There are only two possibilities pertaining to that “60 Minutes” interview in which at least one of Vice President Kamala Harris’ answers to a critical question was edited in her political favor: Either Kamala’s handlers insisted upon redoing some of her comments, or the program unilaterally assisted in cleaning them up on its own.

Whichever possibility reflects reality, CBS is now engaged in a cover-up; and until CBS makes a full transcript and video of the interview available, there’s a strong case that the outlet made an in-kind donation to Kamala’s campaign, which would be illegal.

The network on Sunday released a statement denying accusations of “deceitful editing.” By way of excusing itself, CBS said it had made a still-confounding edit to one of Kamala’s answers related to U.S.-Israel relations because “the portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”

Taken at face value, the explanation is an admission that producers chose to air a more flattering (“succinct”) portion of Kamala’s comments when a separate version showing the same exchange was posted online beforehand and was widely panned because of the vice president’s ridiculous, unintelligible response. Taken in context — CBS’s declining to release a full, accurate transcript, plus video, and its decision to make that specific edit (and potentially others) — it’s a much seedier situation.

No matter which way you cut it, following either avenue through to its logical conclusion demonstrates CBS to have made

A handwriting expert hired by House Republicans investigating the since disbanded Jan. 6 Committee said the panel’s star witness was not the author of a note she took credit for at a congressional hearing two years ago.

On Monday, journalist Julie Kelly published the conclusions of a graphologist commissioned to analyze the handwriting on a note displayed by Jan. 6 Select Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney during the public appearance of former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson before the panel. The note in question included a proposed statement for then-President Donald Trump to issue as rioters descended on the U.S. Capitol.

“That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff on Jan. 6, likely around 3 o’clock,” Hutchinson said under oath at a hearing of the Select Committee in June 2022.

Authorship was immediately disputed by former Trump White House staff.

“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a spokesperson for the former White House lawyer told ABC News at the time.

According to Kelly, Republican investigators now probing the misconduct of Cheney’s select panel have independently “confirmed Herschmann’s account.”

NEW: Cassidy Hutchinson/Liz Cheney scandal keeps getting worse.@RepLoudermilk hired a handwriting expert to analyze a note Hutchinson testified under oath she had composed the afternoon of January 6.

Cheney held up the note, which was part of a statement dictated by Mark… pic.twitter.com/haBdxSBwFq

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) October

A senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is demanding an explanation from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on why a potential assassin was able to threaten U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for months.

On Monday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa., sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe of the Southern District of Florida asking why law enforcement officials took four months to indict a would-be assassin of Cannon.

“On September 25, 2024, Eric James Rennert was indicted for making violent threats to assault, kidnap, and murder U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed charges against former President Trump related to his handling of classified information,” Grassley wrote. “However, according to the indictment, Rennert began making threats against Judge Cannon and her family as early as May 25, 2024.”

In July, Judge Cannon tossed the federal government’s charges brought against former President Donald Trump in Florida after DOJ stormtroopers raided his Mar-a-Lago residence two years ago. Court filings show the FBI was authorized to use “deadly force” to conduct the raid that allowed agents to confiscate any record Trump might have interacted with as president. Judge Cannon ultimately dropped the charges after finding prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.

Judge Cannon’s reluctance to fast-track the unprecedented proceedings throughout the criminal case against the former president put a target on her back by Democrats desperate for a conviction before the November election. Just before Judge Cannon effectively killed the