In a recent revelation that has sent shockwaves through political circles, a former FBI agent, Gavin O’Blennis, was caught on camera discussing the agency's alleged tactics, including targeting American citizens and potential entrapment strategies. O’Blennis's claims, made to an undercover journalist, have ignited a fiery debate about the fairness of prosecutions and the existence of a double standard within the American justice system, particularly concerning former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

BREAKING: CIA Officer/Former FBI Boasts “Can Put Anyone in Jail…Set ’Em Up!” “We Call It a Nudge”

FBI “Did What We Wanted” with Alex Jones @RealAlexJones “Took His Money Away” “Chop His Legs Off”

Estimates 20 Undercover FBI Agents at J6, Works with Some of Them Now at CIA

FBI… pic.twitter.com/QxP20emKB5

— Sound Investigations (@SoundInvestig) April 9, 2024

Key Themes of Conversation

Disapproval of FBI and CIA Tactics

• Users express strong disapproval of the FBI and CIA, accusing them of setting people up and engaging in unethical practices.
• Demands for defunding these agencies emerge as a response to the perceived abuse of power and manipulation of the justice system.

Support and Criticism of Political Figures

• Discussion about Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) surfaces, with some users praising her for purportedly revealing the truth, while others criticize her actions.
• Allegations of political bias and agenda-setting within government institutions like the FBI and CIA prompt scrutiny of their role in targeting specific individuals.

Controversies Surrounding FISA and Prosecutions

• Anger erupts over efforts to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), viewed by some as a tool for unwarranted spying on Americans.
• The prosecution of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, coupled with claims of entrapment and unfair treatment, fuels discussions about the integrity of the justice system and potential political motivations behind prosecutions.

Analysis

Online discourse around the FBI official's admission delves into a myriad of conspiracy theories and suspicions surrounding the actions of intelligence agencies. A prevalent belief among some conservatives suggests a concerted effort by the "deep state" to undermine Trump and his supporters. This narrative often intertwines allegations of election fraud and accusations of biased prosecutions against conservative figures.

• Sentiment around the topics of “deep state” and “political opponents” took a hit as discussion of the undercover video increased.

The term "deep state" features prominently in discussions, with users expressing concerns about partisan agendas within government agencies and the perceived targeting of individuals based on their political affiliations. Criticism of media outlets and accusations of liberal bias contribute to the overarching sentiment of distrust towards mainstream institutions.

Moreover, conversations highlight broader societal issues, such as concerns about the influence of political correctness or "woke culture," and debates about gender issues and media integrity. Allegations of censorship and selective reporting further deepen divisions within the online discourse, reflecting broader societal polarization.

Conclusion

The admission by an FBI official has served as a catalyst for intense debates about justice, political bias, and the erosion of trust in institutions. The conversations reflect a deep-seated divide in ideologies, with accusations of unfair treatment and manipulation amplifying existing tensions within society. As discussions continue to unfold, the ramifications of these revelations on public trust and accountability remain at the forefront of national discourse.

Online discussion about No Labels and its decision not to run a candidate in the 2024 election has been largely overshadowed by conversations about the current administration and former President Trump. Most voters are talking about President Biden and his performance.

No Labels is hardly mentioned, suggesting its failure to run a candidate has no significant impact, or that the movement may not have a strong presence in the public consciousness. This could potentially indicate a lack of awareness or interest in third-party candidates. It could also reflect the current political climate, which appears to be heavily polarized between the Democrats and Republicans.

Although it’s not a large part of online discussion, some view the No Labels decision as a strategic move that could indirectly influence the election outcome. This, in turn, has sparked conversations about RFK Jr.’s potential to gain votes as a third-party candidate.

• In the last 30 days, Trump has led the presidential race with average support around 47%.
• Biden is slightly behind, averaging 44% support nationally, while RFK Jr. Is earning 9% in the last 30 days.

RFK Jr.

