“It just goes down your stomach like a dead glass of water.”

In 1985, Coca-Cola was convinced they were unveiling the beverage of the future. They called it “New Coke,” announcing in April of that year that it would replace the original 99-year-old Coca-Cola formula.

Public reception to the change was… not good (as you’ll see in this week’s video). Millions of Americans didn’t like the taste, sparking one of the most famous consumer backlashes in marketing history.

The company would eventually switch back to the original formula (calling it “Coca-Cola Classic”), but in early June (when my report aired), they were still convinced Americans would warm up to it.

Read more

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the latest attempt on Trump’s life, heated political rhetoric, and the situation in Iran.

Show Notes:

• Bernie’s column on the attempted assassination.

• John’s 9/17/2025 column on the assignment of blame for political violence

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

The good news that came out of what happened Saturday night at the White House Correspondents Dinner is that the system worked.

The gunman, we’re told, was out to get the president and top officials of the government. He failed.

Journalists weren’t hurt, either.

A secret service agent was shot, but because he was wearing a bulletproof vest, thankfully he wasn’t badly hurt.

Law enforcement officers did their job. It obviously could have been worse. A lot worse.

The gunman — 31-year old Cole Allen from Torrance, California — graduated from Caltech in 2017 with a degree in mechanical engineering. While at Caltech, he was a member of the school’s Christian fellowship.

He traveled across the country by train — first from LA to Chicago and then on to Washington. On trains, it apparently is easy to travel with weapons. Cole reportedly had a rifle, a handgun, and several knives.

Maybe something needs to be done to beef up security before we’re allowed to get on a train.

I say it could have been a lot worse. What if the attack wasn’t carried out by a lone actor but by a sophisticated, coordinated band of terrorists that, because the system failed, weren’t detected before they got to the hotel ballroom?

Present at the dinner were not only the president, but also the vice president and top cabinet officials, more than a dozen of whom were in the line of succession to the presidency.

Maybe it’s not a good idea to have the top echelons of our government in the same place at the same time.

But there’s something else that needs our attention: hateful rhetorical bombs that are all too commonplace, especially on social media where you can make a fortune spewing venom. Eventually, the sludge makes its way from social media posts and podcasts into the nation’s bloodstream.

If the president’s critics compare him to Hitler long enough and contend that he’s a racist who’s out to destroy American democracy … is it crazy to think that all of that might make its way from media platforms into the mind of a man who was once named “teacher of the month”?

A man with a gun apparently heard enough bad things about Charlie Kirk that he went to one of his rallies, took aim, and killed him.

“Kirk’s assassination followed numerous recent instances of political violence,” according to one news report. “In 2025 alone, Minnesota Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot; an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s residence with Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family inside; an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was shot and injured outside a detention facility in Texas; the New Mexico Republican Party headquarters was set on fire; and a shooter attacked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters.”

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist at Georgetown University says that, “Americans are quick to excuse actions and speech that were once taboo. Luigi Mangione, charged in the killing of United HealthCare executive Brian Thompson, has become ‘a folk hero.’” Somebody made a musical about Mangione — and shows were sold out.

On college campuses, protestors fly flags of terrorist organizations. Hamas is even celebrated.

We live in hyper-polarized times. Too often we don’t simply disagree with the other side, we detest the other side. And when we see the other side as “the enemy” it’s easy to turn the enemy into a target.

A while back, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all seen as somebody’s enemy. They were all targets.

We might be able to do something about security at train stations … and we might change protocols to insure that the top levels of government don’t congregate in the same place, making them potential targets for terrorists who want to bring down our government.

But how are we going to fix the hate that has moved from the fringes to the mainstream?

The good news from Saturday night, as I say, is that the system worked. This time. Maybe not the next time.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: Alan Dershowitz has a column this week in the Wall Street Journal where he reveals that he has joined the Republican Party and will actively contribute and campaign for Republican candidates. The main reason for this change is the Democratic Party's radical anti-Israel shift. Dershowitz's quote: "The Democratic Party has become the most anti-Israel party in U.S. history." You and Bernie have been very public about your becoming independent as neither a registered Republican nor Democrat. Was Dershowitz's political conversion surprising to you? — Steve R.

No, I wasn’t surprised. I actually half-thought he had already joined the Republican Party (like Tulsi Gabbard and other high-profile lefties). I knew he had left the Democratic Party a while back (apparently multiple times). It’s certainly possible that he joined the GOP precisely for the reason he stated, even with corridors of the Right going through its own anti-Israel binge (though not so much in Republican leadership, which is an important difference).

Personally, in this political era, I find neither of our major political parties appealing. I can, however, think of two entirely logical reasons for wanting to be in one: 1) If your state requires a party-affiliation to vote in the primaries (mine doesn’t); 2) If you plan on running for office (I don’t).

Sir John — apparently Air Force Major-General William Neil McCasland has mysteriously disappeared after leaving his New Mexico home and taking his gun with him. This silver alert could easily be a simple tragedy, except that several other scientists who either worked under him or had some other type of connection to his work (which included UFO research) have also either vanished or died mysteriously, one of which was murdered. Barack Obama AND Donald Trump have both made some tantalizing remarks recently about otherworldly aliens as well. Alien Abductions!? Foreign enemy assassins!? A secret cabal!? The Men In Black!? In all seriousness, I know you think I indulge in conspiracies too much, but one has to admit that there sure are some odd coincidences occurring recently. (Speaking of which, You live in Colorado; what secrets are hidden beneath that airport,, and have you ever seen that spooky cursed statue of the horse known as “Bluecifer” in your travels? What’s going on here, Sir John? Enquiring Minds Want To Know —“Area 51” Regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story closely enough to offer much insight on it, Emperor. In fact, if not for my wife mentioning it to me last week (she learned about these mysterious disappearances and deaths from her newsfeed), today would have been the first time I’d even heard about any of them. From what little I know, it’s certainly unusual, but I have no theories or conclusions to present you with.

