Feed aggregator

Democrats are now favored to take control of the U.S. Senate in Tuesday’s midterm elections, with a new forecast from Decision Desk HQ giving the party a 64% probability of winning the majority and projecting a 52-48 Democratic advantage in the next Congress.

The latest election model points to three Republican-held seats as particularly vulnerable: Texas, Alaska, and Maine. Democratic victories in those states could produce a dramatic shift in Washington, where Republicans are fighting to maintain their Senate majority amid a difficult political environment.

In Texas, Decision Desk HQ estimates that Democrat James Talarico has a 61% likelihood of defeating Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton. The contest has attracted national attention because Texas has long been a Republican stronghold, making a Democratic victory there a potentially significant setback for the GOP.

Alaska presents another possible Democratic pickup, with former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola assigned a 61% chance of defeating incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. Peltola’s previous statewide electoral success has made her a formidable challenger in a state that generally favors Republicans in federal elections.

In Maine, former state Senate President Troy Jackson is given a 63% probability of unseating Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whose long tenure and reputation for political independence have helped her survive previous Democratic challenges.

The same forecasting model gives Republicans a 36% chance of retaining Senate control, leaving open the possibility that the GOP could outperform current expectations in several closely contested states.

The projections mark a substantial change from the political landscape a year earlier, when Republicans appeared well positioned to defend their majority. At the time, Democrats faced the difficult task of capturing Senate seats in multiple states that President Trump had carried by comfortable margins during the 2024 presidential election.

Republican prospects have since been complicated by declining approval ratings for President Trump, persistent voter frustration over household expenses, and economic concerns tied to tariffs and higher prices associated with the Iran war.

Despite the improving Democratic outlook, Decision Desk HQ chief elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley warned that early voting figures should not be interpreted as reliable predictions of the final results, particularly because Republicans have increasingly concentrated their participation on Election Day.

“Friends don’t let friends read too much into absentee and early voting data,” Skelley wrote in an analysis of voting patterns ahead of Tuesday’s elections.

Texas provides one example of the uncertainty. Through October 31, voters classified as Republicans by a statistical model accounted for approximately 42% of early ballots, compared with 39% identified as Democrats. Although that represents a smaller Republican advantage than in 2024, Skelley cautioned that a strong Election Day showing by GOP voters could still deliver a victory for Paxton.

Florida’s early voting numbers have offered Republicans a more favorable picture. As of November 1, registered Republicans represented roughly 41% of ballots submitted early or by mail, compared with 38% for registered Democrats. Decision Desk HQ consequently gives the GOP approximately a 75% probability of retaining the state’s Senate seat.

North Carolina, by contrast, has produced encouraging numbers for Democrats. Registered Democrats accounted for approximately 38% of early voters, compared with 26% for Republicans. That represents a substantial improvement over the party’s position at the same stage in 2024, although a surge in Republican participation on Tuesday could reduce the Democratic advantage.

Skelley also pointed to early voting trends in Kansas and Iowa, where Democrats have improved their position compared with previous elections. Both states have traditionally leaned Republican, however, and stronger Democratic participation before Election Day does not necessarily mean the party will overcome the GOP’s historical advantage.

The stakes are particularly high because Republicans entered the election cycle holding 53 Senate seats, compared with 47 held by Democrats and independents who caucus with them. Democrats therefore need a net gain of four seats to secure outright control. A 50-50 split would leave Republicans in charge because Vice President JD Vance would retain the power to cast tie-breaking votes.

Decision Desk HQ’s forecasting system runs one million simulations using polling, historical voting patterns, and other electoral data. While its latest projections favor Democrats, the relatively narrow probabilities in several battleground states mean that even modest changes in voter turnout could produce a substantially different Senate map when the votes are counted Tuesday night.

Four closely contested congressional elections in New York could play a decisive role in determining which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives following Tuesday’s midterm elections, with Republicans fighting to preserve their narrow majority and Democrats hoping that victories in the Empire State will help propel them back into power.

Although New York remains overwhelmingly Democratic in statewide elections, several competitive House districts have become major battlegrounds, attracting millions of dollars in campaign spending and national attention. Both parties view the state as essential to their efforts to secure the 218 seats needed for a House majority.

New York Democratic Party chairman Jay Jacobs expressed confidence that his party would successfully defend all its existing congressional seats while potentially capturing two additional districts in the Hudson Valley and upstate New York. He predicted that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, “will be the next speaker of the House.”

State Republican chairman Ed Cox, meanwhile, pointed to the GOP’s success in New York during the 2022 midterms, when Republican victories in several competitive districts helped deliver control of the House to the party.

Republicans currently hold 218 House seats, compared with 214 Democrats, one independent member, and two vacancies, leaving little room for losses as voters prepare to head to the polls.

Among the most closely watched contests is the race in New York’s 17th Congressional District, covering portions of the Hudson Valley north of New York City. Republican Rep. Mike Lawler is seeking another term against Democrat Cait Conley, an Army combat veteran who subsequently held a national security position in the Biden administration.

The Lawler-Conley contest has become one of the most expensive congressional races in the country. According to advertising tracking firm AdImpact, Republican organizations have poured approximately $30 million into advertising in the district, while Democratic groups have spent another $20.9 million. Only North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District has attracted more advertising expenditures.

Lawler’s political survival is particularly important to Republicans because he was the only GOP candidate among New York’s four major 2022 congressional pickups to retain his seat during the 2024 elections. Democrats successfully reclaimed the other three districts, leaving Lawler as the remaining Republican incumbent from that wave of victories.

Another major contest is unfolding in the North Country, where Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik’s decision not to seek reelection created an open seat in a district that has traditionally favored Republicans.

The GOP nominee, businessman Anthony Constantino, owns a printing company and has received President Trump’s endorsement. Constantino has reportedly invested approximately $17 million of his personal fortune into the campaign, making the contest one of the most heavily self-financed House races of the election cycle.

Constantino faces Democrat Blake Gendebien, a farmer who is attempting to capitalize on divisions within the local Republican organization. Constantino’s victory over a primary opponent supported by established Republican and Conservative Party leaders left lingering tensions within the district’s political structure.

The Conservative Party ultimately declined to place a candidate on its ballot line, an unusual development that could complicate Republican efforts to consolidate conservative voters behind Constantino.

Political consultant O’Brien “OB” Murray suggested that the internal Republican disagreements could create “the perfect storm for the Democrats,” particularly with Democratic organizations investing heavily in an attempt to flip the seat.

The Democratic House Majority PAC has reportedly committed approximately $1.4 million to the contest, while Vice President JD Vance was scheduled to appear alongside Constantino at a campaign event Monday in a final effort to energize Republican voters.

On Long Island, two Democratic incumbents are defending districts that have demonstrated a willingness to support Republican candidates, making both contests important opportunities for the GOP to gain seats.

In the 3rd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi is facing former Republican Assemblyman Michael LiPetri in a rematch of their 2024 election. Suozzi prevailed in that contest by approximately three percentage points, and Republicans believe the district remains competitive, particularly because President Trump carried it in the presidential election that same year.

LiPetri has received substantial assistance from Republican organizations, including approximately $10 million in spending by a Trump-aligned super PAC. Suozzi, meanwhile, has sought to emphasize his reputation as a moderate Democrat in a district where voters have shown a willingness to split their tickets between the two major parties.

The neighboring 4th Congressional District features another Republican effort to reclaim a seat lost in 2024. Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen is seeking reelection against Jeanine Driscoll, the Republican receiver of taxes for the Town of Hempstead.

Gillen captured the district two years ago by defeating Republican Anthony D’Esposito, who had won the seat during the GOP’s successful 2022 campaign. D’Esposito chose not to pursue another rematch, clearing the way for Driscoll to become the Republican nominee.

Republicans are hoping that concerns about taxes, affordability, and the cost of living will help them regain support among suburban Long Island voters. Democrats are attempting to hold their recent gains by emphasizing local issues and portraying their candidates as independent-minded representatives of their districts.

The importance of New York’s congressional contests became evident during the 2022 elections, when Republicans captured four Democratic-held seats across Long Island and the Hudson Valley, providing a critical boost to the party’s successful effort to take control of the House.

Democrats reversed much of that progress in 2024, reclaiming three of the four districts and leaving Lawler as the sole Republican incumbent to survive from that group of victories.

