Visitors flocked to Francis's tomb at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, a year after the Argentine pope's death

Allyson Felix, the most decorated woman in Olympic athletics history with 11 medals, says she is planning a comeback at age 40 with her eyes on the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Felix told Time magazine in a story published online on Monday that she is preparing for what she hopes will be a sixth Olympics in her hometown when she will be 42.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime homecoming," Felix said of her Olympic dream. "And it is the only thing powerful enough to pull me back."

Felix is the most decorated American Olympian in athletics.

She captured her only solo gold in the 200 meters at London in 2012, added gold in the 4x400 relay in 2008 in Beijing, 2012 in London, 2016 in Rio de Janeiro and 2021 in Tokyo and won 4x100 titles in 2012 and 2016.

She took 200m silver in 2004 and 2008, 400 silver in 2016 and 400 bronze at Tokyo.

Felix has championed women returning to competition after having children. She gave birth to a daughter in 2018 and a son in 2024.

Felix attended the 2024 Paris Olympics as a spectator and found she yearned for her competitive days.

"It was definitely mixed emotions," Felix told the magazine. "There were moments where I was like, 'Oh, this is so great. It's so exciting to be in the stands and on the other side.'

"And then there were moments where I was, 'You know, I miss this feeling.'"

Felix also won a record 20 medals at the World Championships, the most for any woman or man, including 14 titles.

She won the 200 crown in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and the 400 in 2015 as well as three 4x100 relay titles, a 4x400 mixed relay crown in 2019 and six women's 4x400 relay golds, including at what was her farewell meet, the 2022 worlds in Eugene, Oregon.

Felix, a member of the athletes commission for the 2028 LA Olympic organizing committee, said she is realistic about her quest.

"I know, at 40, I am not at my peak. I have no illusions about that," Felix said. "I'm very clear in what it is and what I want to see. And so I hope it's seen that way."

Getting support from a home crowd is part of her goal.

"When I was competing, you just heard this roar for host-country athletes at the Olympics," Felix said. "I would love to experience that."

Simply making the attempt to compete at the LA Games is a victory of its own for Felix.

"I would probably be upset at myself if I just didn't give it a try," Felix said. "However it turns out, I'll still be there with my kids, hanging out and cheering everybody on."

js/jc

France said Monday that Iran must be ready to make "major concessions" to end a crisis, as countries piled pressure on Tehran at a UN session on its control of the key Strait of Hormuz.

"There can be no lasting solution to this crisis unless the Iranian regime agrees to major concessions and a radical shift in its stance," Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told the UN Security Council.

Barrot said that Iran must show a way "to peaceful coexistence within its region and for the Iranian people to be able to build freely their own future," months after the cleric-run state ruthlessly repressed mass protests.

Barrot was attending a session initiated by Bahrain in which dozens of countries made a joint call for Iran to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway to the Gulf and one-fifth of the world's oil.

In response to being attacked, Iran has moved to exert control over the strait, saying it is setting up a toll system, defying warnings from US President Donald Trump who has watched angrily as global oil prices soar.

Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran's laying of mines violated international law.

"Indiscriminate planting of mines in international waterways -- that makes Iran international criminal pirates of the straits," Waltz said.

"Tehran admits to these crimes, but it's so incompetent, it also admits to not knowing where the mines are."

- Iran urges 'guarantees' -

Iran's envoy, speaking hours later at the day-long session, noted that Iran, like the United States, was not part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, said that Iran needed "credible guarantees" that it will not again be attacked before it can ensure "lasting stability and security in the Persian Gulf" and beyond.

"The United States is acting like pirates and terrorists, targeting commercial vessels through coercion and intimidation, terrorizing their crews, unlawfully seizing ships and taking crew members hostage," Iravani said.

"But no one from those who have expressed their concern for international navigation dares to refer to or condemn this terrorist act at today's meeting."

The Trump administration itself often denounces international law and institutions when US actions come under scrutiny.