As for Blucifer, yes, I see him often — every time I go to Denver International Airport. He’s large, in charge, and displayed prominently out front (on the drive in).

Blucifer has been a fun topic and cultural landmark for us Coloradans for several years now. He was an interesting art choice (for the very art-centric DIA), but what makes him even more notable is that he actually killed his sculptor before he was completed (by falling on him).

Blucifer is a hit with tourists (though you can’t really get your picture with him), and my wife and I got a kick out of him making an appearance on this season’s “Paradise.”

Represent!

I'm all in on a 10% tariff all around. Congress should approve this and dedicate it to the elephant in the room which is our national debt. I would also like to see an overall spending cut of 10% with the only exception to defense. I would like to see an annual decrease in spending of 5% to NATO with a five-year sunset clause. Minnesota fraud continues to be uncovered by independent reporters and covered up by mainstream reporters. The left has found a way to redistribute our federal tax dollars. Simple fiscal policies could rid our debt in 20 years. Unfortunately, it will never happen and to our grandchildren I ask forgiveness for the crash that will occur in their lifetime. — Tim H.

Tim, I certainly agree with you on that very last part. What we’ve done to our grandchildren, by letting our national debt explode well beyond our control, is unforgivable. Both parties have chased the fiscally-literate leaders out of office, and largely replaced them with grifters and clowns who are awesome at parroting talking points and sharing internet memes, but couldn’t care less about the most serious challenge we face as a nation.

I disagree with a mandatory 10% tariff. As we’ve learned, tariffs are a very inefficient, costly, and regressive way of raising tax revenue. Plus, they wouldn’t put a dent in the national debt. At this point, unfortunately, higher taxes will have to play a role in dealing with the issue, but tariffs aren’t the answer. There are far less damaging forms of taxation.

Of course, the major drivers of our national debt remain our major entitlement programs. They’re in desperate-desperate-desperate need of reform (and have been for many years). We can’t get anywhere at all on this issue without making serious changes to them.

On other spending, I would absolutely welcome a 10% federal cut across the board. Sun-setting NATO would be a terrible decision (for reasons I’ll probably get into in a future column). Fraud should be aggressively targeted and eliminated (and the fraudsters prosecuted). Unfortunately, even if you eliminate all government fraud, that wouldn’t put a dent in our debt either.

Ukraine’s going to win this thing, isn’t it? — Alex D.

Alex, I’m more confident of that now than I’ve ever been. Their home-grown drone technology (along with the Ukrainians’ amazing courage and resilience) has been an absolute game-changer for them. They’re steadily taking back territory, depleting the Russian forces, and securing new alliances and funding. It is to our country’s deep shame that we largely abandoned them, and have kept trying to tip the scales in favor of Putin, while they were (and still are) on the front line of defending the free world.

I wish the Ukrainians continued success, and eventual triumph.

Ok I know you have replied to an earlier question about Trump vs. Pope Leo, so this is more about the possible political ramifications. Do you actually think there will be any? Or is this just another “mean Tweet” that will be forgotten by next month.

BTW although many pundits have described this as a “tiff” or even a “fight” between them, seems so far it’s Trump who is swinging most of the online punches.

Most of the Pope’s public comments on the folly of war, the evils of politicians weaponizing religion, etc., are just what modern Popes tend to say, and really don’t come across as aimed at Trump personally, although I am sure they weren’t excluding him, either.

Anyway, at first I didn’t think this would affect Trump’s popularity at all. But I did see a recent poll indicating a drop in his support among Catholics, and even some non Catholic Christians, say that Trump’s recent blasphemous posts are the last straw, etc.

But Trump isn’t running again (and no I don’t agree with people already assuming he will figure out a way to run again in 2028). And when it comes to the midterms, I doubt this will matter much, unless Iran goes totally pear-shaped (like, Trump orders a mass ground invasion, and hundreds of American soldiers die, or get captured and set up Iran Hostage Crisis Part 2), but that would be much more about the Iran issue itself, than what the Pope said about it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I do not believe there will be any Pope-related political ramifications for Trump. The president’s Christian supporters have long exempted him from their moral standards (on everything from philandering to autographing Bibles for $1,000 a pop). Thus, I don’t expect that to suddenly change based on this. You’re right in that this dust-up (or whatever it is) has been one-sided (well, kind of). The Pope has been weighing in on policies and cultural issues (some are related to Trump), while Trump’s been going at The Pope individually for doing so. I think Trump’s worsening poll numbers (among all groups at this point) are more related to other things, like Iran, the economy, ICE, and general Trump-fatigue.

How much online hatred did you get from posting that picture of you and David French? — Ben G.

Ha! Surprisingly little, Ben. If David had retweeted it, I’m sure I would have received all kinds of unhinged responses, as I have in the past (since a lot of people hate-follow him).

I’ve interviewed David a number of times, and saw him speak at an event a year or so ago, but this was the first time I’d met him in-person. Nice guy. He and his Advisory Opinions podcast co-host, Sarah Isgur, were doing a live event at the University of Denver. So, I figured I’d drive down and say hi. I’m glad I did.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Too often ‘winning’ really means winning at any cost.”

In October of 1985, I did a two-part series for the CBS Evening News called “When the Cheering Stops.” It covered college sports scandals… including that of athletes never learning the non-sports professional skills that college should have taught them. The result was a knowledge deficit that held them back in life.