With the House majority potentially hinging on only a handful of seats nationwide, even one or two unexpected results in New York could alter the balance of power in Washington. Both parties have consequently poured resources into voter turnout operations, advertising campaigns, and last-minute appearances by prominent national figures as Tuesday’s voting approaches.

{Matzav.com}

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has acknowledged that the IDF cannot realistically accommodate the entire chareidi population, suggesting that young chareidi men who do not enlist in the military could instead perform a limited period of national service. His remarks represent a significant departure from demands for sweeping chareidi conscription and come as opposition parties explore possible compromises with the chareidi parties in an effort to form a government without Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Speaking Monday in an interview with Radio 103FM, Barak indicated that the opposition may need to reconsider its approach to the contentious draft issue as negotiations continue over the formation of Israel’s next coalition. With neither political bloc having secured a Knesset majority in last week’s elections, the possibility of bringing chareidi parties into a government headed by Gadi Eisenkot has placed the draft controversy at the center of coalition discussions.

Asked whether the anti-Netanyahu camp should temporarily abandon its demands for equal military service to facilitate a change in government, Barak responded, “We don’t need to set it aside; we need to handle it wisely.”

Barak went further, arguing that the opposition’s overriding political commitment is to remove Netanyahu from office and that other campaign promises must be reconsidered if they interfere with that objective. His comments suggested that opposition leaders should be prepared to demonstrate flexibility on the draft issue if doing so would enable them to assemble a governing majority.

The former prime minister expressed confidence that Eisenkot could formulate a conscription proposal acceptable enough to the chareidi parties to secure their cooperation, even if the arrangement would not fully satisfy their demands.

“Eisenkot can propose a conscription bill that has a good chance of passing. They haredim won’t love it, but it will be fair. We don’t want to eliminate Torah study.”

Barak’s most notable concession concerned the practical limitations of the Israeli military. Rather than insisting that every eligible chareidi young man be inducted into the IDF, he acknowledged that the army lacks the capacity to absorb such a large population and proposed an alternative framework for those who do not enlist.

“Of course we need equal service, but the IDF is anyway unable to integrate all the haredim. Anyone who chooses not to draft will serve nine months, or however many, of national service, and will then go about their lives.”

Under the approach Barak outlined, chareidi men who do not enter the military would fulfill a national service obligation lasting approximately nine months, although he did not specify the nature of the service, the institutions that would administer it, or whether full-time yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit would receive exemptions.

Barak also called for substantially improving the financial compensation and benefits provided to IDF soldiers, arguing that those serving in the military should receive greater recognition and material support.

At the same time, he maintained that any compromise on conscription should be accompanied by broader changes affecting the chareidi community, including increased emphasis on secular core curriculum studies, greater participation in the workforce, and expanded contributions to the tax system.

{Matzav.com}

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman accused the Palestinian Authority on Monday of interfering in Israel’s recent Knesset elections, alleging that it provided financial support to the Arab Joint List and exercised considerable influence over both the Joint List and Ra’am. The accusations come amid growing controversy over possible foreign involvement in the election and the role Arab parties could play in forming Israel’s next government.

Speaking at a press conference, Lieberman claimed that the Palestinian Authority had played an active role in shaping the political activities of Israel’s Arab factions, going beyond ordinary expressions of political support to influence their conduct during the election campaign.

“The Palestinian Authority was very involved and was the guiding force behind both Ra’am and the Joint List. They’re stirring the pot. As for Qatari money – maybe Urich knows,” Lieberman claimed, referring to Yonatan Urich, a senior aide to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who has been implicated in the investigation known as Qatargate.

Lieberman’s remarks added another dimension to allegations that outside governments and political interests sought to influence voting within Israel’s Arab communities. Reports of possible foreign financing have already prompted scrutiny of whether money originating outside Israel was directed toward election-related political activities.

The Yisrael Beytenu leader did not publicly present documentation substantiating his specific accusations against the Palestinian Authority. His claims remain allegations, and the extent of any foreign involvement has not been conclusively established.

Lieberman also reiterated his refusal to participate in a government dependent on Arab parties, arguing that such an arrangement would deepen political divisions and encourage separatism rather than strengthen integration into Israeli society.

“In the previous elections, fewer than 14 percent of Arab voters voted for Zionist parties. We don’t want to encourage separatism. I received thousands of text messages from the left urging me to sit with the Arab parties. I answered them, ‘Don’t you have a memory? Have you forgotten?'”

His comments carry particular significance because of the parliamentary arithmetic following the October 27 election. Netanyahu’s bloc won 53 seats, while the Jewish opposition parties secured 48. The Joint List and Ra’am together captured 19 seats, leaving the Arab factions in a potentially decisive position as political leaders attempt to assemble a majority in the 120-member Knesset.

Lieberman announced Monday that Yisrael Beytenu would recommend Yashar chairman Gadi Eisenkot to form the next government, while ruling out joining a Netanyahu-led coalition. However, he also rejected the possibility of establishing a minority government dependent on Arab parliamentary support, complicating Eisenkot’s prospects of replacing Netanyahu.

The foreign-interference controversy has prompted an investigation by the Shin Bet, working alongside police and prosecutors under the supervision of Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg. Authorities are examining suspicions that money from foreign sources was directed toward influencing Arab voter turnout during the election campaign.

Israeli media have reported that investigators are examining allegations involving hundreds of thousands of shekels received by a Joint List lawmaker. Questions remain about the origin of the money, whether it was connected to Qatar, and whether it was used for campaign activities. No definitive findings have been announced.

Despite the allegations, Sohlberg emphasized Sunday that the election results remain valid and that the investigation does not provide grounds for overturning the nationwide vote. Appearing alongside Shin Bet chief David Zini, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, and senior election officials, he affirmed that the voting process had been conducted properly.

Ra’am chairman Mansour Abbas has denied that his party was involved in improper foreign financing, while election authorities have cautioned against treating allegations concerning particular individuals as evidence of wrongdoing by Arab voters generally.

Lieberman has likewise opposed canceling the election results, even while insisting that suspected foreign involvement must be investigated. His position leaves him aligned with the opposition’s effort to replace Netanyahu but firmly opposed to the parliamentary arrangement that could provide Eisenkot with the votes necessary to form a government.

{Matzav.com}

I’m asking you personally to help. A mother of six, a righteous giyores, is suffering and urgently needs medical treatment. Her family simply cannot afford it.

Please take a moment to watch Rabbi Ari Bensoussan’s message and give whatever you can.

Let’s help this mother get the care she needs. CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday called for the establishment of a broad national coalition that would bring additional political factions into the government alongside his existing allies, while firmly rejecting any arrangement dependent on Ra’am or other Arab parties he accused of supporting terrorism and opposing Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu’s remarks come as Israeli political leaders weigh their options following last week’s Knesset elections, which left the country facing complicated coalition negotiations and renewed questions about which parties will ultimately determine the composition of the next government.

“The Israeli public does not want a government that depends on Ra’am and its partners, parties that support terror and deny the existence of a Jewish state,” Netanyahu stated.

The prime minister emphasized that he has been prepared to negotiate a wider coalition since the election results became known, presenting his proposal as an opportunity to establish a government with support extending beyond his traditional political bloc.

“From the first day, our hand was out to form a broad patriotic government,” he declared.

Netanyahu also argued that the election outcome demonstrated continued public support for his leadership, pointing specifically to the strength of Likud among Jewish voters and its standing as the largest party in the Knesset.

“A clear majority of the Jewish public chose the Likud to be the largest party and me, as prime minister, to lead the next government.”

The prime minister’s appeal comes against the backdrop of a parliamentary stalemate that has left both major political blocs short of the 61 seats required to establish a governing majority. Netanyahu’s existing alliance secured 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition parties aligned with Gadi Eisenkot obtained 48. The Arab parties, including Ra’am and the Joint List, won a combined 19 seats, placing them in a potentially influential position during coalition negotiations.

Likud emerged as the largest individual party with 27 seats, followed by Eisenkot’s Yashar party with 21. Netanyahu’s bloc includes United Torah Judaism with seven seats, Shas with six, Otzma Yehudit with seven, and Religious Zionism with six, meaning the prime minister would need the support of at least eight additional lawmakers to secure a majority.