Trump has also criticized NATO allies for not assisting the United States in the war, on which he did not previously consult them, although he has also insisted the United States does not need help.

But Waltz said at the Security Council: "Now is the time for a coalition of like-minded partners to step up and step in with real capabilities and help."

Barrot, while denouncing Iran's actions, did not shy away from blaming the United States and Israel, saying they started the war "without a clearly defined goal and outside of international law."

"But the Iranian regime bears the overwhelming responsibility for this situation," he said, pointing to its "obstinacy" on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and "its continual support for terrorist groups."

gw-sct/ksb

(The Center Square) – Outgoing U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, is again calling on the federal government to take action against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), this time against its California chapter. 

On Monday, he led a congressional delegation calling on U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to suspend funding for CAIR-CA and its affiliates and initiate debarment proceedings. He did so in response to a Department of Justice investigation launched more than a year ago into CAIR for alleged misuse of federal funds related to Afghan refugees.

“CAIR’s longstanding ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas – a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – combined with documented financial mismanagement and misuse of federal grant funds administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), pose a grave risk to national security and render CAIR unfit to receive taxpayer dollars,” the delegation argues. 

“Why should Americans’ taxpayer dollars go to groups like CAIR that facilitate terrorism? … Groups like CAIR that support Hamas should not be lining their pockets on the backs of hardworking Americans,” Roy said in a news release.

The letter to Kennedy refers to a March 2025 Intelligent Advocacy Network complaint filed with the DOJ urging it to investigate CAIR-CA’s alleged misuse of federal funds and EOIR accreditation violations. It questions millions of dollars CAIR-CA received from the federal government including for an Afghan Legal Services Project, alleges CAIR-LA is not a legal 501c3 entity, alleges accreditation violations, and alleges CAIR ties to Islamic terrorism. In response, the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review launched an investigation.

The congressional delegation also asked HHS to investigate CAIR’s grant compliance and terrorist affiliations. It argues, “CAIR purports to be a civil rights organization dedicated to enhancing understanding of Islam, protecting civil liberties, and empowering American Muslims. Since 2022, HHS has sub-granted more than $15 million to CAIR through the California Department of Social Services for Afghan resettlement programs. However, overwhelming evidence confirms the nonprofit’s deep and enduring connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, Hamas.”

It also argues “CAIR’s status as a federal grant recipient not only jeopardizes public funds but also threatens national security by subsidizing an entity aligned with terrorist groups and extremist movements. Immediate suspension is essential to prevent further harm, followed by formal debarment proceedings to bar CAIR from all federal non-procurement programs, including ORR grants,” referring to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement. 

CAIR has refuted the allegations, having earlier this year sent a letter to a Senate subcommittee about its work with Afghan refugees. It also maintains that IAN is “an apparent front group for the Israeli lobby whose primary purpose appears to be smearing critics of the Israeli government” that posts “various conspiracy theories about CAIR and other critics of the Israeli government.” 

CAIR-Texas also rejects a foreign terrorist organization designation it received from Gov. Greg Abbott and has sued. It argues it is facing religious persecution and has no ties to terrorism, The Center Square reported. 

This is the latest action Roy, who is running for Texas attorney general, has taken related to CAIR and Islamic ideology. He recently introduced the Designating Hamas Affiliates in America Act of 2026 to designate CAIR as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization. If enacted, it would block CAIR’s assets and prohibit individuals in the U.S. from interacting with it. He also introduced the No Tax Exemptions for Terror Act to eliminate the tax-exempt status for extremist groups with close ties to terrorist organizations, which he argues includes CAIR.

Roy also filed a bill to denaturalize and deport individuals he argues are Marxist and Islamists, including the mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, after which the bill is named, The Center Square reported.

He also cofounded a Sharia Free America Caucus in Congress “to counter the alarming rise of Sharia Law in the United States. Sharia is a dominating force that is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution,” among other initiatives. 