Both parts are included in this week’s video.

Read more

Back in February, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s nearly year-long “emergency” tariffs were, in fact, unconstitutional. The ruling didn’t come as a surprise to many legal experts and constitutional scholars, who long recognized that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was being abused. There was, however, a good amount of speculation over how the approximately $166 billion (plus interest) illegally collected from the tariffs would be refunded to the American companies who paid them… or if that would even happen.

As the New York Times recently reported, we’re beginning to get answers on that:

By Monday morning, those companies could begin submitting documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs. In a sign of the expected demand, more than 3,000 businesses, including FedEx and Costco, had already sued the Trump administration in a bid to secure their refunds before the application website launched, with some cases filed even predating the Supreme Court’s ruling.

But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump’s policies — including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought — are not able to apply for direct relief.

Assuming this all goes through (it’s possible the administration could put up roadblocks), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the federal government won’t be paying consumers a dime back of the artificially high, tariff-induced price-hikes they’ve had to endure over the last year. It was U.S. importers, not other countries (as the president has long contended), who directly paid the tariffs — aka taxes. So, any attempts by consumers to get reimbursed would have to go through a distribution chain of companies, perhaps in the form of class action lawsuit (that likely wouldn’t get far). Some companies may feel charitable enough to pass some of their federal repayment down to customers, but that’s entirely up to each company.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, consumers will just need to live with their losses.

To make matters worse, the $166 billion collected from the tariffs (the largest tax hike in over 30 years) has already been spent on other federal initiatives. That means the reimbursement amount, plus hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest, will be added directly to our national debt (which is currently racing toward $40 trillion).

In the meantime, while the aftereffects of these tariffs continue to work their way through the global economy (along with Trump’s ongoing non-emergency tariffs and continued efforts to impose new tariffs under different statutes), it’s becoming clearer and clearer just how damaging this entire, unilaterally-imposed experiment has been.

Free-trade conservatives and economists had long predicted the turmoil caused by Trump’s tariffs (lessened only by the president pulling back on some of his most crippling ones), and U.S. manufactures (who were supposed to be their biggest beneficiaries) — have long opposed them. But Trump thought (and still believes) that tariffs are cool, so we got a whole bunch of them.

At least the president got some ego-gratification and flashy gifts out of it. The rest of our country mostly came away with unnecessary burdens and hardship.

“In the history of the worst self-inflicted policy debacles, the administration’s tariff policies should be on the short list,” remarked Kim Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, and former Executive Vice President at The Heritage Foundation.

Holmes elaborated:

They were wasteful of government time and money.

They harmed the economy and US companies and did nothing to restore US manufacturing.

They fleeced consumers who will not get the money back that was paid in higher prices.

Since the administration is now reimbursing US companies, it’s admitting by its actions (if not its words) that that the tariff critics were right all along and that Trump was obviously wrong. That is the very definition of failure.

They set a terrible legal precedent that thankfully the Supreme Court corrected, but which along with other instances of bending the law, generally undermine the rule of law.

Any other money collected from tariffs that still remain in the US Treasury were still taken out of the US private economy and thus is still not available for investment, hiring new employees, paying wages and other things that American companies need to do.

They represented a blatant abdication of Congress’s constitutional role in our system of government.

And that doesn’t even include all of the trade relationships the U.S. has needlessly strained or destroyed by waging this trade war, in addition to finding other ways to drive away allies.

Now, there is actually a silver lining in all of this (as long as the administration holds true to its reimbursement plan). Injecting over $166 billion back into the U.S. private sector, to its rightful owners, will amount to some good economic stimulus. Affected companies that have long been holding off on reinvesting, bringing on new employees, and increasing salaries, will suddenly be in a better position to do those things.

It would seem a no-brainer, then, that every company that paid Trump’s illegal tariffs would apply to get reimbursed. That, however, is not certain. President Trump has already stated that he’ll “remember” the companies who choose not to apply for a refund, suggesting that he may give them some type of preferential treatment in the future. A different read is that he’ll find a way to punish those who do apply. Either way, it’s a wildly inappropriate gesture, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of these companies are done playing Trump’s games.

Regardless, prices should go down on a number of items, and some of our trade relationships should start to normalize (unfortunately, others may be irreparable). Even with our continuing challenges (including the high cost of oil, and Trump’s other tariffs), the added means and certainty will assuredly have a positive economic effect on our country.

It’s just a shame that the U.S. Congress let the administration go down this very painful path for almost a year before the judiciary — our last functional branch of the federal government — finally addressed the situation.

Share

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at (and question) the criticism Vice President JD Vance has taken for his words about Pope Leo.

Share

Read more

Once again I find myself in a familiar place — caught in the middle of two opposing sides … and disagreeing with both.

To the left stands a man of peace, Pope Leo XIV. To the right, the secretary of war — or at least a man who seems comfortable with the title — Pete Hegseth. Both men, I assume, mean well. But as we’ve seen time and again, good intentions don’t always lead to sensible conclusions.

Let’s start with the pope. He recently said, “God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

Okay, a not too subtle shot at President Trump without mentioning Mr. Trump by name. We shouldn’t be surprised. Pope Leo is a man of the left. And no surprise either that Donald Trump took to Truth Social to fire back at the pope, just as he fires back at everybody who says something about him that he doesn’t like. The pope, Mr. Trump said, is “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” before adding, “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.” Not long after that, an image of the president looking a lot like Jesus popped up on Trump’s Truth Social— the latest piece of evidence indicating that Donald Trump desperately needs some divine intervention.

Read more

Hi everyone.