The prime minister has made clear that his preferred solution is to attract additional parties into a coalition built around his existing partners, rather than dismantle his current political alliance. His invitation could place pressure on opposition figures who campaigned against him but may now face a choice between joining a broader government and risking another election.

Eisenkot has also been pursuing coalition possibilities, outlining principles that potential partners would need to accept before joining a government under his leadership. The opposition faces its own difficulties, particularly because several parties have expressed reservations about relying on Arab factions to establish a parliamentary majority.

Under Israel’s coalition formation process, President Isaac Herzog will consult with representatives of the elected parties after the official results are submitted to him on Wednesday. Herzog will then select the Knesset member he believes has the strongest prospect of assembling a government. That candidate will initially receive 28 days to complete negotiations, with the possibility of a 14-day extension.

Netanyahu ended his remarks by reiterating that his invitation remains open to political factions prepared to participate in a government consistent with his stated principles.

“We aspire to form a broad party with our partners and with any party that wants to and does not support terrorism. I am open to discussing the matter,” Netanyahu concluded.

Republican Senate candidates are gaining ground among voters who made their decisions in the final weeks before Tuesday’s midterm elections, according to a new New York Times/Siena University poll that found the GOP holding a nine-point advantage among late-deciding voters across seven closely watched Senate contests.

The survey, published Sunday, indicates that Republicans have made inroads with voters who settled on a candidate during the past month, although Democratic nominees continue to lead in six of the seven races examined. The findings suggest that Republicans may be building momentum as the campaign enters its final hours, even as Democrats remain competitive in several states that could determine control of the Senate.

“There are still some undecided voters, and voters who decided only in the last month favored Republicans by a nine-point margin,” the Times reported.

Despite that advantage among recent decision-makers, the overall polling numbers show Democrats maintaining leads in most of the battleground states. Democratic candidates are ahead by 11 percentage points in Michigan, seven points in Texas, six points in Maine, and five points apiece in Ohio and Kansas.

In Alaska, Democrat Mary Peltola holds a narrow two-point advantage over Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, while the contest in Iowa remains essentially deadlocked. The Alaska result falls within the survey’s margin of error, leaving the outcome particularly uncertain.

One notable finding is that Democratic nominees enjoy stronger favorability ratings among independent voters in all seven states. That advantage could prove important in contests where neither party can rely solely on its traditional supporters to secure victory.

Republicans have spent the closing weeks of the campaign attacking Democrats over cultural issues and portraying their opponents as aligned with increasingly socialist policies. Democrats, meanwhile, have concentrated their criticism on President Trump’s economic record and his administration’s handling of the conflict involving Iran.

The latest polling arrives amid unexpected developments in Michigan, where Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens announced Sunday that she was supporting Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers rather than her own party’s candidate, Abdul El-Sayed.

Stevens, who lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed in August, broke with her party by endorsing Rogers, a decision that immediately generated controversy among Michigan Democrats. Her announcement introduced another unpredictable element into a race already regarded as one of the most consequential Senate contests in the country.

The Michigan race has attracted national attention because of its potential implications for the balance of power in Washington. Although the Times/Siena survey gives the Democratic nominee a substantial lead, Stevens’ endorsement of Rogers could complicate efforts to maintain party unity in the final days of the campaign.

Another closely watched controversy has emerged in Alaska, where Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan is facing a competitive challenge from former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola. Reports have raised allegations that political operatives with possible connections to Peltola’s campaign encouraged a candidate with a name resembling Sullivan’s to enter the race, potentially confusing voters and drawing support away from the Republican incumbent.

Peltola’s campaign has denied participating in such an effort. The allegations have nevertheless triggered a legal dispute involving the Trump administration, adding another complication to an already tight contest. Much of the Times/Siena polling in Alaska was completed before the controversy became public, meaning the survey may not capture any resulting change in voter sentiment.

The latest surveys also found that Democratic candidates other than Peltola had improved their positions relative to their Republican opponents since the previous round of Times/Siena polling. That movement presents a challenge for Republicans, even as their improved performance among voters making last-minute decisions offers a potential source of optimism.

Polling analysts have cautioned, however, that the final numbers could still underestimate Republican support, particularly among white working-class voters who have historically been difficult for survey researchers to reach.

“Blue-collar white workers have proved particularly hard to reach in polls, and polling error has previously been among the highest in that demographic,” the Times reported.

The surveys were conducted from October 23 through November 1 and included 5,708 likely voters across the seven states. Individual state samples ranged from 610 respondents in Alaska to 1,215 in Texas, with reported sampling margins of error ranging from approximately 3.3 to 4.8 percentage points.

Siena Research Institute Executive Director Don Levy said the results indicate that Democratic control of the Senate remains a realistic possibility, but warned that the close margins in several states leave room for either party to emerge with a majority. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 Senate advantage, meaning Democrats would need a net gain of four seats to take control.

{Matzav.com}

A federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges against two former senior FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about the bureau’s handling of investigations involving Hunter Biden, delivering a blistering rebuke of the Justice Department and accusing the Trump administration of rushing a politically motivated prosecution just ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, presiding in federal court in Washington, D.C., threw out the case against Nikki Cole Floris and Bradley Benavides after determining that prosecutors had failed to establish sufficient evidence that either former official knowingly made false statements to congressional investigators. The ruling followed a series of contentious hearings during which the judge repeatedly questioned the government’s handling of the investigation and its unusual charging procedures.

“What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization,” Faruqui declared from the bench, sharply criticizing the Justice Department’s decision to pursue the case in the final weeks before a closely contested national election.

The judge described the prosecution as a “rush job” and pointed to evidence indicating that the investigation had been initiated at the direction of senior administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, following public statements by President Trump concerning alleged misconduct by federal intelligence agencies.

Floris and Benavides previously held senior positions in the FBI’s counterintelligence division, where they helped oversee the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force. The unit was responsible for investigating foreign attempts to interfere in American elections, including efforts involving disinformation and intelligence operations.

The criminal allegations stemmed from separate interviews the two officials gave to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 concerning their knowledge of FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden and material recovered from his laptop before the 2020 presidential election.

Prosecutors maintained that both officials had deliberately minimized their awareness of the bureau’s investigative activities, particularly an internal operation known as Round River, which examined informant reporting concerning Hunter Biden and whether certain information could have originated from Russian disinformation efforts.

According to the government, statements made by Floris and Benavides during their congressional interviews were contradicted by internal FBI records and accounts from other witnesses. Prosecutors argued that the discrepancies demonstrated an effort to conceal the task force’s involvement in politically sensitive investigations.

Faruqui rejected the government’s contention that the evidence established probable cause to proceed. After examining the alleged false statements individually, the judge concluded that some were not demonstrably false, while others could reasonably have resulted from faulty recollection rather than intentional deception.

The judge also expressed concern about the circumstances under which the investigation began. During an earlier hearing, FBI agent Bryan Witt testified that Patel had assigned the matter to the bureau’s Kansas City field office following a July address by Trump in which the president called for renewed scrutiny of allegations that intelligence agencies had suppressed information concerning Chinese interference in the 2020 election.

Witt acknowledged under questioning that the assignment was unusual and that he had worried the investigation would be perceived as politically motivated. The inquiry subsequently shifted toward the congressional testimony of Floris and Benavides concerning Hunter Biden.

The prosecution encountered additional difficulties last week when Justice Department attorneys attempted to file an amended criminal complaint adding an obstruction charge without first obtaining the required judicial approval.

Faruqui reacted angrily to the filing, which appeared on the court’s public docket after midnight without a judge’s signature or sworn authorization. He said the procedure departed from established practice and raised serious questions about the government’s conduct.

The court struck the amended complaint from the record, leaving prosecutors to defend their original allegations at a preliminary hearing. Monday’s ruling dismissed those remaining charges as well.

The judge also questioned why prosecutors had chosen to initiate the felony case through a criminal complaint rather than first obtaining an indictment from a federal grand jury. Although the procedure is legally permissible, it is unusual in a case of this nature, particularly when the alleged offenses occurred several years earlier.

Defense attorneys had argued that the government was attempting to use the criminal justice system to punish officials associated with investigations that have long angered Trump and his political supporters. They maintained that the case lacked sufficient evidence and had been accelerated to generate headlines before voters went to the polls.