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also filed a bill to ban Sharia law in the U.S. “to ensure anti-American jihadists and those who dare to try and implement Sharia Law’s hateful ideology in our freedom-loving, God-fearing communities are stopped and held accountable for their radical discrimination and flagrant violation of our Constitution.”

They are among multiple anti-Sharia initiatives launched by Texas Republicans in the past year, The Center Square reported. Banning Sharia law is a state legislative priority for the Texas legislature to consider next year. It is also at the top of 10 nonbinding propositions listed on the Republican primary ballot, which overwhelmingly passed, The Center Square reported. 

(The Center Square) – Marilyn Monroe's home is the subject of a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles.

Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank purchased the property in the affluent Brentwood area. It is a 2,300 square foot, Spanish-style colonial home that Monroe lived in for about six months until her death there from a barbiturate overdose on Aug. 4, 1962.

Milstein’s and Bank’s attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation said the couple wanted to raze it and do something else with the property.

“The old Marilyn Monroe house has been unoccupied since 2019,” J. David Breemer, senior attorney with the foundation, told The Center Square. “It's not in great shape.”

According to Breemer, the couple got permits from the city to remove the home and clear the property. They also spent money on the project.

“All of a sudden, the city turned around and decided, after 60 years, it wanted to designate the property as a historical cultural monument to Marilyn Monroe, which freezes the property, stops property owners from being able to do anything. And then the city revoked the previous issuance of permits,” said Breemer. 

Breemer said the city's action cost the couple “quite a bit" of money.

They bought this property for $8.5 million at a time when it was not designated as a historical cultural monument. 

“For 60 years, the city treated this property as just a normal residential property,” said Breemer. “They issued permits to 14 other owners to alter, add additions, do all kinds of things to the property since Marilyn Monroe owned it. So when Milstein and Bank bought the property, they just assumed that based on the city's past practices that they would be able to use it like a normal property. And they, in fact, got the permit, so they spent $8.5 million on that at reasonable expectation.”

The couple then spent another $30,000 or more to begin the grading and the demolition process before the city stepped in and said that it was going to designate the property a historical cultural monument.

“So now they're stuck with a property that they can't do much with, if anything, and they are also subject to constant trespassing because of the historical cultural monument to Marilyn Monroe,” said Breemer. “People want to come see it, and to come see it, you have to climb walls and break into the property and trespass.”

That, said Breemer, is happening frequently.

The lawsuit asserts that if the city wants to create a public monument out of private property for what it thinks is the public benefit and enjoyment of keeping it the same forever, then it needs to buy the property and pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain clause.

“The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay compensation when it takes' private property. And so the lawsuit here is that the city has effectively taken this property for its public purposes of preserving it without paying the owner,” said Breemer. “It's created basically a Marilyn Monroe Museum on private property and foisted the costs of that on the private property owners because now they're the ones that have to preserve and maintain it the same way.”

The Center Square sought comment from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, which did not respond before press time.

Los Angeles City Planning told The Center Square that it does not comment on pending litigation.

The case is Brinah Milstein et al v City of Los Angeles et al. It is filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a second and final time in favor of Texas’ redistricting law, effectively ending all challenges to the state's new congressional maps. This was after the high court chastised district court judges in El Paso for their handling of the case and blocked their ruling from going into effect, The Center Square reported. 

The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling last December allowed Texas’ new congressional maps to remain in effect for the 2026 midterm election. A May 26 runoff election is the partial result of this: new districts and multiple candidates running for open seats led to many races still to be determined. 

Last year, during a second special session, more than 50 House Democrats left the state to prevent the law from being voted on. Fleeing to California, Illinois, New York and elsewhere, they effectively halted legislative business for more than two weeks. The law was eventually passed, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law. 

Several groups then sued and two federal judges in El Paso ruled that Texas’ new redistricting law, which had already been on the books for more than 75 days, couldn’t be used. Instead, Texas must use a 2021 law, they said, even after the legislature repealed the 2021 law.  