I hope you all had a good weekend. Mine was pretty busy, but I finally had a few spare minutes this evening, and figured I’d write about a couple things that are on my mind.

Good Riddance to Eric Swalwell

People who’ve read my work for a while know that I’ve been making fun of Eric Swalwell for quite some time. From his portrayal of himself as a bad-ass for not buying coffee at Trump Tower, to his argument that the U.S. government could nuke its own country to put down a domestic uprising over proposed gun-confiscation, to his hyper-feminized presidential run, to his possible affair with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, I’d long pegged Swalwell as a hopelessly unself-aware clown.

But as it turns out, he’s also a very creepy one — a sexual predator, if you believe the credible allegations that have recently come out against him (including the rape of a former staffer). Swalwell denies at least some of the claims, but there’s enough corroborating evidence backing them up that he ended his California gubernatorial campaign and resigned from the House of Representatives. The DOJ has appropriately launched an investigation into the allegations, as have state officials.

Since the controversy began, it’s been disturbing to hear a number of D.C. insiders describe rumors of Swalwell’s infidelities and womanizing as being well-known for some time. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) even said, “Every member in Congress knows not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It’s not a secret there.”

If that was indeed true (and I believe it, based on how many people have now said as much), how did this not become an issue much earlier? Granted, there’s a difference between being a cad and sexual assault, but Swalwell, who’s married with children, ran successfully for Congress seven times. He even ran for President of the United States. One would think that his conduct with women would have set off career-damaging alarms a long time ago. Unfortunately for his apparent victims, it didn’t.

The good news is that, like Matt Gaetz and recently Tony Gonzales, he’s no longer in public service. That’s a start. I hope justice is served through our legal system.

An Unholy Troll

Last week, conservative New York Times columnist David French appeared on the “Relatable” podcast with host Allie Beth Stuckey. French and Stuckey are both Christians, and their commentary often delves into matters of faith and politics. The two have a number of disagreements, including whether Donald Trump, and the political-era he’s shaped, have been a net-positive or net-negative for the Christian church in America. Stuckey seems to believe the former. French believes the latter.

It was a decent enough conversation, with both individuals making good points. But in accordance with the online hatred that is routinely directed at David French by the MAGA-right (seemingly whenever he pens a column or opens his mouth to speak), the disparagement came hard and fast.

One social-media post that caught my eye pretty early in the feeding frenzy was by a guy named J. Chase Davis. It wasn’t directed at anything French said, but rather something Davis noticed, and felt inclined to publicly speculate on.

“No wedding ring,” Davis noted on X, posting a screen-capture from the episode showing French’s bare left hand. Davis also included a screen-capture of French’s profile-page, along with that of his wife Nancy, drawing attention to a discrepancy he found interesting. “Two different locations,” Davis wrote. “I can’t be the only one that has some questions.”

The clear suggestion was that David and Nancy were having marital problems, and were separated. The reality, as anyone familiar with the couple (or bothered to do a quick Google search) knows, is that the two split their time between Franklin, TN and Chicago, IL in order to live closer to their grandchildren. And as a number of people replying to Davis soon pointed out, lots of happily married individuals choose not to wear a wedding ring (mine comes off whenever I lose some weight, because I’m afraid it’s going to fall off my finger).

Of course, such garbage as Davis’s is pretty common online. Lots of trolls hound public figures across social-media platforms with gross accusations and demonstrably false statements.

But J. Chase Davis isn’t just some troll. He’s an evangelical pastor — a real one… at The Well Church in Boulder, CO.

The “core beliefs” of The Well Church, according to its website, are “based on the foundational truths taught in the bible. All of our teaching and ministry is rooted in and flows out of these biblical doctrines.”

Apparently, Davis’s copy of the Bible is missing the part about bearing false witness (which is fairly important, being that it’s the Ninth Commandment).

Davis later acknowledged that he now understands the nature of David and Nancy French’s living situation, but, as of the time I’m writing this, he has yet to delete his original post. He’s also dismissed the criticism he’s taken over it as “leftist discourse.”

Ironically, Davis is currently promoting his new book titled, “Offensive Christianity.”

No, I’m not joking. And its subtitle, “Restoring the Strength of Men in a Feminized Age,” would also seem ironic considering Davis’s gossip girl tendencies.

For the hat trick, if you Google Davis’s recent past, and browse through his other posts, it would seem he’s been finding ways to actually bolster French’s beliefs about the Trump Effect on the Christian church in America — unwittingly so, of course.

The good news for Davis is that his post has now been viewed by over a quarter of a million people, which can only help his book sales.

Let’s hope it was worth it for him, because it definitely didn’t do the Christian faith any good.

That’s all for now. Have a great week, everyone.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don’t exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn’t happen.

But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump? Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there. But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.

I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs “cautiously optimistic” and TDs “cautiously pessimistic” takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.

Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don’t think it’s all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with [Mike] Nelson and [Mike] Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I think you’ve illustrated just how complicated of an issue the Iran War is. I also think your position is totally reasonable.

As for political pundits aligning their war analysis with their personal views of Trump, I think that’s largely true. There are exceptions, of course, and I’m one of them. I’m not at all a Trump fan, but I do support much of his Iran policy and the military action we’ve taken there. I would love to see the Iranian regime toppled; it would be great for the Iranian people and much of the world. That said, I think the administration has handled a number of things poorly, including in communicating the policy to the American people (there has been a lot of mixed messaging), and sidestepping Congress. Also, Trump himself seems to be quite confused at times about what the goals, strategy, and latest developments are (I have much more confidence in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM).

