Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer walked away from a Republican colleague on the floor of the chamber on Saturday after he was cornered over a so-called “fix” he offered for Obamacare subsidies as the government shutdown he is leading entered its 39th day.
Schumer was engaging with Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) after the Democratic leader offered a proposal to reopen the government: A one-year funding extension of taxpayer-funded subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
During the exchange, Schumer admitted to Moreno that he did not yet have a written proposal.
“We can’t give you a counter in writing, but it’s very simple,” Schumer said. “Because we have two sentences we would add to any proposal which would extend the ACA benefits for one year.”
Moreno the revealed that the Schumer proposal did not seem to contain income caps, meaning people who make millions of dollars a year can obtain taxpayer-subsidized health care.
“It does still have no income caps, so people who make $1, $2, $3 million a year,” Moreno said before Schumer interrupted him.
“Once we pass the one-year fixed so people right now aren’t in difficulty, we would sit and negotiate that,” Schumer said. “[Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)]has said that he won’t negotiate before. We’re willing to negotiate once the credits are extended, plain and simple.”
The Ohio Republican then responded, “So for one year, people making millions of dollars would still receive these COVID-era subsidies?”
At that, Schumer accused Moreno of caring more about billionaires before disengaging and leaving the chamber, according to reports.
“I was going to ask him before he stormed out of the room because evidently he doesn‘t want to hear any opposing views or actually engage in meaningful negotiation … Would he continue 0 dollar premiums, which we know for a FACT, have enormous levels of fraud,” Moreno said.
“If he had stayed, I would have asked him a third question: Does he want these monies to go directly to insurance companies?”
President Donald Trump appeared to gain some leverage
in the ongoing government funding standoff Thursday after Senate Democrats sought to link a funding deal to an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies.
What began as an effort by Democrats to pressure Republicans during the shutdown negotiations has shifted in Trump’s favor, following a new proposal he unveiled on Truth Social.
In his post, the president announced a plan to redirect hundreds of billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidy payments from insurance companies to direct payments for American citizens.
“I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over,” Trump wrote.
“In other words, take from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate, per Dollar spent, the worst Healthcare anywhere in the World, ObamaCare. Unrelated, we must still terminate the Filibuster!” he added.
Conservative commentators lauded the proposal as “genius,” noting that the former president has effectively recast himself as an advocate for direct-to-consumer healthcare freedom. They said the plan reframes the debate as “healthcare for the people” versus the Democrats’ defense of “big insurance.”
Shortly after Trump’s post, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) announced that he was working on legislation to turn the proposal into reality.
“Totally agree, @POTUS! I’m writing the bill right now,” Scott said. “We must stop taxpayer money from going to insurance companies and instead give it directly to Americans in HSA-style accounts and let them buy the health care they want. This will increase competition & drive down costs.”
The U.S. Senate has approved President Donald Trump’s first and only nominee to the Boston-based federal appeals court. Until recently, most of the justices on this court were chosen by Democrats and often rejected his policy proposals.
The Republican-led Senate voted 52-46 along party lines to make Joshua Dunlap, a conservative lawyer from Maine who often worked on conservative legal cases, a life-tenured judge on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As of Thursday, that court was the only one of the 13 appeals courts without any active judges appointed by Republican presidents. That has helped make district courts in New England a popular place for Democratic state attorneys general and advocacy groups to file cases against Trump’s agenda.
In his first term, Trump didn’t name any judges to the 1st Circuit. At the start of his second term, he almost lost the chance to choose one when his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, put forth a nomination to fill a seat that U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta had held.
But Biden couldn’t get Julia Lipez confirmed as his candidate before he departed office. Kayatta, who Democratic President Barack Obama appointed, formally became a senior in October 2024, just days before the presidential election that delivered Trump back to the White House.
In July, Trump chose Dunlap, a partner at the legal firm Pierce Atwood, to fill the open position. He said that if the Senate confirmed him, he would “fearlessly defend our Constitution.”