The decision represents another setback for the Justice Department in its efforts to pursue criminal cases involving individuals connected to politically contentious investigations from Trump’s first administration and the 2020 election.

In recent weeks, federal prosecutors have also pursued additional legal action involving former FBI Director James Comey, while other investigations have targeted individuals who have publicly criticized the president. The administration has maintained that its law enforcement efforts are intended to address alleged wrongdoing, while critics have accused officials of pursuing political retaliation.

Monday’s dismissal does not necessarily prevent prosecutors from attempting to revive the case. The Justice Department could still seek an indictment from a federal grand jury if it believes sufficient evidence exists to support criminal charges.

For now, however, the ruling brings an abrupt end to a prosecution that had become increasingly contentious, with a federal judge finding that the government had failed to meet even the preliminary evidentiary threshold required to proceed against the two former FBI officials.

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rebbetzin Chana Greenbaum a”h, daughter of the legendary Torah pioneer Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz zt”l, who was niftar at the age of 104.

The Rebbetzin was the daughter of one of the notable figures in the establishment of Torah chinuch in the United States, a man whose extraordinary vision, determination, and mesirus nefesh helped transform the American Jewish landscape. Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, the legendary menahel of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas and the driving force behind the creation of Torah Umesorah, was instrumental in laying the foundations for the flourishing network of yeshivos and Jewish day schools that would eventually spread throughout the country.

Born into a family at the very center of that historic undertaking, Rebbetzin Greenbaum witnessed an era when the future of Torah in America was far from assured. Her father’s generation confronted enormous challenges in establishing institutions where Jewish children could receive a genuine Torah education, and the remarkable growth of the American Torah community over the ensuing decades represented the fulfillment of the dreams for which he had devoted his life.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum was the wife of Rav Dov Greenbaum zt”l, a distinguished rov and mechanech who played an important role in the development of Torah education in Rockland County, New York. Together, they were part of the generation that helped establish the infrastructure of Torah life in communities that would eventually become major centers of Yiddishkeit.

Rav Dov Greenbaum, who learned under Rav Shlomo Heiman and received semichah from him in 1941, served as a rov in Jersey City, New Jersey, before becoming a prominent figure in Jewish education in Spring Valley. The couple married in 1943, during the difficult years of World War II, when the American yeshiva world was still in its infancy.

In 1951, Rav Greenbaum assumed leadership of the then nascent Yeshiva of Spring Valley that had approximately 30 students and faced serious financial and organizational difficulties. Through his efforts and those of other dedicated individuals, the institution was revitalized and developed into a significant center of Torah education. By 1983, the school had grown to an enrollment exceeding 700 students, reflecting the dramatic transformation of Jewish life in Rockland County.

As the Orthodox community expanded, Rav Greenbaum became a respected spokesman and communal leader, frequently consulted on matters affecting Jewish education and the broader community. His work was recognized in a tribute entered into the Congressional Record in February 1983, following his passing the previous year. The tribute also recorded his marriage to Chana Mendlowitz, daughter of Rav Shraga Feivel, and described the family’s central place in the community.

The history of the Greenbaum family is closely intertwined with the growth of Torah life in America. Rav Shraga Feivel, who was niftar in 1948, had helped establish a model of Torah education that would shape generations of American Jewry. His influence extended well beyond Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, encompassing the development of Mesivta Torah Vodaas, Bais Medrash Elyon, and the nationwide Torah Umesorah movement, which sought to ensure that Jewish children throughout the United States would have access to a Torah education.

At a time when many believed that the traditional European yeshiva system could never take root on American soil, Rav Shraga Feivel maintained an unwavering conviction that Torah could flourish in the New World. He inspired and guided a generation of mechanchim, roshei yeshiva, and communal activists who carried his vision into cities and towns across the country. The institutions that emerged from those efforts would become the foundation of the American Torah community as it exists today.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum lived to see the extraordinary realization of that vision. During her lifetime, the American Torah world grew from a relatively small collection of struggling institutions into a vast network of yeshivos, Bais Yaakov schools, kollelim, and thriving Torah communities. Her own family was among those who contributed to that remarkable development.

Her husband was niftar in 1982, more than four decades before her own petirah. A tribute delivered in the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Benjamin Gilman in 1983 recognized Rav Greenbaum’s devotion to Jewish education and his important role in the development of the Spring Valley community. The tribute reflected the esteem in which he was held by both Jewish communal leaders and public officials.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum’s passing follows the petirah earlier this year of her sister, Rebbetzin Shulamis Schiff a”h, the wife of Rav Shea Schiff zt”l, longtime rosh yeshiva of Mesivta Bais Shraga in Monsey. Rebbetzin Schiff, the youngest daughter of Rav Shraga Feivel, was niftar in July at the age of 98. Her passing, and now that of Rebbetzin Greenbaum, marks the passing of members of a family whose roots reach back to the earliest chapters of the American Torah renaissance.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum is survived by her five children, Reb Shlomo Greenbaum, Reb Shraga Greenbaum, Mrs. Risky Kirzner, Mrs. Yehudis Shain, and Mrs. Mimi Rosenbaum, and many grandchildren.

Yehi zichrah boruch.

{Matzav.com}

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s opposition to including Arab political parties in Israel’s next governing coalition, arguing that lawmakers who refuse to condemn Hamas and openly criticize the Jewish state should not be entrusted with positions of national leadership.

Speaking with Newsmax host Tom Basile on Saturday, Huckabee described Netanyahu’s refusal to form a government with the predominantly Arab Joint List and Ra’am factions as “a necessary course,” citing the positions taken by some Arab representatives in the Knesset.

The ambassador pointed to the 19 Arab lawmakers elected to Israel’s parliament, saying that some “have been outspoken in their condemnation of the very nation they want to be a part of,” raising serious questions about their suitability for participation in the governing coalition.

Huckabee also criticized what he characterized as the failure of certain Arab legislators to unequivocally denounce the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. He argued that “it would be troubling for anyone to include them if that’s going to be their position in a government.”

According to Huckabee, seeking a role in governing Israel while refusing to condemn the Hamas atrocities was “completely reckless,” particularly for politicians seeking to “help lead the country.”

The ambassador also predicted that some Israeli politicians would abandon their campaign promises about refusing to join coalitions with particular rivals once negotiations over forming a government begin.

“Throw all that out the window,” he said. “Politicians say that during the election season, but if it comes down to being in the government or having nothing but a trip home and spend the next four years wondering what happened, many of them will, let’s just say, they’ll renege on that ‘absolutely, will not sit with’ promise.”

Turning to last week’s Israeli elections, Huckabee described the performance of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies as “the big surprise” of election night, noting that they had finished ahead of the opposition bloc led by Yashar party chairman Gadi Eisenkot.

He also discussed the unusually large number of Israelis who returned from abroad specifically to cast their ballots. According to Huckabee, approximately 160,000 Israeli citizens flew into the country for Election Day because Israel generally does not permit absentee voting.

The ambassador said many political observers had assumed that the influx of returning voters would work against Netanyahu, but the election results challenged that expectation.

“Many people saw that influx of voters as coming in to vote against the prime minister. Obviously they were wrong about that,” Huckabee continued.

Huckabee also weighed in on an Israeli security investigation into allegations that foreign governments attempted to influence the election by secretly financing political activity in Arab communities. Reports have identified Qatar and Turkey as possible sources of illicit funding, although investigators have not established whether the allegations are substantiated.

The Shin Bet has been examining intelligence concerning possible foreign interference, with reports indicating that the Mossad has also become involved. Huckabee described the inquiry as “a very serious and a full-level investigation.”

He warned that confirmation of foreign interference could “really stir up some very strong feelings in Israel,” while emphasizing that the authorities have yet to reach definitive conclusions. “We don’t know the results of that investigation,” he said.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has meanwhile rejected allegations that the election was systematically compromised, and the Shin Bet has stressed that its investigation should not be interpreted as casting suspicion on Arab voters generally. Netanyahu’s Likud party has alleged that the election was stolen, while opposition leaders have accused the prime minister of attempting to discredit the results.

The final vote count left Netanyahu’s bloc with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 for the Jewish opposition parties and 19 for the Arab factions. Neither major bloc independently commands the 61 seats required to form a government, leaving coalition negotiations particularly complicated. The Arab parties’ combined representation represents a significant increase from the previous Knesset.