The lone dissenting Circuit judge, Jerry Smith, expressed outrage over the process, alleging the chief judge engaged in “judicial misbehavior” and “outrageous conduct,” The Center Square reported. The two majority judges had issued other decisions the U.S. Supreme Court later vacated, Smith said, adding that this ruling was no different. 

After the El Paso ruling, Texas filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a stay of the lower court ruling. In its 6-3 December ruling, it said the district court “committed at least two serious [legal] errors” and ignored Supreme Court warnings about redistricting lawsuits filed months before an election.

“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” it said. “The District Court violated that rule here. The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”

Agreeing with Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court also chastised the two lower court judges for “failing to apply correct legal standards set out in case law,” The Center Square reported.

Finding no need to repeat itself, the Supreme Court on Monday simply stated it reversed the district court’s judgment. It issued two sentences related to the case in an order list noting that justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson dissented “from the court’s summary reversal.” The same justices dissented last year.

In response, Abbott Press Secretary Andrew Mahaleris told The Center Square the governor “is pleased that the Supreme Court reversed a poorly reasoned decision that halted Texas’ new congressional maps. The right legal answer was obvious. These maps better represent our constituents and allow more Texans to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is a victory for Texas voters, for common sense, and for the U.S. Constitution."

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was “a clear rejection of meritless attacks and a victory for the rule of law. Texas’s congressional map is lawful, constitutional, and reflects the will of our citizens.” 

State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, who leads the Texas Democratic Caucus and led House Democrats fleeing the state last year, disagreed. He said the Supreme Court “did not protect the Constitution” in its ruling.  He again said the new congressional map is “racist,” enables Republicans to steal seats, “weaken Black and Latino voting power,” and creates “a rigged path to keep control of Congress.” 

He also said the ruling was not a victory for Texas Republicans or Republicans in general. “When we broke quorum last year, Texas House Democrats forced his power grab into the open. Now, California and Virginia have answered and leveled the playing field, and Democrats across the country are still fighting back,” Wu said in an emailed statement.

Abbott is still pressing forward with his case before the Texas Supreme Court to have Wu removed from office, arguing he vacated his seat when he absconded. The Texas House has also fined more than 50 members nearly $423,000 for absconding. 

A third suspect pleaded guilty Monday to his role in the New York City murder of DJ Jam Master Jay, a founding member of legendary hip-hop group Run DMC.

Jay Bryant, 52, faces 15 to 20 years in prison for being an accomplice after he "opened a locked fire escape exit door" to a music studio, letting in two men convicted in the musician's "execution style" murder in 2002, federal prosecutors said in a statement.

Jam Master Jay, whose real name was Jason Mizell, was 37.

The crime remained unsolved for nearly two decades, until two people close to the "It's Tricky" star --  longtime friend Ronald Washington and his godson Karl Jordan Jr. -- were indicted in 2020.

Prosecutors said the two men sought revenge after being cut out of a cocaine deal and were convicted based on testimony of two witnesses who came forward after many years.

The two men deny the accusations and were convicted in 2024, but Jordan's conviction was overturned in 2025 after a federal judge ruled the prosecutor had failed to prove the drug-trafficking motive.

The US Attorney's office has appealed that decision.

Bryant, who was identified by DNA testing, did not name his accomplices, media present in the courtroom reported Monday.

One of the early innovators of hip hop in the 1980s in the Queens borough of New York City, Run DMC had success with "My Adidas," "It's Like That," and the genre-bending rap-rock collaboration "Walk this Way" with Aerosmith.

Jam Master Jay's death was a blow to the rap world, years after the murder of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas in 1996 and The Notorious B.I.G. in Los Angeles in 1997.

pel/eml/sla/jgc

(The Center Square) – Florida's Legislature reconvenes Tuesday for a special called session that will consider new congressional maps.

Republicans could gain as many as four congressional seats in Florida if the redistricting plan is approved, spokeswoman Lauren Guagliardo of the House Democratic Caucus said at a news conference Monday.