RFK Jr. is generating a mixed response from American voters. Some people seem to believe he could be a viable alternative to both the Democratic and Republican candidates. There is a perception that he could draw votes from both sides, particularly from those who are disillusioned with the current political climate.

There is some criticism of RFK Jr.'s candidacy, accusing him of spreading misinformation and being almost as volatile as Trump. Some also feel he made a poor VP selection and believe that is not strong enough to challenge the status quo.

Many voters are talking about RFK Jr.'s criticism of the Biden administration. This criticism, particularly his claim that Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump, is resonating with those critical of Biden's administration.

Some are suggesting RFK Jr. could potentially draw votes away from Biden, thus aiding a potential Trump candidacy. This argument is particularly prevalent among Democrats and Never-Trumpers who fear a repeat of the 2016 election when third-party candidates were perceived to have siphoned votes away from Hillary Clinton.

• RFK Jr.’s approval is hovering around 50%, although discussion about his candidacy is quite low compared to Trump and Biden.

Trump

Trump's supporters continue to show unyielding support, frequently using terms like "MAGA" and "Save America." They often blame Democrats for America's current issues and view Trump as a solution. They often express skepticism about the integrity of the election process, reflecting residual concerns from the 2020 election.

Critics express deep concerns about Trump’s leadership style and policies. They often refer to him as a conman, criticize his Truth Social media platform, and express worries about the erosion of democratic values under his leadership. His recent financial losses have also been a subject of mockery among his critics.

• Trump maintains a solid 50% approval percentage on the topic of his presidential candidacy.
• Discussion around his campaign is significantly higher than RFK Jr., but not quite as high as Biden.

Biden

Biden's candidacy is constantly causing polarized discussion. Many Americans criticize Biden – especially on immigration and border control. They say his administration is responsible for the influx of criminals and illegal immigrants which are hurting the country.

His recent actions have also been extremely polarizing regarding transgender rights and abortion. Conservative and moderate voters view him as being against traditional values.

Many liberals and Democrats defend Biden, arguing he is doing his job diligently and without fuss, focusing on his roles and responsibilities rather than engaging in political dramas.

Voters across the country blame Biden for America's current problems, accusing him of being unqualified and destroying the country. These critics often call for his impeachment, though they seldom detail specific reasons for this.

• With growing concerns about the economy and the border, Biden’s approval dipped to 43% during much of the last week.
• Discussion volume regarding his candidacy is higher than both Trump and RFK Jr., reaching a high of nearly 11,000 on April 4.

General Reactions to the 2024 Presidential Race

Many voters express dissatisfaction with the current state of the country under the Biden administration. They’re particularly vocal on the issues of crime rates, economic struggle, the border, and perceived government dishonesty.

There is also a prevalent theme of skepticism towards the integrity of the 2020 election results. Some assert the election was stolen and express desire for change in the upcoming election. There is distrust among many voters whether the 2024 election outcome will be trustworthy.

In the last several days, there’s been a lot of talk about potential complications of Biden's candidacy in Ohio. Some are expressing varying degrees of concern, criticism, and disbelief.

Overall, voters seem worried about the future of America's political landscape. Some say the country is facing an existential threat from either the Democrats, who they perceive as communists, or from Trump and his supporters, who they perceive as a threat to democracy.

Interestingly, the discourse also illustrates a widespread mistrust in mainstream media, with both sides accusing media outlets of spreading false information regarding the election.

American sentiment towards Ukraine appears to be generally positive among both Republicans and Democrats, based on MIG Reports data. Many individuals express a desire to provide Ukraine with aid and support, particularly in its conflict with Russia. Some see this as a matter of defending democracy and honoring those who served during the Cold War, while others view it as a strategic move to prevent further aggression from Russia.

However, there is a divergence in approval when it comes to funding Ukraine. Some argue against further financial support, citing reasons such as a belief that Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia, the need to prioritize domestic issues, and opposition to "forever wars."