Addressing the broader relationship between Washington and Yerushalayim, Huckabee rejected criticism of American support for Israel and emphasized the security advantages that the partnership provides the United States.

“What we share in intelligence actually saves American lives almost every day,” the ambassador said, arguing that intelligence cooperation between the two countries is a vital component of American national security.

“The relationship we have with Israel is very important, both strategically as well as tactically, in making sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and that they’re going to decide to be civilized people and not continue the murderous threats that the regime has been throwing out there for 47 years,” Huckabee concluded.

{Matzav.com}

President Trump has sharply condemned a reported $50 million business arrangement involving his longtime attorney Alina Habba Mildon, who allegedly negotiated the lucrative agreement with the family of a Venezuelan banker while serving as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. The controversy has raised questions about the timing of the contract and its connection to a banker who subsequently received a presidential pardon.

Speaking to reporters Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump made clear that he disapproved of the arrangement. “I thought it was totally obnoxious and outrageous, and it’s not acceptable,” the president said. “Not ​acceptable at all.”

The dispute centers on an agreement reportedly reached between Habba Mildon and a company associated with the family of Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan banker who had faced federal bribery charges before entering into a plea agreement in August 2025.

According to reporting by The New York Times, Herrera Velutini’s family agreed to compensate Habba Mildon with a package valued at more than $50 million over four years. The arrangement reportedly provided for an annual payment of $10 million, along with additional performance-based bonuses.

Trump said he had personally informed Habba Mildon that he opposed her receiving the money, describing the entire situation as “terrible.”

The agreement was reportedly signed in late October 2025, shortly after Concord Partners, the company associated with Herrera Velutini’s family, was formally established. At the time, Habba Mildon was serving as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, a position she had assumed earlier that year.

Her tenure as the state’s top federal prosecutor had already become the subject of legal challenges. A federal court ultimately determined that she was not lawfully serving in the position, leading to her departure from the U.S. attorney’s office on December 8, 2025.

That same day, Habba Mildon received a new appointment as a senior adviser to the U.S. attorney general. According to the Times, she remained in that Justice Department position when she began working for Concord Partners on January 1, 2026.

Two weeks later, on January 15, Trump granted Herrera Velutini a presidential pardon, according to official Justice Department records. The sequence of events has drawn scrutiny because of the substantial compensation involved and Habba Mildon’s longstanding relationship with the president.

Habba Mildon has categorically rejected suggestions that her employment was connected to Herrera Velutini’s pardon. In a statement issued last week, she insisted that she never received compensation for arranging clemency, never discussed a pardon with White House or Justice Department officials, and never performed any work intended to secure a pardon for anyone.

The New York Times has also reported that Trump privately expressed anger over the arrangement and suggested that some of the money should be directed toward his future presidential library or another organization associated with him. The president reportedly communicated his opposition to further payments under the contract, although it remains unclear whether the agreement can be terminated before its four-year term expires.

The controversy has attracted additional attention because Herrera Velutini’s daughter, Isabela Herrera, reportedly contributed $3.5 million to a political action committee supporting Trump while her father was seeking clemency. The reported donation and subsequent employment agreement have prompted questions about possible influence, although neither establishes that the pardon was improperly obtained.

The White House has denied that Habba Mildon’s employment arrangement played any role in the president’s decision to pardon Herrera Velutini. The Justice Department has not publicly announced any findings of wrongdoing related to the contract.

President Donald Trump says he is prepared to grant sweeping preemptive pardons to members of his administration and political allies if Democrats gain control of Congress and attempt to pursue criminal cases against those who served under him, signaling that he will use his presidential clemency powers to shield his team from politically motivated prosecutions.

In an interview with Miranda Devine on the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast, Trump was asked whether he would consider issuing pardons before any charges were brought against administration officials. “I would if I needed to. Sure,” the president responded.

When pressed on whether such protection could extend to everyone who had served in his administration, Trump made clear that he was willing to take that step. “I’d do it,” he said. “I did it for J6.”

The president was referring to his January 20, 2025, decision to grant clemency to approximately 1,500 people charged or convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The action, taken immediately upon his return to the White House, fulfilled a major campaign promise and eliminated federal criminal exposure for a broad group of defendants.

Trump also invoked President Joe Biden’s controversial use of preemptive pardons during the final hours of his administration. Biden issued clemency to Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members and staff of the congressional January 6 investigation, and several relatives. Biden had separately pardoned his son Hunter in December 2024.

“That’s what Biden did. He gave everybody a pardon,” Trump said, pointing to the precedent established by his predecessor. He again criticized the congressional investigation into January 6, referring to the panel as “the unselect committee” and “a corrupt committee.”

Trump’s comments come amid increasingly aggressive rhetoric from some Democratic lawmakers about pursuing investigations and potential criminal prosecutions of administration officials should their party regain congressional power. Although Congress cannot itself bring criminal charges, Democratic control of the House or Senate would provide lawmakers with expanded investigative authority, including the ability to issue subpoenas and conduct oversight hearings.

One of the most explicit warnings came from Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, who said during an October appearance at the University of Chicago that Democrats should pursue “signature cases” targeting “the people who enable” Trump. Slotkin suggested that such prosecutions could discourage younger conservatives from accepting positions in a future Republican administration.

The president’s willingness to consider preemptive pardons raises the possibility of another major confrontation over executive clemency. Under the Constitution, presidents possess broad authority to pardon federal offenses, including certain offenses for which charges have not yet been filed. That power does not extend to state crimes, and a pardon cannot protect someone against criminal conduct committed after the pardon is issued.

The issue could become particularly significant if Democrats emerge from the midterm elections with control of one or both chambers of Congress. Trump has not announced any specific pardon recipients or indicated when he might act, but his remarks make clear that he is prepared to use the authority if he believes his officials are facing retaliatory prosecution.

The controversy has already produced a formal ethics complaint against Slotkin. A University of Chicago student submitted the complaint to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics on October 22, alleging that her comments amounted to an effort to intimidate prospective government employees. Slotkin has rejected the criticism as “manufactured outrage,” maintaining that her objective is to discourage unlawful conduct rather than legitimate political participation.

Trump also addressed the possibility of Democrats targeting billionaire Elon Musk, who has maintained close ties to the president and his administration. “It’s talk. But if it is talk, we’ll have to protect them,” Trump said, suggesting that his willingness to intervene could extend beyond government employees to other prominent allies.

The president’s remarks come just one day before Tuesday’s midterm elections, with control of Congress at stake and both parties preparing for the possibility of a sharply divided government. Democrats have discussed investigations into alleged corruption and potential abuses of executive authority, while Trump has indicated that he would resist efforts to use congressional oversight and criminal investigations against his administration.

{Matzav.com}

Several chareidi protesters, including teenagers and a pregnant woman, were injured during violent overnight confrontations with Israeli police in Yerushalayim and Beit Shemesh, as disturbing footage emerged showing officers throwing stun grenades toward demonstrators, including individuals sitting on the roadway.

The clashes erupted during protests over the arrest of newlywed yeshiva bochur Yaari Lieberman, who was reportedly detained in front of his wife while the couple was traveling to a sheva brachos celebration. His arrest triggered widespread anger in the chareidi community and demonstrations against the military’s detention of yeshiva students.

Among the most seriously injured was a 21-year-old man who suffered severe injuries to his lower extremities and was transported in moderate condition to the trauma unit at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Yerushalayim. Initial reports raised concerns that several of his toes had been severely damaged, although medical authorities had not confirmed that any toes had been amputated or that amputation would be necessary.

According to United Hatzalah, emergency responders treated several additional casualties during the disturbances in Beit Shemesh. A 15-year-old boy sustained moderate injuries in an incident involving a concrete road barrier, while another 15-year-old suffered minor injuries in a separate incident involving a barrier.

A third 15-year-old was moderately injured after being struck in the chest by a grenade. A 14-year-old boy sustained injuries to his limbs from a stun grenade, while a 36-year-old expectant mother also required medical attention and was listed in mild-to-moderate condition.

Footage circulating from the demonstrations appeared to show police officers deploying stun grenades at close range near groups of chareidi protesters, including some who were seated on the pavement. The recordings prompted criticism over the manner in which officers employed crowd-control weapons capable of causing serious injuries.