“Ron DeSantis called the Legislature back to play politics and redraw maps,” Guagliardo said. “This middecade redistricting is an illegal gerrymander because Donald Trump asked for it. Middecade redistricting is not normal. The Sunshine State has seen population growth for at least a century. It has never caused us to redraw maps in the middle of the decade before.”

The House Redistricting Committee will consider the plan on Tuesday, the state’s Republican House Speaker, Daniel Perez, said in a memo on Monday.

“We currently anticipate consideration of the map by the full House on Wednesday,” Perez wrote in the memo.

New maps are in play for the 2026 elections in California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Litigation has also led to changes in Utah and remains ongoing in Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana and New York.

Maryland’s bid died two weeks ago.

California has the potential to flip five seats to Democrats for a 48-4 representation for the party and Utah one to Democrats cutting into Republicans’ 4-0 representation. For Republicans, Missouri (to 7-1) and North Carolina (to 11-3) could gain one seat each; Ohio two (to 12-3); and Texas five (to 30-7).

In the House of Representatives, at the 2024 election Republicans won a 220-215 majority. Today, it is 217-212 with one independent that was formerly Republican and five vacancies.

DeSantis called the special session on the “false premise” that the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm Louisiana's redistricting plan, Guagliardo said Monday.

“That has not been decided,” she said. “The argument was held in October and no opinion has been issued.”

DeSantis, a Republican, in January called the special session that is scheduled to begin Tuesday.

A reporter Monday asked Guagliardo if Democrats would have also redrawn congressional districts if they controlled a majority in the Florida Legislature. Guagliardo called the question a “leap” and laughed.

“The point of it is that this is an illegal partisan gerrymander," she said. “My God I would love to see us in power one day and have the majority and to be able to represent the issues of the people. But what’s happening right now is what can occur when one party has had control for far too long and has forgotten who it is that they serve.”

Argentine President Javier Milei's government on Monday intensified a standoff with the media by blocking journalists from accessing the presidential palace for a third day running.

The firebrand Milei, a staunch ally of US President Donald Trump, has a turbulent relationship with the media, which he has copiously insulted since taking office in December 2023.

On Thursday and Friday, the government barred journalists accredited to cover events at the Casa Rosada from entering the palace, while investigating claims of "illegal espionage."

Journalists who showed up on Monday again found the gates closed to them.

The presidential security service is investigating two journalists from the Todo Noticias channel for allegedly filming in restricted areas inside the palace without authorization.

The journalists claim they had permission and that the areas filmed were frequently visited by children on school trips.

The Ambito Financiero financial daily has sought an emergency court ruling forcing the government to restore access.

The Argentine media association ADEPA complained that the press ban "directly impacts freedom of expression and the right to information, fundamental pillars of the democratic system."

Milei shrugged off the criticism.

In an X post, he wrote "NOLSALP" -- the Spanish acronym of his slogan "We don't hate journalists enough."

The Catholic Church has offered to mediate in the standoff.

Archbishop Jorge Lozano, a spokesman for the association of Argentine Catholic bishops, said Monday he was "surprised" by the media ban and offered to serve as a go-between on restoring access.

sa/lm/cb/ksb

A proposed emergency tax on California billionaires to help fund the state's cash-strapped healthcare system has gathered enough signatures to trigger a referendum in November, the union behind the measure announced.

The proposal gathered 1.5 million signatures -- nearly twice the number required to get on the ballot.

"Most Californians and most billionaires recognize how reasonable and necessary this proposal is -- both to keep emergency rooms open and to save California businesses from closing," Suzanne Jimenez of the Services Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), the measure's lead sponsor, said late Sunday.

Under the California Billionaire Tax Act, the state's wealthiest residents would be hit with a one-time tax of five percent of their net worth.

Some 90 percent of the tens of billions of dollars in expected revenue would be used to fund the state healthcare system for five years to offset the massive federal cuts imposed by President Donald Trump's budget law.

