save Act for America to have legal elections. Think about that fisa catch a few criminals a year and mostly Americans a but voting fraud has millions of crimes in American elections and will destroy our country. The senate doesn’t care about elections, most senators should be arrested

8:12

https://youtu.be/BmIVr1V0vT8

Jeff Bezos told Trump the Washington Post was his worst investment before slashing staff: ‘People there are terrible’. NYP 6/17/26

WASHINGTON — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos called the Washington Post his worst investment in a conversation with President Trump months before gutting the newsroom, according to a new book by New York Times journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman.

"The people there are terrible," Bezos told Trump over dinner in December 2024, according to an excerpt obtained by The Post ahead of the June 23 release of"Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump."==

"They don't listen. My other companies, they listen," Bezos said, focusing his ire at the business side of the publication after losing more than $100 million that year.

About two months after the dinner, Bezosorderedthe Washington Post'sopinion pages to promote "two pillars: personal liberties and free markets"— as subscribers peeled off in protest of the paper withholding its endorsement from Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

Bezos thisFebruary authorized the sweeping downsizingof the celebrated Watergate paper, eliminating roughly athird of its workforce, including all staff photographers and the sports section.

Bezos' candor with Trump was describedby Swan and Habermanas part of a larger effort by Big Tech titanstocozy up with the incoming president, who had spent his four years in political exile railing against what he viewed as bias by news outlets and major internet platforms.

Trump told Bezos "this Washington Post is really unfair. You've got to take better care," the book says.

"Bezos commiserated with Trumpover their December dinner,indicating that he, too, was deeply frustratedwith the Post, though for a different reason."

"In Trump's telling,Bezos told him he had lost half his friends over the investment," the authors write. "Bezos would tell others that wasn't quite right:He hadn't lost friends, but people close to him had urged him to sell the newspaper."

Trump said in an interview for the book that he "hated" Bezos during his first termunder the mistaken belief thatthe billionaire controlled what the newspaper wrote.

"He said they write stories about him. And I didn't believe him the first time, first term.And I hated him for it,"Trump recalled. "And then I believed him."

A Washington Post spokesperson declined to comment.

It's unclear how Bezos currently views the Post. The paper's former publisher and CEO Will Lewis — whomBezos paid a $3 million salary — was tossed out shortly after this year's mass firingsfor partying at the Super Bowl, sparking afirestorm of criticism over the tone-deaf optics.

Before the large-scale downsizing, the Post had in January 2025 eliminated 4% of its staff focused on the advertising department.

https://www.aol.com/articles/jeff-bezos-told-trump-washington-203407849.html

(So it seems the only people that read the post arehatersof Republicans and Trump, and ridiculously, Kamala Lovers. No wonder it’s losing money, similar to NYTs. That tells you how stupid the writers and readers are!)

Is the Supreme Court running behind? Amy Howe, 6/16/26. 1/4

When the justices take the bench on Thursday morning to issue opinions, theSupreme Court will have 20 cases left to decide, with just under two weeks to go before the end of June– the point by which the justices normally release all of their decisions and leave for their summer recess.Moreover, a not-insubstantial portion of those 20 cases are expected to be major rulings. This has led to questions about the timing and pace of opinion announcements for the rest of the term, andin particular whether the justices might be “behind” in releasing opinions or whether the court might need to extend into early July to finish up.

A close look at the past five terms suggests that there is nothing especially unusual about the current term. To the contrary, this term falls comfortably within the norm. This is true both in terms of the sheer volume of cases left to decide as of June 17 each year and the number of high-profile or “major” cases (although the definition of such cases is, of course, subjective). The final decisions of the term came on July 1 in two of those five years; otherwise, the justices issued all of their decisions by the end of June.

In two years – 2025 and 2024 – the justices had more cases (21) left to decide as of June 17. Last year, the court ultimately issued 20 opinions and an order setting Louisiana v. Callais, the challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map, for reargument in the fall. At least five of those 21 cases last term were “major” ones:

Trump v. CASA (argued May 15), in which the Trump administration had asked the court to limit the availability of so-called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions;

Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22), a challenge by a group of Maryland parents to their inability to opt out of the use of LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks in school;

United States v. Skrmetti(argued Dec. 4), a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on some forms of medical treatment, such as hormone therapy, for transgender minors;

Louisiana v. Callais (argued March 24); and

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton(argued Jan. 15), a challenge to a Texas law requiring age verification for pornographic websites.

The court issued its final five decisions in argued cases (including CASA, Mahmoud, and Free Speech Coalition, as well as the reargument order in Callais) before its summer recess on June 27, 2025. It had released four opinions the day before that, June 26.