Safety regulations governing stun grenades prohibit throwing them directly at a person’s body or upper torso and require officers to deploy the devices in accordance with established operational procedures.

Israeli journalist Liran Tamari sharply criticized the police response, writing, “Time and again, police officers are throwing stun grenades at chareidi protesters sitting on the road.”

Tamari questioned whether similar police conduct would have been tolerated had the demonstrators belonged to another sector of Israeli society. He also raised concerns about the apparent lack of investigations into previous incidents in which chareidi protesters were injured by stun grenades, contrasting those cases with investigations launched following police actions at other demonstrations.

The Israel Police, meanwhile, presented a sharply different account of the overnight disturbances, accusing hundreds of demonstrators in Beit Shemesh of throwing stones and other objects at officers, setting garbage dumpsters ablaze, and damaging public infrastructure.

Police also disputed the circumstances surrounding two injuries involving a concrete road barrier, asserting that the individuals apparently sustained their injuries while pushing the barrier themselves.

According to the police account, the incident occurred in an area where officers were not present.

That explanation, however, did not address the separate reports of protesters injured by stun grenades or the circumstances depicted in the videos showing officers deploying the devices near demonstrators.

Additional footage from Beit Shemesh reportedly showed Border Police officers striking demonstrators with batons, while other recordings showed stun grenades being thrown near people gathered in a public garden away from the main roadway. The circumstances surrounding those incidents have prompted calls for closer scrutiny of the police response.

In Yerushalayim, approximately 200 demonstrators blocked the light rail near the Shivtei Yisrael station and disrupted traffic along Chaim Bar-Lev Road. Police deployed a water cannon and stun grenades after declaring the gathering unlawful and ordering protesters to disperse. Officers said some demonstrators refused to leave and threw objects at police.

The protests followed Lieberman’s detention by undercover military police officers shortly after he stepped off a bus with his new wife. Lieberman, a talmid of Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim headed by Rav Reuven Elbaz, was sentenced to 20 days in military prison, prompting demands from chareidi leaders for his immediate release.

Israeli media reported that military authorities had used cellphone location information to track Lieberman after an earlier attempt to arrest him in Modiin was unsuccessful. That previous operation, in early October, had also sparked confrontations between police and chareidi residents.

Additional demonstrators gathered outside the military prison during the night, protesting the continued detention of yeshiva students over military enlistment.

By this morning, Lieberman had been released from military custody following intervention by chareidi political representatives and other officials. His release came after a night of serious injuries, extensive traffic disruptions, and mounting criticism of the police response to the demonstrations.

{Matzav.com}

Controversial conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has ignited a new controversy by alleging that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is pressuring President Donald Trump to authorize a nuclear attack on Iran within days, a sensational claim for which Carlson has offered no independently verifiable evidence. His allegations, which portray Netanyahu as driving American military policy for personal political reasons, have raised concerns about the potential for such rhetoric to fuel antisemitic conspiracy theories.

In a lengthy statement posted on X, Carlson claimed that the Trump administration was approaching a decision on whether to deploy nuclear weapons against an Iranian underground nuclear facility known as Pickaxe Mountain, located near Natanz.

“Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson wrote.

Carlson alleged that Netanyahu has been repeatedly lobbying Trump to attack the heavily fortified facility, which Israeli intelligence reportedly suspects could be used for renewed Iranian uranium enrichment.

“Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” Carlson wrote, quoting an unnamed individual he described as familiar with the situation.

The commentator argued that the underground installation is protected by approximately 300 feet of granite, making it impossible for conventional American weapons to destroy the tunnels beneath the mountain. On that basis, he asserted that “The only military option is a nuclear strike.”

Although the facility’s depth presents a significant military challenge, Carlson’s assertion that nuclear weapons represent the only available option has not been established. A September analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that Pickaxe Mountain would be extremely difficult to destroy using conventional American bunker-busting weapons, but it did not recommend nuclear weapons as the solution.

The same analysis found substantial construction activity at the site during 2026, while cautioning that available satellite imagery could neither confirm nor disprove intelligence claims that Iran had moved uranium enrichment equipment into the underground complex.

Carlson went further by suggesting that Netanyahu’s alleged determination to escalate the conflict is connected to his political difficulties following Israel’s recent elections.

“Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war,” Carlson wrote.

He suggested that Netanyahu could face renewed legal jeopardy if he lost power and claimed that continued military confrontation with Iran would help the Israeli leader maintain his political position.

Carlson also named several senior American officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Central Command commander Brad Cooper, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, alleging that they were aligned with Netanyahu’s approach to Iran.

The allegations present Netanyahu as exercising extraordinary influence over Washington’s most consequential national security decisions. Critics of such rhetoric warn that claims of secret Israeli control over American leaders can echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories, particularly when presented without substantiating evidence.

Carlson additionally claimed that Netanyahu secretly traveled to Abu Dhabi on September 27 in an unsuccessful effort to persuade the United Arab Emirates to support another military operation against Iran. He provided no independently verifiable documentation establishing that such a meeting occurred.

He also asserted that the Trump administration had altered American nuclear doctrine since February to make the first use of tactical nuclear weapons easier, another allegation that has not been publicly substantiated.

According to Carlson, the administration could reach a decision on nuclear action by November 7.

“Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons,” he wrote.

Carlson warned that an American nuclear strike could contaminate the Persian Gulf, threaten regional water supplies, and create a dangerous precedent for other nuclear-armed countries. He further alleged that Russia had signaled that American nuclear action against Iran could provide justification for Moscow to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

Those warnings were presented alongside claims about secret diplomatic discussions, including Carlson’s assertion that Vice President JD Vance and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff were encouraging Trump to pursue negotiations rather than military escalation.

There have been genuine discussions between Washington and Yerushalayim about additional military action against Iran. According to reporting by Axios, Trump and Netanyahu spoke Saturday about the Iranian nuclear program and the possibility of renewed strikes following Tuesday’s American midterm elections.

The report indicated that Netanyahu favored moving more quickly toward military action, while Trump preferred allowing additional time for negotiations. Trump subsequently described the conversation as a “very good talk” and acknowledged that Iran was among the subjects discussed.

However, those reports concerned the possibility of renewed military strikes, not a confirmed plan to deploy nuclear weapons.

In fact, Trump explicitly rejected the need for nuclear weapons during an October 15 interview with Newsmax, even as he discussed the possibility of attacking Pickaxe Mountain.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to,” Trump said.

Trump has repeatedly threatened conventional military action against the Iranian facility, maintaining that Tehran must not be allowed to rebuild its nuclear weapons capabilities.

“We can do that in 10 minutes. We have that planned. You can look at Pickaxe Mountain. We need to take care of that. We can do that very quickly,” Trump said in recent remarks.

Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts involving Qatar have continued, with mediators working to arrange further discussions between Washington and Tehran. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has indicated that Tehran remains open to diplomacy while seeking clarification of American proposals.

The dispute surrounding Carlson’s allegations comes at a sensitive time for American Jewish communities, where concerns about antisemitism remain elevated. His portrayal of Netanyahu as manipulating American officials into contemplating nuclear war raises particular concern because it can reinforce narratives alleging that Israel secretly dictates American foreign policy.

There is no verified evidence that Trump has authorized a nuclear attack, that Netanyahu has demanded one, or that the United States has secretly revised its nuclear doctrine to facilitate such an operation. Carlson’s claims remain allegations, while the administration’s publicly stated position continues to distinguish possible military action against Iran from the use of nuclear weapons.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has sparked fresh controversy just two days before the midterm elections after declaring during a nationally televised interview that Palestine has a right to exist while attaching conditions to his recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

The exchange aired Sunday evening on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” where correspondent Ross Douthat interviewed El-Sayed and his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests. The discussion exposed a sharp disagreement between the candidates over Israel, American foreign aid, and the future of the Middle East.

Asked whether Israel has a right to exist, El-Sayed initially redirected the discussion toward Palestinian statehood, questioning why he is repeatedly asked about Israel without being asked the equivalent question about Palestinians.

Douthat responded by asking whether Palestine has a right to exist. El-Sayed answered affirmatively and without qualification.