Democratic Views

Democrat voters express a strong sentiment for supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Some emphasize Ukraine's role as a gateway to European countries and the need to support democracy. The mention of Cold War veterans also suggests a sentiment of historical responsibility. There's also a comparison to Israel, with some expressing that Ukraine needs aid more urgently. However, there are also concerns about the U.S. debt and the need to address domestic issues.

Republican Views

Among Republican voters, there are varying sentiments. Some highlight the need to stop funding wars and focus on domestic issues. There are concerns about the U.S. being involved in a proxy war with Russia. However, there's also acknowledgment of Ukraine's plight, with some urging for Congress to pass the aid bill. The connection with Israel also comes up, with some expressing that Israel should fight its own battles, implying that the same should apply to Ukraine.

Dynamic Response

Many people express increased support for Ukrainian funding when considering the potential consequences of inaction, such as the escalation of conflict and potential involvement of U.S. troops. This sentiment seems to be prevalent across both political parties, suggesting that the fear of a larger war outweighs party lines.

There's also a notable sentiment against funding Ukraine, with some arguing the U.S. should not involve itself in foreign conflicts, or that other issues, such as border security, should take precedence. These views appear to be more common among Republicans but are also present among Democrats.

In relation to the association of Ukrainian funding with a larger bill, such as border security, the analysis suggests that this could potentially decrease support among Democrats who may see it as a diversion of resources from a pressing international issue. Among Republicans, the sentiment is more mixed, with some favoring this approach as a pragmatic solution, and others viewing it as a dilution of national priorities.

The level of financial support, lack of oversight, and the type of aid (military vs. financial support for Ukrainian government) all appear to play a role in shaping sentiments towards funding Ukraine. Some express frustration over the amount of money given to Ukraine, suggesting that funds could be better utilized elsewhere. Others express concerns about a lack of oversight and accountability for how these funds are used.

There's also a divide over whether aid should be strictly military or if it should also support other aspects of the Ukrainian government. Some argue providing comprehensive support could help Ukraine more effectively resist Russian aggression, while others believe that aid should be limited to military support to avoid potential misuse of funds.

MIG Reports analysis indicates that inclusion of other issues that Americans care about, such as border security, does not potentially increase support for funding Ukraine.

The sentiment towards Ukraine is often compared with the sentiment towards Israel. Some individuals express frustration with the U.S.'s financial support for Israel, arguing that these funds would be better spent on aiding Ukraine. However, others argue that Israel has the right to defend itself, much like Ukraine.

While the sentiment towards Ukraine is generally positive, approval of funding is a more complex issue, influenced by a variety of factors including the amount of aid, its oversight, the type of aid, and the incorporation of other domestic issues. This may be indicative of general tacit support from Americans, who view Ukraine as an ally. However, without the desire to continue funding a cause which does not benefit the U.S. citizenry.

After Easter weekend erupted into debates over President Biden's Transgender Visibility Day declaration, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers kept the coals hot by vetoing a bill which would bar transgender athletes from women's sports.

Lacking a veto-proof majority in Wisconsin’s legislature, Republicans could only watch as Evers, flanked by transgender advocates, signed the veto Monday afternoon. MIG Reports analysis of discussions surrounding the Wisconsin Governor’s veto found both swift and lasting backlash, with accusations Evers is “eradicating women’s sports.”

What They’re Saying

While Evers condemned the bill, saying it, “threatens the safety and dignity of LGBTQ Wisconsinites,” many online believe Evers’ veto represents a real danger.

• Many mentioning Evers’ move against bill argue this is dangerous for biological women, since transgender women have physical advantages.
  
• The discourse directed at Evers goes on to accuse Evers of “eradicating female sports” and “compromising the safety of women and girls.”

A common assertion in the discourse suggests the bill does not just disregard women’s safety, but that Democrats like Evers are betraying women entirely.

• Those angered over the veto accuse Evers of not standing up for women's rights or call him a misogynist who ignores science.

