☕️ GLOBALISMO ☙ Friday, May 9, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

New Pope elected at record speed—who is he?; Texas arrests Dem officials in vote fraud crackdown; Trump taps surprise DC prosecutor; Weaponization probe gets new bulldog at the helm.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Friday! Your roundup today includes: news cycle dominated by surprisingly quick election of new Pope — but who is he?; Texas arrests a passel of election officials for voter fraud signaling a sea change in prosecutorial courage; shots fired across the classic Democrat GOTV machine; Trump makes surprising appointment as interim US Attorney in the key DC office; and a new bulldog takes office heading the new Weaponization investigations task force.

🪖 C&C ARMY POST 🪖

I’m still hotel-blogging today, please pardon the abbreviated roundup. Yesterday at the conference, I delivered a ‘fireside chat’ with Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. No actual fireplaces were harmed:

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

⛪⛪⛪

In what Catholics must think was a modern miracle, yesterday a collected group of cardinals in Rome convened in secret session and, in a historically short single day, and on the eightieth anniversary of World War II’s Victory, elected a record-setting new Pope. The deliberations were barely enough time to tour St. Peter’s Cathedral on rickshaw and buy a few memorial rosaries. Following the announcement of the new Holy Father’s name, conspiracy theorists worldwide were also elated, finally able to resume full speed ahead. Yesterday afternoon, the New York Times ran the story headlined, “Pope Leo XIV, the First American Pontiff, Took a Global Route to the Top Post.”

The one question everyone wanted answered —especially Catholics— but which corporate media studiously avoided, was whether Robert Francis Prevost, 69, now Pope Leo XIV, is a liberal. In a papal context, the word “liberal” hits differently. When Catholics say “liberal” or “conservative,” they’re talking theology rather than tax policy. But there’s a wide and awkward Venn diagram overlap between progressive doctrine and progressive politics.

Whatever else he might be, Pope Leo is clearly no conservative reformer, dashing dreams (or fantasies) of any Vatican sea change. Politically, he’s a mixed bag. His Twitter feed echoes the tired mantras for immigration, racial equity, and climate— no surprises. He has often criticized President Trump’s deportation policies and JD Vance’s theological musings.

But on sexual ethics, Pope Leo leans more traditional. He’s rejected gender ideology in stark terms: “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist,” he once said while opposing a Peruvian initiative to inject gender theory into elementary schools.

Still, Pope Leo was a close ally of his hyper-liberal predecessor, Pope Francis.

The Times was predictably pleased. The Grey Lady gushed that Pope Leo “stands in contrast to the energized conservative Catholicism in his home country, and has pushed back forcefully against the militant vision of Christian power that the Trump administration has elevated.” Yet in the same breath, it also called him a “balanced alternative” between “those who wanted to continue Pope Francis’ inclusive but at times provocative agenda, and those who preferred to return to a more conservative path focused on doctrinal purity.”

But is he balanced? According to the Guardian, in 2020 and 2021, then-Bishop Prevost encouraged the faithful to keep their social distance and to get the covid jabs (which, admittedly, was the Catholic Church’s party line at the time). Also in 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s drug-addled death, Leo tweeted, “We need to hear more from leaders in the Church, to reject racism and seek justice.”

Last week, conservative commentator Steve Bannon called it, telling Piers Morgan that Prevost was “one of the most progressive dark horses” on the Vatican’s short list, who was “closest to Francis ideologically.”

As far as I can tell, the new Pontiff remains a theological Rorschach test. Each faction sees what it wants to see. Time will tell who’s right, but there is a very curious historical backstory. Pope Prevost’s decision to take the name Leo XIV was highly unusual, symbolically loaded, and almost certainly not accidental. The name resurrects the legacy of the last Pope Leo, Leo the XIII, who held office between 1878 and 1903.

Leo XIII was a lion of doctrine who, in fiery words, condemned socialism, communism, Freemasonry, and creeping modernism. So the papal name “Leo” is suffused with anti-marxist meaning.

The new Pope’s immediate predecessor, Pope Francis, rejected history and tradition and picked a new, unused name, signaling he planned to shift the Church forward toward revolutionary new doctrine. And that was just what happened.

Could Prevost’s choice of ‘Leo’ signal a return to tradition?

Undisputably, Pope Leo XIV’s choice of name was anything but random. By reaching back over 120 years to revive the mantle of Leo XIII, he’s invited inevitable comparisons. Whether the name signals conservative continuity, ironic contradiction, or clever ambiguity remains to be seen. At best, the name Leo —“lion” in Latin— evokes strength, clarity, and global vision; at worst, it’s a theological Rorschach blot, inviting Catholics to find whatever lion they’d hoped for in the inky spots on the card.