When Douthat then returned to the question of Israel, El-Sayed began to answer yes but immediately introduced a condition, saying, “If there is a shared understanding–”

The interviewer interrupted to challenge the distinction, prompting El-Sayed to elaborate on his position. The Democratic candidate argued that the question should be approached through the principles of equal rights and national self-determination rather than through the interests of either side.

El-Sayed explained that he supports peace, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. He said he would support a two-state arrangement if both populations agreed to it on equal terms, but would also accept a single shared state if that were the outcome they chose.

The exchange immediately drew attention because El-Sayed had offered an unequivocal affirmative answer regarding Palestinian statehood while making his recognition of Israel contingent on a mutually agreed political arrangement. His comments also left open the possibility of replacing the existing two-state framework with a single state.

The issue has followed El-Sayed throughout his Senate campaign. During a July appearance on CNN, anchor Kasie Hunt repeatedly pressed him on whether Israel has a right to exist, but he declined to provide a straightforward answer, instead arguing that the more relevant question was whether Israel was entitled to American taxpayer funding.

At a campaign event organized by Jewish supporters earlier this year, El-Sayed also expressed difficulty with the concept of Israel’s right to exist specifically as a Jewish state, raising questions about how such a state should be defined.

Rogers, a former Republican congressman and FBI agent, offered a sharply different position during his own “60 Minutes” interview.

“I passionately defend Israel’s right to defend itself and to exist as a Jewish state. That sets me at odds with my opponent right off the bat. He refuses to even acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist,” Rogers said.

El-Sayed also used the interview to condemn American military assistance to Israel, arguing that Washington’s support for a two-state solution was inconsistent with providing weapons to an Israeli government he accused of undermining Palestinian statehood.

He maintained that American taxpayers should not be financing weapons for foreign governments, naming Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan among the countries he believes should not receive such assistance.

The Democratic nominee additionally accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, an allegation rejected by the Israeli government. Rogers criticized El-Sayed’s language and defended Israel’s military response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks.

The dispute carries particular political significance in Michigan, which has one of the country’s largest Arab-American populations as well as a substantial Jewish electorate. CBS estimated that the state has approximately 100,000 Jewish voters and more than 200,000 Arab Americans, making Middle East policy an unusually prominent issue in the Senate race.

Rogers has argued that El-Sayed’s rhetoric contributes to an increasingly hostile environment for Jewish Americans, pointing to reports of Jewish students at the University of Michigan concealing their Magen Dovid necklaces to avoid harassment.

El-Sayed, however, insisted that disagreements over Israel would not prevent him from defending Jewish Americans.

“Wherever our disagreements are when it comes to Israel, there are a lot more things that we agree on here. When it comes to standing up for Jewish-Americans, I will be right there,” he said.

The interview also revisited El-Sayed’s response to a terrorist attack on a Michigan synagogue and preschool in March. Although he condemned the violence and said attacks on innocent people and houses of worship could never be justified, he subsequently remarked that “Hurt people hurt people,” a comment that drew criticism for appearing to link the attack to grievances against Israel. He later apologized.

The controversy surrounding El-Sayed’s views intensified Sunday when Rep. Haley Stevens, whom he narrowly defeated in the Democratic Senate primary, announced that she was endorsing Rogers rather than her own party’s nominee.

Stevens said she could no longer support El-Sayed following a series of disagreements over Israel, antisemitism, and his campaign’s associations with controversial political figures. Her announcement came after El-Sayed’s campaign reportedly informed her that she was no longer welcome at campaign events.

The unexpected endorsement prompted an angry response from Democratic leaders. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described Stevens’ decision as a “despicable betrayal,” while President Donald Trump praised her willingness to cross party lines.

Trump has campaigned aggressively for Rogers, repeatedly attacking El-Sayed over his political views and alleging connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed has denied having ties to the organization and has accused Republicans of targeting him because of his Muslim faith.

CBS separately examined the Muslim Brotherhood allegations, reporting that El-Sayed was among 46 Egyptian Americans who signed a 2012 letter addressed to Egypt’s newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a senior Muslim Brotherhood figure. The letter urged action against officials associated with Egypt’s previous authoritarian government. El-Sayed has disavowed the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Senate contest is being watched nationally because Democrats are attempting to retain the Michigan seat being vacated by Sen. Gary Peters, while Republicans are seeking their first Senate victory in the state in decades.

El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official who defeated Stevens by fewer than 15,000 votes in the Democratic primary, would become the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate if victorious.

Rogers has sought to frame the election around Michigan’s economic challenges, manufacturing jobs, and public safety, while El-Sayed has campaigned on expanding healthcare access, challenging corporate monopolies, and increasing government oversight of artificial intelligence.

Watch the full CBS “60 Minutes” interview with Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers:

{Matzav.com}

A tremendous simcha is being celebrated throughout the Belzer chassidus following the birth of a baby boy to Rav Shalom Rokeach, the eldest grandson of the Belzer Rebbe, after the family was previously blessed with six daughters, bli ayin hara.

The newborn is a great-grandson of the Belzer Rebbe, a grandson of his son Rav Aharon Mordechai Rokeach, and the first son of Rav Shalom Rokeach.

The joyous news has generated particular excitement among Belzer chassidim because the birth took place on the yahrtzeit of the Mahari”d of Belz, one of the illustrious predecessors in the Belzer dynasty.

Chassidim have noted the significance of the timing, viewing the arrival of a new male descendant in the direct line of the Belzer dynasty on this auspicious day as an extraordinary expression of hashgacha pratis.

The shalom zachor is scheduled to take place this Friday night in Kiryat Belz, with thousands of chassidim expected to participate in the celebration.

{Matzav.com}

Podcast host Joe Rogan unleashed a scathing criticism of political polling over the weekend, arguing that surveys are fundamentally unreliable because most Americans with busy lives have little interest in responding to pollsters. He suggested that the people who do participate are hardly representative of the broader public.

During Saturday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Rogan discussed the shortcomings of opinion surveys with Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin, the hosts of the “TRIGGERnometry” podcast, as the country approached Tuesday’s closely watched midterm elections.

“Here’s the problem with polls: Most people don’t answer polls,” Rogan said during the conversation.

“Anybody with a life, anybody that has like a family and stuff to do and hobbies they enjoy and friends they want to hang out with, they don’t sit around answering some … poll,” Rogan said.

“So you’re literally getting the opinion of people so …. stupid they answer polls,” he said.

Rogan’s comments came as Republicans worked to defend their congressional majorities, with several national surveys indicating that Democrats could be positioned to capture control of the House of Representatives.

The podcaster, who supported President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, raised the issue while examining polling data about religious identification among American voters. The survey indicated that approximately 78% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents identified with a religion, compared with roughly 60% of Democrats.

When Rogan noticed that approximately 1% of those surveyed had declined to respond to a particular question, he jokingly suggested that the nonrespondents were the most intelligent people in the sample.

“That is the most intelligent group on Earth,” he said.

Concerns about the accuracy of political surveys have also been raised by figures across the political spectrum, particularly as unexpected polling results have emerged in several Senate races.

On Friday, MS Now host Joe Scarborough questioned a Washington Post survey showing Democratic candidate Adam Hamilton holding a nine-point advantage over Republican Sen. Roger Marshall in Kansas, expressing doubt about whether the findings accurately reflected the electorate.

“Democrats want to answer pollsters. Republicans don’t. Inconsistencies abound,” Scarborough wrote on X.

President Trump has similarly criticized the polling industry, arguing during a campaign appearance Thursday that numerous surveys were “fake” and pointing to allegations involving Wedgewood, a purported polling organization accused of manufacturing results rather than conducting legitimate surveys.

“They didn’t do polling. They just made up numbers,” Trump said.

Rogan and his guests also discussed the growing difficulty of determining which information circulating online can be trusted, particularly amid the proliferation of fabricated news reports, automated social media accounts, and foreign influence operations.

Kisin warned that the sheer volume of misleading material has made even basic fact-checking increasingly demanding for ordinary Americans.

“You have to really do a lot of research now to even know the basic facts of anything,” Kisin said.

Rogan agreed, describing how he frequently encounters completely invented stories packaged to resemble legitimate breaking news.

Professional polling organizations generally attempt to compensate for low response rates through demographic weighting, statistical adjustments, and other methods designed to make survey samples more representative. Rogan nevertheless questioned whether those techniques can adequately address the fundamental problem of who is willing to answer a poll in the first place.