I very much disagree with those, including some of the aforementioned Bulwarkers, who are insistent that Iran is winning. Iran is absolutely not winning (and no American should be giddy if they were). At minimum, we’ve destroyed so much of the regime’s leadership and military capacity (not to mention their nuclear program, months earlier) that it will take them years to recover. But again, at this point, I’d like to see us keep going and put an end to the regime.

Lastly, thanks for watching/listening to the Reagan Caucus podcast episodes with Mike Nelson and Mike Coté. They both know their stuff. I’m a bit more aligned with Mike Nelson on the issue that I am Mike Coté, though both certainly want the Iran regime gone.

Sir John, I keep hearing from the left that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein Files. I keep hearing from the right that the Dems could have released the files during the Biden Administraton but chose not to. The left responds by saying that a court order prevented them from doing that. So what IS the truth? Do you think Trump truly doesn’t want the files made public because they may be incriminating or at least embarrassing to him and his friends? Were the Dems truly unable to release the Epstein Files during the Biden Administration? Or is that a convenient excuse they use to cover their own concern about prominent Democrats that may be on the list? —“Epstein’s Ghost Still Hanging Around” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. I do not believe that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. As for the Democrats, from what I understand, they could have released the files under Biden (albeit it with significant limitations), but they didn’t.

Regardless, I think you and many others may be missing an important point here. The “Epstein Files” controversy of the past couple years was created by MAGA, not the Democrats. I don’t think the Democrats had any interest in using the Jeffrey Epstein as a political weapon against Trump (at least not in any meaningful way), until MAGA gift-wrapped it, and dropped it right in their lap.

Trump surrogates (including current FBI Director Kash Patel) made this a huge issue in the 2024 election cycle, insisting that President Biden was protecting pedophiles, and therefore Trump was needed back in office to publicly expose those people (with the assumption that many of those mentioned in the files were Democratic party bigwigs and/or donors). When Trump won, MAGA demanded the promised results. But Trump didn’t want that, because, as a former friend and associate of Epstein’s (not to mention a Democrat and big Democratic donor at the time), he was mentioned several times in the files (along with some embarrassing, if not damning, revelations). This put people like Patel and AG Pam Bondi in the unenviable position of having to very awkwardly manage the situation, and do their best not to embarrass their boss (or otherwise get him in trouble).

The Democrats, observing all of this, smelled political blood in the water. They went all-in on calling for the release of the files (apparently having calculated that any embarrassing revelations about people still on their political team would be offset by what might come out about Trump). Even if there’s nothing more about Trump that hasn’t already been released (which is doubtful), it’s a political advantage for the Dems to keep hammering the issue (even if, in reality, they couldn’t care less about it).

It’s that classic tale about being careful what you wish for.

Literally a day after you published this, the corruption got worse with the DOJ now deciding to vacate charges against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for the Jan 6th insurrection. It’s clear ‘justice’ is not being served by the department that bears its name, and trust in this institution is at an all time low (like Trump’s poll numbers) that will take years to rebuild. Well done on being ahead of the curve on this one. — FDM

Thanks, but the corruption is sadly front and center for all to see. I might write about this latest development next week, but it really is egregious (though sadly not surprising) that the DOJ is working on totally clearing people found guilty of seditious conspiracy, of all things.

What are your thoughts about Lauren Boebert (is she your representative?) slamming a bunch of reporters, who were asking about sexual misconduct scandals (that she had been weighing in on), as being “horny.” — Ben G.

My first reaction was to laugh, because — while it’s possible I missed some important context — my understanding is that she was being asked relevant questions about an issue she’s been very vocally weighing in on. The bizarre leap to calling the reporters “horny” reminded me of a recurring joke on Arrested Development:

Oh, and no, she is not my representative. I used to live in, and volunteer for, that district (when Ken Buck held the seat), but recent redistricting put me in a different one. Now, a Republican named Gabe Evans is my rep. He’s pretty much just a Trump toadie, but a fairly low-profile one.

Are we ever going to know the real reason why Trump and Vance were so desperate to keep Victor Orban in office? — Alex D.

That’s an interesting question, Alex. Up until the election, I had assumed that Trump’s weird affection for Orban came entirely from his well-documented admiration for strongman leaders. With Vance, it was more ideological; Orban represents the postliberal, autocratic ideology that Vance largely subscribes to. But Trump and Vance went so far over-the-top in their campaigning for Orban (Vance outright lied on behalf of Orban numerous times) that I’m inclined to believe there was indeed something more. We did find out, after Orban was defeated, that he’d been directing Hungarian tax dollars to American right-wing organizations like CPAC. I now wonder what other American enterprises he was investing in. It’s possible, through the new Hungarian government, that we’ll find out.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Can’t is not part of your vocabulary.”

In 2012, while working for HBO’s Real Sports, I did a story on one of the most remarkable and inspiring people I’ve ever met: a young woman named Jennifer Bricker.

Bricker has an amazing personal story, from her birth and upbringing, to her life now. I hesitate to give any of it away here, as it might spoil the unfolding of that story in today’s video piece. I’ll just mention that I actually did two stories on Bricker — the first one in 2012, and a follow-up in 2016. Clips from both segments are in the video.

When you’re finished watching it, let me know what you think in the comment section.

Read more

Show Notes:

• Mark’s memoir, A Cup of Tea on the Commode

• Mark’s website

• John’s newsletter on watching 1980’s action flicks

Share

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the Democrats’ “TACO” pattern, the implications of a third Trump impeachment, and the president’s show of disrespect for the Christian faith.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Editor’s note: This column is a more detailed version of a recent Off the Cuff.

Being fired by the president isn’t all bad. Sure, the public humiliation isn’t any fun, and neither is losing your title and your power and all the perks that go with it. But getting the axe has its upside.