Riley Gaines, the former NCAA swim star who has become a central advocate against transgenders in women’s athletics, channeled the frustration of many. She took to X (formerly Twitter) to blast the Wisconsin Governor:

BREAKING: I hate women and children

Fixed it for you https://t.co/xZGmOU2vco

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) April 2, 2024

Others focus on a larger flashpoint in American culture wars that have seeped into American schools — parents' rights. Many online question Evers’ beliefs and actions in relation to the rights of parents.

Evers sought to justify his veto on grounds of protecting mental health, writing, “This type of legislation, and the harmful rhetoric beget by pursuing it, harms LGBT Wisconsinites' and kids' mental health.”

But many believe Evers and trans advocates are fueling the mental health crisis plaguing American kids. They argue being transgender is a mental illness, a delusion, or an abuse of children.

Some argue that trans youth should be blocked from women’s sports altogether. A portion of voters suggest alternative solutions like creating separate competition brackets for transgender athletes.

By the Numbers

Since vetoing the legislature’s bill, Governor Evers’ online mentions skyrocketed while his approval nosedived. He quickly found himself facing a barrage of negative attacks with few positive reinforcements.

• Typically, Evers’ averages just 88 mentions a day. That changed after Monday, jumping to 2,383 direct mentions online following the veto.
• Relatively uncontroversial and gaining little attention online, Evers’ approval before the veto hovered at or near 48%. This quickly dropped to 44% the day of his veto, continuing to tumble to 39% on both Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
• Evers found little help from those who support keeping transgenders in women’s sports. Negative comments towards Evers outweighed support by a ratio of 8 to 1.

Looking Ahead

As America hurdles towards another intense election in November, MIG Reports analysis of Trump versus Biden in Wisconsin shows a statistical tie, with an average of 45% support for both Trump and Biden in the last 30 days.

Issues like transgender rights continue to present a nearly impossible balancing act for Democrats in purple states, threatening to tip the scales in Trump’s favor. On one hand, Democrats like Biden and Evers must cater to younger Democrats who grow increasingly progressive on issues like trans rights. On the other hand, they must combat Republican efforts to paint Democrats as the party of Manhattan and not Milwaukee.

Still, Democrats cannot wriggle out of the double bind they find themselves. They are increasingly facing a potential collapse in progressive voter turnout. On Tuesday, more than 48,000 people traveled to the polls in Wisconsin’s Democratic Primary to select “Uninstructed.” This showing took 8% of the vote share, in protest against Biden’s Israel-Hamas war policies. Fearing more discontent among already depressed young progressives, Democrats are forced to hand Republicans another political lightning rod like transgender issues.

On Good Friday, the Biden White House announced its plan to honor “Transgender Day of Visibility,” celebrating, “The extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans.” The announcement also proclaimed the day would fall on Easter Sunday, a move which many conservative Christians perceived as an affront to religious norms in America.

Many saw the announcement as an example of "wokeness" or progressive agendas gone awry. They argue overlapping a clearly political observance with important Christian holiday is an inappropriate politicization of religious tradition. Many also accused the administration of intentionally trying to bait Christians into outrage by disrespecting Easter.

Thinly Veiled Hostility Toward American Christians

Traditional Christians voiced strong opposition to Trans Visibility as an affront to their religious traditions and a challenge to the biological realities of gender. They argue the Biden administration is prioritizing secular, progressive values and gender ideology over Christian ones. Many Americans view the Transgender Day of Visibility, along with “Pride” month in June and “Transgender Day of Remembrance” in November, as an intentional way to disrupt traditional moral norms and the sanctity of family life.

Conservatives argue the administration’s choice to make a big deal of the day is purely part of a political agenda. They see government recognition as political encroachment of secular values upon their religious freedoms. This group feels the White House promoting progressive values and ignoring or suppressing Christian values indicates a certain hostility to American Christians.

• Over Easter weekend, discussion about “transgender rights” with mentions of Joe Biden spiked significantly to 1,200 from a normal baseline of almost zero.
• Sentiment toward Joe Biden regarding trans and LGBTQ issues remained steady.
• Sentiment toward Biden regarding religious issues dipped to 45% in the last week, recovering to 54% on Easter Sunday.