Dunlap got his bachelor’s degree from Pensacola Christian College and then went to Notre Dame Law School, where he graduated in 2008. During law school, he worked as an intern with what is now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal rights nonprofit.
As a lawyer, he has worked on cases that have challenged Maine’s paid family and medical leave program, the state’s campaign finance rules, and the use of ranked-choice voting to run the state’s elections.
This is the second judge approved this week.
The U.S. Senate also confirmed a former clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and the late Antonin Scalia to be a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52 to 45 in favor of Eric Tung, a partner at Jones Day. This made him the first judge President Donald Trump selected for the San Francisco-based appeals court during his second administration.
His confirmation brings the total number of judges Trump appointed to the 9th Circuit from 2017 to 2020 during his first term to 10. This weakens the power of Democratic appointees, who have long held sway on a court that was previously
thought to be the most liberal of all the federal appellate courts.
There are currently 16 Democratic appointees and 13 Republican appointees on the 9th Circuit, including Tung. In July, Trump nominated Tung to fill the seat that U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta had held. She stated in March that she would step down when a successor was named.
When Trump announced Tung’s nomination, he called him a “Tough Patriot” on social media and said he would preserve the Rule of Law in the “most RADICAL, Leftist States” like California, Oregon, and Washington. These are three of the nine states that the 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over.
Tung is a partner at the law firm Jones Day in Los Angeles. Before that, he was a federal prosecutor and worked for the U.S. Department of Justice.
Tung worked as a clerk for Gorsuch twice: once when he was on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and again after Trump confirmed him to the Supreme Court in 2017. He had also worked for Scalia, who passed away in 2016.
A recently declassified U.S. intelligence document has resurfaced debates about the 2016 presidential election, revealing that Russia allegedly obtained sensitive information suggesting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was taking “heavy tranquilizers” during her campaign. The report claims that senior Democratic leaders, including then-President Barack Obama, considered Clinton’s health to be “extraordinarily alarming” at the time, raising questions about both foreign intelligence operations and domestic political transparency.
The revelation comes as the U.S. intelligence community faces renewed scrutiny over its handling of Russian interference claims. While early assessments asserted that the Kremlin sought to boost Donald Trump’s election chances, newly released findings suggest that conclusion may have rested on intelligence later described as “biased” or “implausible.”
Origins of the Report
The information stems from a classified investigation conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) under then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in 2020. Although the report was finalized in September of that year, it was not made public and remained stored in a restricted-access vault at CIA headquarters.
Only this year, under the direction of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, was the report declassified. Fox News Digital obtained the documents, acknowledging that certain passages remain redacted for national security reasons.
Alleged Russian Intelligence Findings
According to the declassified report, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) obtained internal communications from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 campaign. These communications reportedly revealed serious concerns within Democratic leadership about Clinton’s health.
“As of September 2016, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service had DNC information that President Obama and Party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming,’ and felt it could have ‘serious negative impact’ on her election prospects,” one section of the report stated.
The report further alleges that Clinton was placed on a strict medical regimen involving “heavy tranquilizers” to manage what were described as “intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.”
Additionally, Russian intelligence reportedly held information suggesting Clinton suffered from several chronic conditions, including Type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Obama Administration’s Concerns
If accurate, the revelation points to deep unease within the Obama White House and Democratic Party leadership during the height of the 2016 campaign. The report claims that Clinton’s health issues were kept under “strictest secrecy,” with even some of her closest advisors allegedly left in the dark.
For Russia, the acquisition of such sensitive information would have represented a significant intelligence advantage. Beyond campaign strategy, it could have allowed the Kremlin to assess the stability of a potential U.S. president and exploit vulnerabilities in American politics.