One thing is certain: Pope Leo’s election made history. He is now the first American-born pontiff. But like the rest of Leo’s story, even that is somewhat ambiguous. Though born in Chicago, he has spent most of his adult life abroad, most recently serving in Peru for two decades as bishop, then Cardinal.

Yesterday, following the announcement, President Trump graciously tweeted, "Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope. It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope. What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!"

In sum, it was mostly a great day for Catholics, who are just happy to have a healthy new Bishop of Rome who isn’t dying in slow motion. Prevost’s selection mostly bemuses non-Catholics, who —if they thought about it at all— wondered whether he’ll drive the Popemobile himself or upgrade to something even more climate-friendly or high tech.

🔥🔥🔥

More arrests! On Wednesday, the Texas Tribune ran a story headlined, “Frio County public officials among six indicted after elections investigation, Paxton says.” The sub-headline explained, “The county judge, two city council members and others are accused of vote harvesting.”

As part of a widening election integrity investigation by Texas’s terrific Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Frio ‘County judge’ (like a county mayor), the former supervisor of elections, two Pearsall City Council members, a school board member, and a person who helped “harvest votes” were each charged and arrested under a post-pandemic law.

All were Democrats.

Paxton brought the charges under Texas' Senate Bill 1, passed in 2021, which makes it a third-degree felony for a person to knowingly provide or offer “vote harvesting services” for compensation (with certain exceptions). Violators can spend up to 10 years in prison and be fined up to $10,000 for offering banned services. Activists immediately challenged the law, arguing it suppresses minority voters, who apparently can’t vote by themselves like everyone else.

The case remains in litigation, but Paxon got the federal appellate court to lift a stay.

The search warrants stated that the arrested officials either knowingly provided “vote harvesting services” for money, or, in the case of the former elections administrator, tried to conceal and destroy evidence. The crimes involved collecting and submitting batches of absentee ballots. Several defendants allegedly used Cash App to pay harvesters.

The vote harvesting operation apparently targeted elderly and disabled people. One woman allegedly smuggled ballots under her shirt and switched vehicles to avoid detection. Local district DA Audrey Louis said, “Violating the privacy or voting rights of our elderly or disabled community members will be met with zero tolerance.”

It sounds like the Democrats were harvesting votes from nursing homes.

“The people of Texas deserve fair and honest elections, not backroom deals and political insiders rigging the system,” Paxton said. “Elected officials who think they can cheat to stay in power will be held accountable. No one is above the law.”

🔥 The arrests might have only included unknown office-holders in an obscure Texas county, but they nevertheless signaled a cacophonous revolution in election integrity.

For decades, there’s been a quiet, bipartisan taboo against criminally prosecuting elected officials for election-related misconduct except where the evidence was overwhelming and the political winds absolutely demanded it. This de facto immunity wasn’t law— it was more of an unspoken professional courtesy, a kind of “mutually assured discretion” pact among the political classes.

Especially in blue counties or places where the Democrat machine controls local governments, that professional courtesy often extended to overlooking or soft-pedaling systemic problems like ballot trafficking, signature mismatches, or suspicious surges in absentee returns from nursing homes.

But by charging five current and former elected Democrats —including a sitting county judge and two current city council members— Paxton shattered that political protective barrier. This wasn’t just a slap on the wrist for an overzealous staffer. It is a full-on assault on a local political machine. Prosecuting one officeholder is newsworthy enough. But five? That’s a warning shot with laser sights.

For any historical context, you’d have to go all the way back to Tammany Hall-style crackdowns, or isolated federal corruption busts like Operation Greylord (a 1980s judicial corruption in Illinois), to find comparable boldness. But even those examples barely touched electioneering. They focused instead on more obvious crimes, like bribes, kickbacks, and perjury.

Paxton’s latest move is historic, not just for who he arrested, but for what it signals: a willingness to confront entrenched electoral abuse, even by putting officeholders in handcuffs. It’s a legal line-crossing that could signal the beginning of a whole new era— one in which voter fraud isn’t just an endless talking point, but finally becomes a jail-worthy offense.

If Paxton’s prosecutions stick —and especially if they lead to criminal convictions— expect a seismic chill across the classic Democratic vote-harvesting model ahead of the 2026 midterms. Political operatives in other states may be reluctant to stretch the rules very far, since nursing home sweeps, ballot chaperoning, and so-called “assistance” services could carry real criminal risk.