Similarly, in 2024, at least five of the court’s 21 cases remaining as of June 17 were “major” cases, including:

Trump v. United States (argued April 25), in which the court was considering whether (then-former) President Donald Trump was immune from criminal prosecution for his acts as president;

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (argued Jan. 17), achallenge to the deferential standard that courts used to review a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous laws;

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/is-the-supreme-court-running-behind/

Wow

>>24729790

2/4

Moyle v. United States (argued April 24), on whether a federal law requiring hospitals that receive federal funding to provide emergency care trumps an Idaho law criminalizing most abortions;

United States v. Rahimi (argued Nov. 7), a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law making it a crime for the subject of a domestic violence restraining order to have a gun; and

Ohio v. EPA (argued Feb. 21), on whether to pause an EPA rule intended to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states.

The court issued its final three decisions in argued cases on July 1, 2024; that opinion announcement day followed a flurry of activity in which the court released two opinions on June 26, four opinions on June 27, and three on June 28.

In 2022 and 2023, the court had fewer opinions left to release – 18 as of June 17, 2022, and 17 as of June 17, 2023. But in both of those years, the court issued several opinions shortly before June 17 – in 2023, it issued a total of five opinions on June 15 and June 16, while in 2022 it issued six opinions on June 15. Or, to put it another way, the court still entered the second half of June in both yearswith more than 20 cases left to decide.

2022 also rivaled this year in terms of the number of “major” cases – some of which, like this year, are true blockbusters – left to decide, including:

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (argued Nov. 3), a challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s concealed-carry licensing scheme;

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (argued Dec. 1), a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, and in which the state had asked the court to overturn its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade;

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (argued April 25), a lawsuit by a football coach who was fired because he prayed on the field after games;

West Virginia v. EPA (argued Feb. 28), on the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions;

Biden v. Texas (argued April 26), on whether the Biden administration had to continue to enforce a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court; and

Carson v. Makin (argued Dec. 8), a challenge to a Maine law that banned the use of public funds for students to use at private schools that provide religious instruction.

The court issued the final two opinions of the term on June 30, 2022; it had also released two opinions on June 29, 2022, and three opinions on June 27, 2022.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/is-the-supreme-court-running-behind/

>>24729796

3/4

The court followed a very similar schedule the following year, when it had five major cases left to release as of June 17, 2023:

Moore v. Harper (argued Dec. 7), on whether the Constitution gives state legislatures nearly complete authority to regulate federal elections, with little to no interference from state courts;

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (argued Oct. 31), challenges to the constitutionality of the undergraduate admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina;

Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown (argued Feb. 28), challenges to the Biden administration’s student-loan debt relief program; and

303 Creative v. Elenis (argued Dec. 5), a lawsuit by a Christian website designer who wanted to create wedding websites – but not for same-sex couples.

The court finished issuing opinions on June 30, 2023, with three that day. It issued three each on June 29 and June 27.

Much like this year, the court had 20 cases left to decide as of June 17, 2021. Five of those cases were “major” ones:

Fulton v. Philadelphia (argued Nov. 4), a challenge by a faith-based foster-care agency to the city’s refusal to refer cases to it because of the agency’s bar on certifying unmarried or same-sex married couples as foster parents;

California v. Texas (argued Nov. 10), a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate;

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (argued April 28), a high school cheerleader’s First Amendment challenge to her suspension from the team, based on social media postings made outside of school;

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta (argued April 26), a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s requirement that charities and nonprofits operating in the state provide the state attorney general’s office with the names and addresses of their largest donors; and

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (argued March 2), a challenge to the legality of two Arizona voting restrictions.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/is-the-supreme-court-running-behind/

>>24729803

4/4

The court finished releasing opinions in argued cases on July 1, 2021, when it released two opinions. It issued five opinions on two opinion days –June 28 (two opinions) and 29 (three) – leading up to that.

As of Wednesday, some of the major cases remaining for the court to decide this term include:

• Trump v. Slaughter (argued Dec. 8), the challenge by FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to Trump’s firing of her without cause;

• Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (argued Jan. 13), challenges to state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women and girls from competing on women’s and girls’ sports teams;

• Trump v. Cook (argued Jan. 21), involving the Trump administration’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, based on allegations (that she disputes) of mortgage fraud;

• United States v. Hemani(argued March 2), a challenge to the constitutionality of a Texas man’s conviction under a federal law that prevents the users of illegal drugs from having a gun;

• Watson v. Republican National Committee (argued March 23), a challenge to a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and received within five days of, Election Day; and

•Trump v. Barbara (argued April 1), on the legality of Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, the virtually automatic guarantee of citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

• Mullin v. Doe (along with Trump v. Miot) (argued April 29), a challenge to theTrump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian citizens in the United States.

There is no way to know exactly when the court will issue these and the other remaining decisions, or when it will begin its summer recess. But if recent years provide any clues, it seems very likely that the justices will finish by July 1 – if not before– and that they could finish with a flurry of opinion days in the run-up to whatever the final day proves to be.

(https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/is-the-supreme-court-running-behind/