Take two of the president’s loyal servants — Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem, the former attorney general and former secretary of homeland security, both of whom got pink slips from their boss. The silver lining for them is that at least now they won’t be impeached if (and most likely when) the Democrats take over the House in the midterm elections.

It’s always good to look on the bright side.

In the end, loyalty — and good looks, for that matter — go only so far with the president. And it won’t save you if he thinks you made a mess of things … even if you were doing what he wanted you to do.

Read more

A few weeks ago, when Pam Bondi was still our attorney general and trying desperately to keep her job, she directed the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into one of her boss’s old political foes: Cassidy Hutchinson.

On January 6, 2021, Hutchinson worked for Trump’s then chief of staff, Mark Meadows. A year and a half later, she provided damning testimony to the January 6 Committee, including the implication that Trump was aware, prior to the attack at the U.S. Capitol, of his supporters potentially causing violence that day.

Cassidy publicly recalled the president, after being told that some of the protesters outside his infamous “Stop the Steal” speech were armed, saying words to the effect of, “I don't f****** care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me.”

Others have disputed Hutchinson’s summation, which was the expressed basis for the DOJ pursuing the notion that she lied under oath in front of Congress.

A number of Justice Department officials have reportedly been skeptical all along that there’s a viable case to be made against Hutchinson. Nonetheless, the department has been moving forward with the former AG’s last sacrificial offering to the president. And they’re doing so in a highly unusual way.

The investigation has been assigned to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — a specialized unit that typically handles cases involving systemic issues like police misconduct, voting rights, and racial discrimination. It’s currently headed by Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and staunch Trump loyalist with a penchant for going after the president’s critics.

Normally such a case would be led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, headed by former Fox News host, Jeanine Pirro (another Trump loyalist). But Pirro has been handed so many judicial defeats in recent months, while trying to advance criminal cases against Trump’s political adversaries, that there are apparently higher hopes for Dhillon.

None of this should be surprising, of course. As The Dispatch’s Kevin Williamson recently pointed out, the Trump DOJ has launched “a series of pretextual criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting the president’s political enemies, even when there was not the hint of an actual legal case to be made against them.”

Williamson provided a useful list of the DOJ’s political targets so far:

Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, all of Minnesota; Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey; St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her; Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell; Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook; Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan; Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado; Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Reps. Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania; Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona; Sen. Adam Schiff of California; former FBI Director James Comey; former CIA Director John Brennan; Attorney General Letitia James of New York. (The prosecution of former National Security Adviser John Bolton, no less political and pretextual where Bondi was concerned, is more complicated in that it is not solely the work of the Trump administration.)

And this doesn’t even include all of the DOJ personnel, FBI officers, and Secret Service agents who were fired for simply being assigned to investigate occurrences that Trump didn’t want investigated (like January 6, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, his mishandling of classified documents, and his obstruction of the retrieval of those documents). In other words, their career-derailing sin was just showing up to work. Some of these individuals filed federal lawsuits last month, claiming they were unlawfully fired as part of a “retribution campaign.” It’s not clear whether such terminations are in fact illegal, but I suppose we’ll find out.

Regardless, Hutchinson is just the latest political target of this DOJ, but she assuredly won’t be the last. Trump fired Bondi, after all, because he didn’t feel she was aggressive enough in using the legal system to punish his opponents. And with Trump recently promising mass pardons for his staff before he leaves office (similar to what he did for almost 1,600 January 6 criminals on the first day of his second term), it’s entirely possible that Bondi’s replacement will indeed dare to go where no modern AG has gone before. What would he or she have to lose?

Whether that person is Todd Blanche or someone else, however, I suspect Trump will continue to be disappointed for one simple reason: It’s not a lack of internal willingness or desire to appease the president that keeps derailing these cases. It’s the frivolousness of them. In instance after instance, they have lacked compelling evidence of a crime having been committed. And judges and juries have been unwilling to make the same capitulations as the DOJ.

While it’s disheartening that the judiciary is arguably the only branch of our federal government that’s still functioning as it should, one is certainly better than none. These cases (including Hutchinson’s) will likely continue to fall apart regardless of who heads the DOJ, but that’s not to say that those who’ve been politically targeted will walk away unscathed. A legal defense-team costs a lot of money, and not everyone in this administration’s crosshairs is wealthy. There’s also the reputational and professional damage that can come from such an ordeal, even if one is legally vindicated.

What’s especially troubling to me is how normalized this has become. Congress is largely asleep at the wheel, and the general public doesn’t care much about it either, probably having priced such abuses into the baseline chaos and vindictiveness they’ve come to expect from a Trump presidency. Their biggest problem with Trump has been cost-of-living issues (now including the price of gasoline, due to the Iran War). Much of the rest is just noise.

Lots of Trump loyalists, on the other hand, are very much enjoying what the DOJ is doing. Like the president, their only gripe is that it hasn’t been brutal enough. They believe the department is righteous and justified in exacting their boss’s revenge, because of how Trump was treated by prosecutors and investigators when he was out of office. They’ve been assured over the years by the president, his surrogates, and the right-wing media that Trump wasn’t deserving of any of the criminal investigations, indictments, and prosecutions he had to contend with.

I certainly agree with them on the New York cases (as I’ve written many times). The federal ones were a different story. But that shouldn’t matter — not for the question of whether it’s acceptable for the DOJ (whose primary function is to enforce laws impartially and independent of political influence) to openly serve as an instrument for satisfying a president’s bottomless desire for political vengeance.