Additional coverage of the episode noted that Rogan had used an artificial intelligence tool to summarize the Pew Research Center findings before launching into his criticism of polling. The approximately 1% of respondents he praised for declining to answer had actually participated in the survey but skipped one particular question.

Rogan has expressed similar doubts about political polling in the past. During his October 2024 interview with Trump, he questioned whether surveys adequately captured public sentiment, while Trump said he had rarely, if ever, been contacted by a pollster.

Polling analyst Nate Silver has acknowledged that surveys underestimated Trump’s support in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections. However, Silver has also maintained that professional pollsters recognize those shortcomings and have been working to improve their methods, particularly when accounting for differences in response rates between Republican and Democratic voters.

{Matzav.com}

Sen. Bernie Sanders sharply criticized Democratic operatives Sunday over reports that they helped recruit a candidate with nearly the same name as Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, apparently hoping to confuse voters and weaken the incumbent’s reelection prospects. Sanders called the maneuver “pretty dumb,” although he acknowledged that the tactic did not violate election law.

During an appearance on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the Vermont independent was questioned about allegations that Democrats had encouraged Dan J. Sullivan to enter the race against Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, potentially drawing votes away from the incumbent.

“Yeah, frankly what the Democrats did in Alaska seems to be pretty dumb but … it’s not illegal,” Sanders said.

The controversy centers on reports that individuals associated with Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign helped bring another Sullivan into the contest. The additional candidate, a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg, Alaska, has been nicknamed “Decoy Dan” because of the similarity between his name and that of the Republican senator.

Sanders argued that such political maneuvering is hardly unique to Democrats, pointing to an Ohio Senate contest in which a Republican-aligned super PAC reportedly provided financial support to socialist candidate Greg Levy in an effort to siphon votes from Democrat Sherrod Brown.

“It’s what happens in every election,” Sanders said.

“So why in Ohio is a Republican right-wing super PAC funding a socialist? The answer is obviously obvious. They want to take votes away from Sherrod Brown,” Sanders said. “Is this a good thing to do? No, it is not a good thing to do. It’s a stupid thing to do.”

Despite his criticism of the Alaska strategy, Sanders rejected suggestions that Washington should intervene, maintaining that questions about the conduct of state elections belong to state authorities.

“The federal government does not get involved in state elections,” Sanders said.

The senator also took aim at President Donald Trump, arguing that it was “a little bit absurd” for a president who challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election to position himself as an authority on electoral fairness.

“People of Alaska can make that decision themselves,” Sanders added.

The allegations have also triggered legal action and an investigation in Alaska. State authorities have been examining the circumstances surrounding the second Sullivan’s candidacy, while the Justice Department sought to prevent certification of the Senate election if the Republican incumbent lost amid the ballot controversy.

However, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit Sunday, rejecting its attempt to delay certification. Alaska’s Republican-led state government had opposed the federal challenge and urged the court to throw it out.

The election is being conducted under Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Election officials have taken steps to distinguish the two candidates named Dan Sullivan on the ballot, although the controversy has raised concerns about potential voter confusion.

The Republican incumbent, meanwhile, said Sunday that he would accept the outcome of the election even if he were defeated by Peltola, despite the continuing dispute over the second Sullivan’s candidacy.

{Matzav.com}

Agudas Yisroel chairman MK Yitzchok Goldknopf declared Sunday evening that his longtime associate Motty Babchik is no longer representing him, either in political activities or in briefings issued to the media, in a significant development amid growing internal tensions within United Torah Judaism.

The announcement came during a meeting of United Torah Judaism’s senior leadership, where party officials were discussing the need to maintain unity following the recent election results and ahead of anticipated coalition negotiations.

Goldknopf made clear that Babchik, who has long been regarded as one of his closest political aides, is not currently authorized to act or speak on his behalf. He emphasized that statements attributed to Babchik, as well as his political activities, should not be interpreted as reflecting Goldknopf’s positions.

The clarification followed remarks by United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher, who urged the party’s various factions to work together as a unified political force. Asher stressed the importance of cooperation among the different components of the party, particularly as discussions begin over its political direction and potential participation in a governing coalition.

Responding to Asher’s appeal, Goldknopf specifically addressed Babchik’s status, making clear that the political operative does not presently represent him.

MK Meir Porush welcomed the announcement, describing Goldknopf’s clarification as an important step toward restoring cooperation within the party.

“Your clarification is very important. We all want to work as one group and on the basis of agreements,” Porush said.

The exchange comes amid ongoing disagreements within United Torah Judaism following the elections, with senior figures seeking to establish a common approach to the upcoming coalition negotiations.

Goldknopf’s public distancing from Babchik is particularly noteworthy given the latter’s longstanding involvement in his political affairs and his prominent role in the party’s internal dealings.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump launched a sharp attack Sunday against Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, accusing him of being a “jihadist” with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood while applauding Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens for crossing party lines to endorse Republican Mike Rogers in Tuesday’s closely contested Senate race.

Speaking with reporters on the airport tarmac in Dubuque, Iowa, Trump praised Stevens for publicly backing Rogers, describing her decision as an act of political courage that could potentially expose her to threats.

“They’re jihadists. He’s jihadist. He’s a Muslim Brotherhood guy,” Trump said of El-Sayed.

“Yeah, I’d say she’s in danger. She was very brave doing it. And she did it for the people of Michigan. I have great respect for her,” the president added.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who accompanied Trump during the exchange, said he had personally contacted Stevens following her announcement to express his appreciation for her decision to support the Republican nominee.

“I … told her how courageous she was and how much we appreciate what she did,” Johnson said. “She’s standing for truth; Haley’s a good person. This is her state; she served it as best she could.”

Johnson portrayed the election as a contest between two fundamentally different political approaches, arguing that the outcome would have significant consequences beyond Michigan.

“It’s a contrast election between common sense and crazy,” the speaker said.

“Haley did a heroic and important thing for the country. I told her to stay safe.”

Trump went further, warning that an El-Sayed victory could strengthen what he described as Muslim Brotherhood influence within the Democratic Party. He argued that even a handful of senators could exert considerable leverage over party leadership when their votes are needed to secure a majority.

“We have to get the Senate. We can’t allow the Muslim Brotherhood — don’t forget, when they have one or two or three votes, they basically assume control of the party,” Trump said.

“The party has to go along with them. They can blackmail the party and extort the party.”

The comments came during the final stretch of campaigning before Tuesday’s midterm elections, with Republicans seeking to preserve their Senate majority and Michigan emerging as one of the races attracting intense national attention.

Stevens’ decision to support Rogers represented an unusual public rejection of her own party’s nominee. Her endorsement provided the Republican candidate with a prominent Democratic supporter just days before voters were scheduled to head to the polls.

El-Sayed, who previously served as a public health official in Detroit, is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Senator Gary Peters.

Trump has made allegations about El-Sayed’s supposed connections to the Muslim Brotherhood a recurring theme of his campaign appearances. During an October 25 rally in Port Huron, Michigan, the president warned that electing El-Sayed could allow him access to classified national security information.

El-Sayed has rejected the accusations and denied having any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The dispute between Stevens and El-Sayed intensified over an advertisement produced by an outside progressive group that connected American military assistance to Israel with rising living costs in Michigan. Jewish community leaders criticized the advertisement for invoking antisemitic themes, and Stevens demanded that El-Sayed condemn it. El-Sayed said his campaign had no involvement in producing the advertisement and rejected its contents.

Stevens, who narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed in August, had previously promised to support him in the general election. Her reversal followed additional disagreements over El-Sayed’s association with controversial political commentator Hasan Piker and came after Stevens was excluded from a planned joint campaign appearance.

The congresswoman appeared alongside Rogers at a Detroit church service Sunday before announcing her endorsement. The decision triggered an immediate backlash from Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and prompted the resignation of Stevens’ longtime chief of staff.

El-Sayed sought to minimize the controversy, telling reporters that his attention remained on Michigan voters and issues such as grocery prices, energy costs and economic conditions rather than the political dispute with Stevens.

The race has become particularly consequential because the winner will succeed retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters, and the outcome could play a significant role in determining which party controls the Senate after Tuesday’s election.

{Matzav.com}