Many conservative and religious groups objected to the timing of Biden’s proclamation. They asserted it was a deliberate attempt to overshadow the significance of Easter. They believe the administration is prioritizing political correctness over religious traditions. Some even suggested the move was intended to further polarize the country, exacerbating the divide between traditional religious people and secular, progressive activists.

Evangelical Christians seem to be among the most vocal group to take offense. Many of them perceive this event as a slight or even a direct attack against their faith, questioning the "blasphemy" of the proclaimed Catholic Joe Biden.

Accusations of Political Pandering

Some also view Biden’s proclamation as a strategic attempt to pander to progressive and LGBTQ voters. These commenters claim the Biden administration is attempting to solidify its base among liberal and younger demographics who are more likely to support LGBTQ+ rights.

There are claims the timing of Biden’s announcement isn’t politically motivated as it likely alienates moderate and conservative voters who are uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of a religious holiday and a political statement. However, others insist this alienation is intentional and an attempt to force traditional and religious views out of the political square.

Progressive voters are more positive and supportive toward Transgender Day of Visibility. This is particularly true for those who identify as Democrats or liberals. This group notes the importance of recognizing the rights and identities of transgender people. They see the announcement as a step towards inclusivity and recognition.

Liberals also tend to criticize more conservative voters, accusing them of hatred or bigotry towards trans people. Progressive Christians also claim that modern "inclusion and equity” is in line with the teachings of Jesus. Some even express a belief that Jesus himself would not mind sharing the day.

Former president Trump’s appearance at Officer Jonathan Diller’s wake, an NYC police officer killed in the line of duty, telegraphed support for normal Americans. At the same time, Biden’s New York fundraiser packed with media and political elites communicated the sense of disdain many middle-class Americans feel from the ruling class.

While Trump's attendance at the wake was generally seen as a positive gesture, the same cannot be said for Biden's fundraiser. Many American voters argue Biden should be more focused on running the country, rather than raising money for his campaign.

Overall public sentiment leans more positively towards Trump's attendance at Jonathan Diller’s wake than towards Biden's fundraiser. However, these sentiments are somewhat influenced by existing political biases among partisans.

Most Americans see Trump's actions as personal and direct, appealing to individuals on an emotional level. But they view Biden's exclusive fundraiser as prioritizing the wealthy and influential.

• Swing state voter sentiment toward Trump spiked to 57% regarding police and crime with the announcement of his appearance at Jonathan Diller’s wake.
• Biden’s sentiment in swing states on the topic of fundraising dipped slightly to 48% on the day of the event.

Comparing Average American Views of Trump vs Biden

The political and wealthy classes seem to generally divide along political lines in their views of Trump’s recent actions compared to Biden’s. However, for working-class citizens and middle America, the lines do not seem as partisan.

Most average Americans view Biden as ensconced in the ruling class and he could possibly be losing cachet even among blue-collar Democrats. MIG Reports analysis of online conversations reveals a contrast in how everyday Americans view Trump compared to Biden.

How Americans Responded to Trump

Many voters express admiration for Trump's public appearance in support of law enforcement and Jonathan Diller’s family. They perceive this as a gesture of his commitment to “Back the Blue” and mingle with the people. This resonates both with his voter base and working-class voters of all political affiliations.

Trump's attendance at the wake is seen by most people as a gesture of respect and solidarity with police officers. Many highlighted the absence of similar gestures from the Biden administration, inferring Trump's actions will further endear him to normal Americans.

His generous donation to pay off the mortgage of NYPD Officer Diller's widow has also been lauded as an act of kindness and compassion. This emphasizes the contrast of Biden fundraising for himself from the wealthy on the same night.

However, critics have expressed skepticism, arguing that Trump's actions are politically motivated and aimed at gaining public sympathy. Some skeptics suggest the appearance was a cynical distraction from his ongoing legal battles.