Clinton’s Health as a Campaign Flashpoint
Questions about Hillary Clinton’s health were not new in 2016. The issue drew widespread media attention after she collapsed at a 9/11 memorial service in New York City, later attributed to pneumonia. Her campaign initially downplayed the incident, fueling speculation and conspiracy theories.
At the time, Clinton’s opponents frequently raised doubts about her stamina and fitness for office. While most medical experts dismissed claims of severe illness as politically motivated, the newly declassified report suggests that behind closed doors, Democratic leaders may have shared some of the concerns publicly pushed by critics.
Intelligence Community Divisions
The timing of the report’s release has reignited debate over how the U.S. intelligence community handled evidence regarding Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. The declassified documents indicate that intelligence officials under President Obama placed unusual emphasis on claims that Russia was working directly to elect Trump.
Yet, according to the HPSCI report, the intelligence linking Putin’s government to a pro-Trump operation was often “implausible” or “potentially biased.” Critics argue that the emphasis on Trump overshadowed other critical findings — such as Russia’s possible possession of damaging information about Clinton.
Political Reactions
Reactions to the report’s release have split along predictable partisan lines. Republican lawmakers argue that the findings confirm longstanding suspicions that the intelligence community downplayed damaging details about Clinton while amplifying narratives harmful to Trump.
“This shows what many of us have been saying for years — that the intelligence process in 2016 was politicized from the top down,” one GOP senator remarked.
Democrats, meanwhile, caution that the report must be viewed skeptically, emphasizing that much of the information allegedly held by Russia could not be independently verified. Some argue that releasing such details now risks amplifying unsubstantiated claims and disinformation originally circulated by Moscow.
Implications for U.S. Politics
If Russia did indeed obtain internal DNC communications about Clinton’s health, it raises several important questions. First, it underscores the extent of foreign penetration into U.S. political organizations during the 2016 campaign. Second, it highlights how foreign intelligence can shape — or distort — domestic political narratives.
Perhaps most significantly, the episode forces a reconsideration of how much American voters were told about Clinton’s health at the time, and whether Democratic leaders deliberately withheld information that might have changed the course of the election.
Looking Ahead
The declassification of this report will likely continue to fuel political battles heading into 2026. For Republicans, it represents an opportunity to question Democratic transparency and to revive critiques of Clinton and Obama. For Democrats, it is a reminder of how Russian intelligence operations sought to manipulate American democracy by seeding distrust and division.
Director Gabbard has stated that further declassifications may follow, potentially shedding more light on the intelligence community’s internal debates over 2016. What remains unclear, however, is whether the new information will meaningfully reshape public perceptions of an election that continues to cast a long shadow nearly a decade later.
Conclusion
The claim that Russia possessed sensitive information on Hillary Clinton’s alleged health struggles and tranquilizer use adds another layer of complexity to the 2016 election narrative. While the full truth may never be known, the report underscores two enduring realities: foreign adversaries actively target American politics, and the management — or mismanagement — of intelligence can have profound consequences for democracy.
For now, the revelations raise more questions than answers. But one message is clear: the battles over 2016 are far from finished.
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Tourists visiting the world’s largest cliff swing thought they were in for the ultimate adrenaline rush — but what happened next left everyone stunned.
The swing, which dangles hundreds of feet above a scenic canyon, promises breathtaking views and an unforgettable thrill. But as visitors soared back and forth over the edge, a sudden mishap turned the fun into a heart-stopping moment.
Eyewitnesses report that the swing experienced a technical hiccup mid-ride, causing a brief moment of panic. Safety staff acted quickly to prevent any injuries, but the tension among the riders and onlookers was palpable. Experts later analyzed the footage and confirmed that the incident, while alarming, was handled professionally and no one was seriously hurt.
The dramatic video captures every second of the suspense — from the initial exhilaration to the shocking moment when things went awry. Social media users have been sharing the clip widely, with many praising the courage of the riders and the swift response of safety personnel.