That fear could bottleneck the informal “ground game” operations that quietly tilt close elections. Paxton’s boldness in Texas may embolden other attorneys general in other red states, who might start targeting similar practices that have long been considered untouchable. And Democrats may be forced to rely more heavily on traditional GOTV methods, while Republicans gain leverage not through legislation, but prosecution-driven deterrence.

If repeated nationally, this could meaningfully narrow the margin in swing districts— especially in Sun Belt and Rust Belt states, where razor-thin outcomes have become the norm. It’s incredible progress, and should be immensely encouraging to those of us who’ve been waiting like Godot for any real accountability for voting fraud.

👩‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👩‍⚖️

Yesterday, ABC ran a guffaw-worthy story headlined, “Trump appoints Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as top prosecutor in DC.” It was classic Trump; part political theater, part middle finger to the establishment, and part Machiavellian chess.

From a purely legal perspective, it’s eyebrow-raising, to say the least. “Judge” Pirro, a Fox news commentator, hasn’t tried a case in decades. She was temporarily benched by Fox for inflammatory remarks about the 2020 elections, and was named as a defendant in the Dominion voting machine defamation case.

Trump appointed Judge Pirro after his preferred choice, Ed Martin, couldn’t clear the Senate confirmation gauntlet. Martin recently lost support among key Senate Republicans, which made his nomination politically dead on arrival. Specifically, Senator Thom Tillis, a weak Republican Senate Judiciary Committee member crucial to advancing Martin’s nomination out of committee, publicly spurned Martin since he’d defended several January 6th defendants and was prominent in the “stop the steal” moment.

Trump had to act, because a critical deadline was looming on May 20th. Under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), if the President does not confirm a new U.S. Attorney within 120 days of the previous interim appointment, then the D.C. Chief Judge —here, the notorious Judge Boasberg— could have appointed a U.S. Attorney to serve indefinitely until a permanent one was confirmed by the Senate.

By naming Pirro as interim U.S. Attorney, Trump temporarily bypassed the confirmation process. Under 28 U.S.C. § 546(c), interim appointments can serve 120 days. So he now has three months to confirm a permanent replacement.

Without any disrespect to Judge Pirro, Trump’s interim appointment of a Fox news opinion anchor instead of a, well, more traditional candidate, was a political hand-grenade, a way to punish Senator Tillis for refusing to advance Martin and focus public attention on Tillis’ stubborn refusal to cooperate.

If Trump had picked a milquetoast compromise candidate for Martin’s replacement, it would have signaled weakness. Instead, he chose someone even more controversial. It was classic brinksmanship— he’s forcing the GOP Senate to either go along or look weak and uncooperative by rejecting Pirro too.

🔥 Yesterday, as the second prong poking the Establishment in the eyeball, Trump shifted Ed Martin to, get this, three new jobs: Director of the “Weaponization Working Group,” Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Presidential Pardon Attorney.

If Martin is given real investigative power, it could become a full-blown counter-offensive within DOJ. We’re only guessing, but by announcing that Martin will head the “Weaponization Working Group,” President Trump is effectively creating an internal DOJ task force to audit, expose, and possibly prosecute the prosecutors— i.e., the very same agencies and officials who went after him and his allies during Biden’s term.

The odds are good that Martin will be given real investigative power. The “Weaponization Working Group” was established by Attorney General Bondi on her first day in office in February. Bondi’s task force was responding to Executive Order 14147, titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” which directed agency heads to identify and take ‘appropriate action’ against past politically motivated misconduct by intelligence, justice, or regulatory agencies.

In turn, EO 14147 was signed by President Trump on his first day in office.

In other words, the Weaponization task force was one of both President Trump’s and AG Bondi’s first priorities. Before yesterday, it wasn’t clear whether they would follow through with anything substantive in terms of investigations and accountability. But, combined with bulldog Martin’s new assignments, it begins to look like they are loading the prosecutorial cannon, which should make the Establishment extremely nervous.

By blocking Martin from becoming U.S. Attorney for D.C., limp Senate Republicans and the Establishment may have thought they dodged a firebrand. Instead, their stubborness landed Ed an even more influential role with no confirmation, no term limit, and arguably more reach: heading a DOJ-wide internal investigations unit with a shovel for digging up deep-state skeletons.

They may soon wish they’d just confirmed Ed Martin as DC’s U.S. Attorney.

Have a fabulous Friday! Tomorrow is my final day of hotel blogging, but without any conference events, so I can catch up on some of the week’s terrific news in your Weekend Edition roundup. Don’t miss it.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com