Regardless of how one feels about Trump, that is indeed what’s happening right now. And the country should care more about it.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John, Pam Bondi's firing was long overdue in my opinion- January first would had been the time to do so. She leaves a bad taste and much confusion with the Epstein files and her initial verbiage and handling of it all; an earlier firing would had helped the Republicans going into the mid-terms as folks would had long forgotten her face by now. Same goes for Kristi Noem. Better late than never. These two women hurt Pres. Trump's ratings much more than he realizes. My question to you is do you believe these women were more controversial than if a man had held these positions? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I didn’t shed any tears for Pam Bondi, of course, but as I told one of the commenters on this website the other day, Bondi wasn’t fired for being incompetent (which she was) or being a terrible AG (which she also was). Trump fired her for not being terrible ENOUGH. His beef was that she wasn’t aggressive enough in perverting our legal system to punish his perceived political opponents, and protect his from the Epstein political fallout (which he can thank MAGA influencers for — including his current FBI Director Kash Patel). In other words, despite Bondi completely discrediting the office and herself for Trump, it wasn’t (as Bernie discussed in this week’s “Off the Cuff”) enough for him. He wanted her to be more corrupt. She wasn’t (or couldn’t be), so he fired her.

As for the midterms, I don’t think Bondi and Noem will make (or would have made) a difference. And I don’t think their gender played a role in them being controversial.

John: It’s the beginning of April, so that means tax season. Again this year, my wife and I are going through the herculean task of gathering all documents, receipts, etc. to submit to the tax preparer. Even though we don’t do our own taxes, I still consider this an autopsy of my finances without the benefit of death. We hear a lot about raising taxes in blue states and lowering taxes in red states, but I think that misses half the point. I would actually be willing to pay slightly MORE taxes if this whole process were greatly simplified for time and clarity. The older I get, the more I value time equal to or greater than money. Have you seen any proposals lately to simplify the tax code, and do you agree that this would go a long way towards clarity of the whole exercise of taxation? — Steve R.

I feel your pain, Steve. The work I do for this website/membership is just one several contracted jobs I have (in addition to author royalties/expenses, freelance writing, etc). My accountant probably hates me due to the complex nature of my tax situation, but I suppose that’s my cross to bear for being (as Bernie calls me) The Renascence Man of the Rocky Mountains.

I’m all for a simplified tax code, and I’ve heard lots of proposals over the years for making it happen, but they unfortunately never come to fruition, in large part due to political interests. In other words, Steve, I think this will continue to be a pain in the butt.

Sir John — what are your thoughts on Pope Leo’s homily about Jesus ignoring the prayers of those who wage war? On the one hand, it appears that he’s speaking about Trump. That’s fine. But I would take him more seriously if he had the guts to criticize the Islamic regime and what they did when they slaughtered their own citizens protesting in the streets, and then afterwards they executed a star wrestler simply for dissension. Okay so the Mullahs and IRGC aren’t Christians, nor do I believe that Jesus is pro war. But I can’t help wondering if the Pontiff would have made the same homily in 1941. —“All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance…While The Iranian Citizens Are Being Slaughtered By Their Rulers” regard from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. This may sound weird, but I’ve never put much personal stock in what Popes say about the morality of war (unless it’s specifically about war crimes), because of how complicated and individualized of an issue it is (geopolitically and beyond). Like you, I don’t believe that Jesus is pro-war, but many times throughout history it has been war that has ultimately saved scores of people from genocide, or liberated them from terrible suffering. Though I do think Pope Leo was addressing Trump’s threats to commit war crimes, he also got more broadly into the morality of war (which again, is complicated).

If I recall, Pope Leo did comment on the mass-murder of Iranian protests, but did in so in broad terms (emphasizing peace, dialogue, and an end to the suffering of civilians) without specifically naming the Iranian regime. Was it a cop-out not to name them? Maybe/probably. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think he specifically named Trump either. Regardless, like I said, I don’t hang on a Pope’s words when it comes to this issue.

You’re exactly right about Vance with Orban. What a disgrace. In regard to the flaming hypocrisy of his “election interference” comments, he’s STILL out there doing it. He told a Hungarian interviewer: “You should never have a foreign head of state threatening the head of government of an allied nation. It's preposterous, it's unacceptable.” TRUMP HAS DONE THIS TIME AFTER TIME. Does Vance honestly not understand how ridiculous he sounds? — Ben G.

I think Vance is smart enough understand exactly how hypocritical and shameless these comments are, Ben. He just doesn’t care. As we’ve seen time after time (including specifically with Vance), there’s no penalty for double-standards and breathtaking hypocrisy in today’s U.S. politics (let alone lies). Thus, there’s nothing keeping those things from getting worse — except for personal shame (which Vance, and many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, no longer have).

What are your thoughts on Thomas Massie? Did you ever expect him to become a Trump opponent in the GOP? — Alex D.

I don’t like Massie. Like a broken clock, he gets a couple of things right, but I mostly view him as a conspiracy-nut provocateur who — up until recently — was overly servile to the guy he’s now become of an “opponent” of. Am I surprised that he (and others like MTG) have taken on this new role? Maybe a little, but they were perfectly fine (and eager) to go along with some of Trump’s worst instincts (at times when it mattered more).

Hi John, has Trump lost his mind completely?

“There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

What are your thoughts on the US committing war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure such as water desalination plants, bridges and power plants? Will Trump Join Putin and Netanyahu on the ICC’s most wanted list?” Fun video explainer.

Can acting AG Todd Blanche’s slobbering love affair with Donald Trump get any more sickening and cringeworthy? Blanche publicly prostrated himself in front of the entire media, affirming his “love” and subservience to the President. I have never seen a more spineless display of toadying in my life, and that’s saying a lot with this current administration. — FDM

Lots to answer there, FDM. Lol. I’ll address one question at time.