There are also related discussions about how leftist critics and the media discuss Trump and his recent good week. Many voters express a view that Trump will always receive criticism from entertainment and news, even with a positive gesture like supporting a slain police office.

Middle-Class Criticism of Biden

Biden's fundraising event has generated severe negativity among many American voters, much like his recent border visit contrasted with Trump's. This majority accuses him of prioritizing fundraising and power over addressing national issues.

Many express concerns about the use of taxpayer money, suggesting Biden should be focusing on more pressing issues like border security and the economy. A lot of people question the timing of the fundraiser, suggesting it distracts from Biden’s image issues as the mainstream media praises a “glitzy” and “star-studded” event.

The fawning media coverage has also caused many middle-class and blue-collar voters to criticize perceived elitism at a dinner design to flaunt wealth and power. This group argues Biden is alienating average Americans in favor of costal elites.

Staunch supporters and leftists, however, praised Biden's commitment to raising funds for his party. They view preventing Trump from a 2024 win as imperative and advocate for Biden’s social justice and woke agenda.

This group views the fundraiser as a critical step towards maintaining a Democratic majority in Congress. They commend his commitment to addressing issues like climate change, healthcare, and economic recovery.

Online discussion analysis by MIG Reports finds widespread frustration and blame towards Democrats and specific politicians, such as Speaker Johnson, for the opioid crisis and fentanyl deaths. It appears much of the spirited discussion is among those who align with right-leaning ideologies.

Many voters link illegal immigration to crime, including violent crimes and especially drug-related offenses. There is a prevalent belief among this group that cartels and illegal immigrants pose a significant threat to American safety and security.

Overall, Americans link the opioid crisis to border control policies. Some suggest Republicans are responsible for not funding border control adequately, thereby enabling the smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids into the country. There's also criticism of the Democrats for the perception that they’re allowing and even encouraging illegal criminals and opioids to enter the country.

• Border security continues to be one of the top issues for most Americans, regardless of political leanings.
• Sentiment mostly remains below 50% with severe negativity directed towards the Biden administration
• Opioid discussion is lower than general border topics but is consistently linked to border security.

Most Blame Falls on Politicians and the Cartels

Most voters tend to blame politicians on the other side of the aisle – Democrats accusing Republicans and vice versa. Both political parties receive criticism for not taking enough action to curb the crisis, although the Biden administration gets most of the current criticism.

There's also significant blame placed on the cartels and illegal immigrants themselves. Many voters focus on the role of Mexico and China in contributing to the opioid crisis. They believe the Mexican government, especially President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, isn't doing enough to combat drug cartels that smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. China is also accused of being a source of fentanyl that gets moved across the U.S. border.

Multiple users link the opioid epidemic to human trafficking, implying the same cartels responsible for drug trafficking are likely involved in human trafficking. There are also allegations that NGOs at the southern border are facilitating illegal immigration, indirectly aiding drug trafficking.

Overall, most concerned voters argue the Biden administration's border policies enable drug cartels to have free reign.

Conservatives Are Highly Critical of the Border and Opioids

Right leaning voters often blame the Obama’s open borders policy and the perceived continuation of this policy under Biden. They attribute the opioid crisis and especially fentanyl deaths to uncontrolled cartel access. Many among this group believe if Donald Trump doesn't win in 2024, this will perpetuate and worsen the situation.

Conservatives and some moderates express anger over what they view as wasteful government spending, particularly on policies supporting immigrants. They blame the Democrats for prioritizing funding towards illegal immigrants over addressing the opioid crisis.

This group also blames open borders for many drug-related and, in their view, preventable deaths. They hold Democrats responsible for pushing open borders, and they demand stronger border control measures.

Certain voters blame Republican politicians like Speaker Johnson and Republicans in Congress for not taking decisive action against on the border and failing to support more immigration legislation and crackdowns. This, they believe, contributes to the influx of drugs into the country. There also appears to be a sentiment that the issue is being used as a “talking point” for political gain.