While the tax would be a one-off, the proposal has sparked controversy in the most populous state and across the nation.

Opponents fear it will scare off Silicon Valley and trigger an exodus of the ultra-wealthy, which would hurt tax revenue. California is home to more than 250 billionaires, more than any other US state.

The American left has been divided on the issue. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is considered a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, opposes it, while progressive Senator Bernie Sanders is its chief supporter in Congress.

High-profile entrepreneurs are against it. According to US media, Google co-founder Larry Page, Oracle's Larry Ellison, and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel have all taken steps to reduce their footprint in California.

And the cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence communities are funding ad campaigns against it.

Jimenez, the union leader, described the measure's wealthy opponents as "a very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet."

"Healthcare workers and our allies won't quit until we fully protect our patients from the looming healthcare disaster that will be caused by $100 billion in cuts to California healthcare," she added.

In the face of growing wealth inequality worldwide, taxation of the ultra-rich has become a flashpoint of debate in recent years.

Brazil put the idea of a billionaire tax on the G20 agenda when it hosted the forum's annual leaders' summit in 2024.

Last year France's parliament rejected the proposed 'Zucman tax,' a measure that would have taxed the ultra-wealthy at an annual rate of two percent.

rfo-mlm/ksb

(The Center Square) – Trump administration officials on Monday detailed charges against the suspected attacker of the White House Correspondents' Association's Dinner in Washington, D.C.

Cole Tomas Allen faced three charges on Monday, including attempted assassination of President Donald Trump. Allen was also charged with transporting firearms across state lines and with discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the charge of attempting to assassinate a sitting U.S. president carries as much as life in prison. Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence and interstate transmission of a firearm both carry as much as a 10 year prison sentence, each, if convicted. 

Officials said Allen boarded a train in California on April 21 bound for Chicago and later arrived in Washington, D.C. Allen arrived in Washington, D.C., at about 1 p.m. Eastern on April 24 and checked into the Washington Hilton Hotel. 

He approached a security checkpoint at 8:40 p.m. on April 25 on the terrace level of the hotel, which is a floor above where the dinner was taking place, authorities said. 

Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said Allen made it clear that he intended to assassinate Trump. She said Allen made his reservation at the dinner on April 6, a month after Trump announced he would be attending on March 2. 

"He is very much aware that the president and the first lady entered the ballroom at 8:00 p.m," Pirro said. "It was 8:40 that he made the decision to rush the ballroom." 

Pirro said Allen had a pump-action shotgun, a semi-automatic gun and at least three knives when he approached the security checkpoint in the hotel. 

"The Constitution and the laws of the United States permit us to register our views through our voices and our votes," Pirro said. "What they don't permit is making your views known through violence, especially violence directed at the President of the United States. That is anti-democratic at its core."

FBI director Kash Patel said agents were dispatched to Allen's home in California. He also said agents were dispatched to New London, Connecticut, to conduct further interviews during the process. 

"In less than 48 hours, you know almost every single thing we know," Patel said. "What we have not told you yet, we will tell you in short order."

Blanche criticized elected officials and members of the media for what he called contributions to the rhetoric that led to the Allen's alleged actions. 

"When you have media just being overly critical and calling the president horrible names for no reason and without proof it shouldn't surprise us that this type of rhetoric takes place," Blanche said. 

Blanche said law enforcement fired five shots responding to the attacker. He also said that authorities believe Allen fired a shot from the shotgun in his possession.

"As far as getting into exacting ballistics, um, I'm not going to do that today because it's still being looked at and finalized," Blanche said. 

Blanche also expressed support for Trump's planned White House ballroom. He said it would allow for a space in Washington, D.C., to host future events similar to the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. 

"Violence has no place in civic life," Blanche said. "It cannot and will not be used to disrupt democratic institutions or intimidate those to serve them and it certainly cannot continue to be used against the president of the United States."