Longtime readers know that I’ve long believed Trump to be psychologically/emotionally/temperamentally unfit to be president, and I do think it’s getting worse as he gets older. (And before newer readers throw “What about Biden???” at me, I argued, while Biden was in office, that he was so mentally unfit that he should have resigned rather than try to run for a second term). I’ve always believed that a U.S. president’s words matter, and while one could argue that a president presenting oneself as insane could effectively scare our enemies into compliance, what I’ve seen with recent developments surrounding the Strait of Hormuz (and the broader Iran situation) isn’t exactly compliance.

To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t committed any war crimes (though he spoke of possibly doing such, which was bad in itself, but not an international crime).

As for Blanche: Yes, it can absolutely get worse, but it’s hyper-embarrassing at its current level. As I’m often reminded, there is no bottom.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Sharks aren’t the problem. Jaws is.”

Editor’s note: Today’s 50-year-old news clip his poor audio-quality, so we suggest that you turn up your volume all the way.

By August of 1975, the newly released Steven Spielberg film-classic, Jaws, was smashing box-office records and already having a major impact on American culture. It was driving many people’s fear of sharks through the roof… and also driving beach-community tourist bureaus nuts! They believed that irrational fears stoked by the movie were keeping visitors away from their beaches, and they were looking for ways to deal with the situation.

I covered one such community — Carolina Beach, North Carolina — for CBS News.

What gets me, while revisiting this report, is how the individuals we filmed and interviewed both look and sound like they could have been actual characters in the film.

Read more

Not all that long ago, it was considered wholly improper for an elected representative of the United States to campaign for a foreign leader — especially on their home turf. But earlier this week, Vice President JD Vance did exactly that. Making it especially gross was who that leader was: an unapologetic supporter of Vladimir Putin and outspoken opponent of Western civilization, policies, and governance.

I’m talking, of course, about Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary. He’s currently running for a fifth consecutive term, and polls suggest it’s a very tight race. Orbán’s erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law, along with economic stagnation in his country, have voters considering a new direction. In a move of desperation, Orbán presumably called upon his buddy, President Trump, for a helping hand. Vance was apparently tasked to publicly extend it.

Critics of the move have pointed out that beyond Trump’s personal affection for the strongman leader, the United States and its allies would gain nothing from Orbán winning reelection. In fact, Orbán has been deepening Hungary’s ties with China, and obstructing the Trump administration’s preferred Ukraine policy of letting Europe take the lead role in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invaders. He’s also been delaying sanctions packages against Russia.

Russia certainly has a vested interest in Orbán staying in power; the United States does not.

But it’s even worse than that…

In Vance’s Budapest campaign speech, the vice president went as far as parroting Kremlin propaganda that Ukraine has been interfering in foreign elections, including those of Hungary… and the United States.

“This is just what they do,” Vance told reporters. “This is part of the cost of doing business within some elements of their system. I try to remind myself that Ukraine, like the United States, is a very complicated place. There are good people and there are bad people. There are people that try to interfere in others’ elections. And there are people who actually just say, you know what, we believe in sovereignty for everybody. And that’s what we support. For example, there were people in the Ukrainian system who were campaigning with Democrats literally in the weeks before the presidential election where Donald Trump won very comfortably in November of 2024.”

Of course, that didn’t happen. That is, unless one wants to argue that President Zelenskyy touring a Pennsylvania ammunition factory alongside local Democratic leaders was a campaign event. For Zelenskyy, it was an opportunity to thank American workers (who were producing shells for Ukraine) for helping defend is country against its Russian invaders.

As shameful as Vance’s comments were, one could simply add them to our vice president’s long history of expressed, inexplicable, personal animosity toward Ukraine and Zelenskyy. But what stood out in this instance was the glaring irony of Vance’s claim.

Vance, that very day in Budapest, was openly doing exactly what he accused Ukrainians of doing: campaigning for a foreign leader. In his speech, Vance even specifically called on Hungarians to “go to the polls” and “stand with Viktor Orbán.” He also voice-conferenced President Trump into the event, who told attendees (and Hungarians watching at home): “I’m a big fan of Viktor. I’m with him all the way. The United States is with him all the way.”

By Vance’s own framing, that is election interference. Thus, doesn’t that make him and Trump two of the “bad people” he spoke of?

“It’s like a Prohibitionist pastor railing against that ol’ demon rum between shots of whiskey,” remarked The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg.

Sadly, expecting our political leaders to be mindful of their own hypocrisy is a pointless, bipartisan exercise in today’s politics. But shouldn’t we still expect our leaders to prioritize America’s interests over those of Russia?

It doesn’t feel like a lot to ask for.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the recent dismissal of Attorney General Pam Bondi, and what it says about President Trump (and working in his administration).

Share

Read more

Here’s the thing about politicians: They talk tough when it costs them nothing — and when reality hits them in the face, they sing a very different tune.

Take Kathy Hochul. Back in 2022, while campaigning for governor of New York, she had a message for Donald Trump and like-minded Republicans: “Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong. OK? Get out of town. Because you don’t represent our values.”

So much for Democratic inclusivity — to say nothing about their supposed open-mindedness. What better way to say everyone is welcome here than telling your political opponents to pack up and leave the state.

Well, fast forward a bit — and surprise, surprise —people actually took her advice. Not just Trump. Not just Republicans. Not just the hated billionaires. Regular, tax-paying New Yorkers looked around, checked their bank accounts, looked again at their tax bills … and said, “You know what? Florida sounds pretty good.”

Read more