Liberal Voters Call for Funding and Healthcare Solutions

Some vocal liberals challenge the prevailing narrative that stricter border control is the primary solution to the opioid crisis. They argue most fentanyl enters the country through legal ports of entry and is brought in by American citizens. Some also criticize Republicans for blocking funding that could increase border staff and improve drug detection technology.

There is a sentiment that the healthcare system and doctors are contributing to the opioid crisis by refusing to prescribe opioids. There are criticisms of the healthcare system blaming it for penalizing doctors for prescribing painkillers and making opioids difficult to access for those in genuine need.

Some support new laws to curb the opioid crisis, and sometimes legalization of drugs, indicating a belief in legislative solutions to public health problems. There is also a call for bipartisan cooperation to address the crisis, framing it as a moral issue rather than a political one.

Former president Trump’s merger deal to make the social media platform Truth Social public through a SPAC, combined with his reduced bail have his supporters celebrating. Stocks for the merged entity debuted with a stock price near $50, giving it a market value of approximately $6.8 billion, and trades under the ticker symbol "DJT."

As expected, reactions are divided along political lines with right-leaning Trump supporters praising Trump and criticizing New York AG Letitia James. Left leaning and “never Trump” Republican voters are less enthusiastic about these developments. Depending on a person’s political leanings, it seems the events confirm preconceived notions about whether Trump is receiving preferential treatment or political targeting.

MAGA Voters Love to See Trump Win

Conservative and moderate voters who view Trump as a target of a politicized justice system are celebrating the merger of Truth Social and DWAC as a triumph. They view it as a lifeline for his apparently dubious financial situation. Conservatives tend to view Truth Social as a beacon of free speech and a platform that offered Trump a space when no other platform would. The approval of the merger is seen as a potential $3 billion net worth increase for Trump, which conservatives perceive as a major victory and a source of vindication.

Right leaning discourse also lauds the reduction of Trump's bail amount, which was cut from $464 million to $175 million. They view this as another win for Trump, anticipating that the event will lead to an outpouring of "liberal tears."

Many Americans who are not vehemently opposed to Trump view his many legal woes as evidence of a political vendetta. They argue Trump's properties were assessed and taxed by the city and any discrepancy in their valuation for tax and loan purposes is not fraudulent. They also point out that the lenders were repaid and none of them lodged complaints against Trump. This group believes the legal challenges Trump is facing are attempts to financially drain him. Trump's recent bail reduction is seen as a justified action in the face of outrageous and ridiculous rulings.

• In recent days, with news of his bail reduction, Trump’s approval regarding legal cases jumped to 48%.
• Average sentiment in the last two weeks has hovered in the mid 40% range.

Liberals Claim Trump is Getting Preferential Treatment

More left-leaning voters are expressing frustration and disappointment with the approval of Truth Social's merger and the reduction of Trump's bail amount. They view the merger as a dangerous development that could give Trump control over a major stock, potentially allowing him to manipulate the narrative and spread disinformation. They also perceive the reduction of his bail as a sign of preferential treatment and continue to express hopes for his assets to be seized due to his ongoing legal battles.

This group paints Trump as a wealthy individual exploiting the system at the expense of the average worker, who ends up paying higher taxes and loan interests as a result. The recent move by Letitia James on Trump's Seven Springs property to start satisfying the $464 million judgment against him is seen as a step towards making him pay his fair share.

Liberals tend to voice concerns about Trump's financial track record, pointing to the ongoing investigations led by Letitia James. They argue that Trump has manipulated property values to reduce his tax liability and hope he will face severe penalties, including the potential seizure of his assets. Some even suggest that Trump Tower could be repurposed as a low-rent shelter for the homeless.

Voter Sentiment Toward AG Letitia James

Moderate and conservative voters who oppose the perception of a politicized judicial system express a belief that Letitia James and others are pursuing a political vendetta against Donald Trump. They see her attempts to investigate his financial dealings as politically motivated, rather than a legitimate effort to uphold the law.