Key Takeaways:
Dressed in white shorts, a cropped vest with blue stars, and a shimmering sheer mesh bodysuit bedazzled beneath, Dolly commanded the stage with the confidence and sparkle that have defined her six-decade career. Fans cheered her on as she belted out her songs with characteristic energy and warmth, while the internet lit up with reactions ranging from awe to criticism. Some voices argued that the look was “too youthful” for her age, while many more celebrated her boldness, applauding her for defying conventions about how a 78-year-old woman “should” dress.
The debate reflected more than just fashion choices — it highlighted a larger conversation about aging, beauty, and self-expression. Dolly herself has long been unapologetic about her style, once famously saying, “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap.” Her wardrobe, often filled with rhinestones, bold cuts, and playful glamour, has always been an extension of her personality: joyful, fearless, and uniquely her own.
What makes Dolly’s halftime performance so powerful is not simply the outfit she wore, but the message behind it. At an age when society often expects women to fade quietly into the background, Dolly showed the world that life — and style — does not stop at 60, 70, or beyond. She reminded fans that confidence is timeless, and that daring to be yourself can be a form of empowerment, no matter what others say.
Her fearless fashion statement also underscores the cultural shift happening around aging in the public eye. Increasingly, women in entertainment are rejecting outdated expectations that once limited their opportunities or dictated how they “should” look. Dolly’s performance is a celebration of that shift, turning what could have been a fleeting fashion choice into a symbol of resilience and freedom.
Dolly Parton’s influence extends far beyond her wardrobe. She is one of the most successful female country artists in history, with countless hits like Jolene and I Will Always Love You
Her halftime show outfit sparked conversations not only about her, but also about other women in Hollywood who have made daring fashion choices later in life. Nicole Kidman, for example, made headlines at the age of 56 when she was photographed in a micro skirt that turned heads across the internet. Like Dolly, Kidman faced criticism from some who argued she was “too old” for such attire. Yet many came to her defense, praising her confidence and celebrating her right to dress however she pleases.
Kidman, much like Dolly, has built a career on defying expectations. With roles ranging from Moulin Rouge! to her Emmy-winning performance in Big Little Lies, she has never let age limit the types of stories she can tell. Off-screen, she has also become a style icon, consistently pushing boundaries on red carpets with daring fashion choices. Her willingness to embrace risk reflects a larger truth: women, no matter their age, deserve the freedom to express themselves fully — in their work, their style, and their lives.
The backlash both Dolly and Nicole faced is telling. It highlights how society often imposes rigid rules on women’s appearances, particularly as they age. Yet the overwhelming support they also received shows how those rules are breaking down. Younger generations, in particular, are more likely to view their bold choices as inspiring rather than inappropriate. In this way, both stars are paving the way for a more inclusive understanding of beauty and self-expression, where confidence and individuality matter more than conformity.
What critics may have missed is the joy that radiates from women like Dolly and Nicole when they step into the spotlight on their own terms. Dolly’s smile as she twirled across the NFL stage, and Nicole’s quiet confidence on the red carpet, both spoke louder than any online commentary. These moments are not about clinging to youth, but about embracing life fully, with courage and style.
Dolly Parton at 78 and Nicole Kidman at 56 are rewriting the narrative of aging in Hollywood. They are showing the world that getting older is not something to fear, but something to embrace — a chance to redefine yourself, celebrate your individuality, and inspire others by living authentically.
Perhaps the greatest lesson from both women is this: confidence is ageless. Beauty is not about fitting into society’s expectations, but about shining in your own unique way. Whether in sequined bodysuits or daring micro skirts, Dolly Parton and Nicole Kidman remind us all that style is a form of self-expression, not a number on a calendar.
As fans, we can only celebrate the courage it takes to stand tall in the face of criticism, to embrace glamour and boldness without apology. Because in the end, what makes Dolly and Nicole so unforgettable is not just their fashion or their fame — it is their unwavering belief in themselves.
And that, more than anything else, is timeless.