There are claims that James' actions against Trump are an attempt to thwart his 2024 campaign and, therefore, amount to election interference. These voters sometimes compare the potential seizing of Trump's assets by James to actions taken in authoritarian regimes like Venezuela or Cuba. This implies a belief that such actions are an attack on private property and the rule of law.

Some voters are asking for a special counsel to investigate the alleged corruption and election interference by James and Judge Engoron.

Many Americans, regardless of political views, fear this Trump case could be harmful to business in New York and could potentially lead to a dangerous precedent.

Liberals and anti-Trumpers view James positively, applauding her for pursuing legal action against Trump and for her commitment to the principle that no one is above the law. They support her efforts to hold Trump accountable for alleged financial irregularities.

Discussions about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) among Democrat voters in the last few days seem to be increasingly polarizing. After her recent comments calling for the U.S. to cease supporting Israel and to stop the “genocide” being perpetrated on Gaza, many voters are unhappy. AOC is one among several Democrat politicians to draw criticism from voters over the Israel-Palestine conflict — an issue that MIG Reports data suggests will be important for the Democratic Party in this year's election.

Younger and more progressive Democrats tend to align more closely with AOC than more moderate voters. However, even pro-Palestine Democrats sometimes voice disapproval that AOC’s language is not strong enough in condemning Israel.

More traditional and moderate Democrat voters, however, have significant grievances with Ocasio-Cortez's rhetoric, emphasizing the growing divide within the Party.

• In the last seven days, overall support for AOC has averaged 43% with a low of 42%.
• Her approval on the topic of Palestine plummeted to 37% and support regarding Israel reached a low of 38%.

Top Issues Decreasing AOC’s Support

There are conflicting opinions among Democrats which seem to be decreasing support for Ocasio-Cortez. According to MIG Reports data, the most recurring criticisms include:

Her Use of “Genocide”

AOC's use of the term "genocide" to describe Israel's actions has drawn significant criticism. Critics argue the term is inappropriate and exaggerates the situation, which could potentially inflame tensions. This group often accuses her of exaggerating the situation in Gaza by calling it a genocide. They say that while the situation is horrific, it does not meet the definition of genocide.

Failing to Condemn Hamas

Some voters are taking issue with what they perceive as AOC's failure to sufficiently condemn Hamas and other terrorist organizations. They argue her focus on Israel's actions overlooks atrocities committed by Hamas. These critics also criticize AOC for not calling for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Ignoring Israel's Right to Self-Defense

Critics argue AOC downplays or dismisses Israel's right to self-defense against attacks. They suggest she should make clearer distinctions between the Israeli government's actions and the rights of Israeli citizens.

Accusation of Spreading Misinformation

There are also frequent assertions that AOC engages in spreading misinformation about the situation in Gaza – particularly regarding the amount of aid going into Gaza and the cause of famine in the region. They argue that more aid is going into Gaza now than before the conflict and any so-called famine is caused by Hamas hijacking aid for its own use.

They argue that Israel is not starving Gazans, citing evidence that food enters Gaza daily and suggesting that the situation could be improved if Egypt opened its crossings. They also argue that AOC should call for the surrender of Hamas to end the war.

Perception of anti-Israel bias

AOC also receives frequent accusations of having an anti-Israel bias in her comments and actions, which has alienated more moderate Democrat voters who support Israel.

More General Criticisms of Rep Ocasio-Cortez

There is recurring commentary on AOC’s understanding of complex issues. Some Democrats question her understanding of historical and geopolitical issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict and its underlying causes. They argue that she simplifies the issues and does not have a deep understanding of history, law, or international politics.

Similarly, some critics, often referring to her in derogatory terms, question AOC's general intelligence. They argue she is unqualified for her position and incapable of understanding complicated issues, which could decrease her credibility and support among voters.

Many moderate Democrats are also wary of AOC's political leanings, branding her as a socialist or even a communist. This is seen by some as too radical and a departure from the traditional principles of the party.