Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,
Virginia used to be a model of fair redistricting. That reputation is now gone.
On Tuesday, Virginia Democrats passed a redistricting plan that transforms one of the most fairly apportioned states in the country into one of the most blatantly gerrymandered.
Keep in mind that Virginia only narrowly backed Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in 2024 by roughly five points. Virginia is, in every way, a battleground state. Yet under the new map, nearly half the state’s voters effectively lose their voice. The new lines snake from densely packed, heavily Democratic suburbs deep into rural territory. There is nothing democratic about it.
And the endgame is obvious. If these maps survive a court challenge, Democrats will have a much easier path to stacking Congress against President Donald Trump — setting up yet another sham impeachment attempt over nothing.
Democrats aren’t even hiding what they’re doing anymore. Why would they? Republicans have spent years playing nice while the left plays to win, and they play dirty.
That has to stop. And there may be a remarkable way to stop it right now.
Chad R. Mizelle — former chief of staff to the U.S. Attorney General, former acting general counsel of DHS, former chief of staff at DHS, and former associate counsel to President Trump — has floated a counter-move.
He’s calling it a form of “re-Districting,” and it could nuke the Democrats’ new gerrymandered map.
Here’s the history. In 1790, both Virginia and Maryland ceded territory to create the new national capital. Virginia’s portion — what is now Arlington County and the city of Alexandria — remained part of the District of Columbia until 1847, when Congress returned it to Virginia. The reason? To protect slavery. The District had abolished it, and Virginia slaveholders didn’t want to give up their slaves. Democrats love to talk about the legacy of slavery to justify tearing down statues, renaming buildings, etc. — to be consistent, they should give that piece of land back to the District.
The legal questions over this retrocession have never gone away.
President William Howard Taft and others argued that it was unconstitutional and pushed to reclaim the land for D.C. However, the Supreme Court has never definitively settled the matter.
Mizelle’s proposal is for Trump to issue an executive order declaring that slavery-motivated retrocession unconstitutional.
That order wouldn’t need to resolve everything on its own — it would immediately trigger litigation and force federal courts to finally answer the question: Do Arlington and Alexandria legally belong to Virginia or to the District of Columbia?
The legal footing here is rock solid, but the cultural argument is just as strong.
Obviously, Arlington and Alexandria are among the bluest jurisdictions in the country, packed with federal employees and D.C.-oriented professionals whose political and economic lives are already aligned with the capital.
As Mizelle notes, those residents would “feel right at home” as part of the District. Their removal from Virginia’s congressional map would substantially shift the partisan balance across the rest of the commonwealth, restoring a voice to the rural and small-town voters currently being drowned out.
This isn’t a mirror-image power grab. It targets a historically tainted decision, seeks legitimate judicial clarity, and corrects a gerrymander that disenfranchises nearly half a state. There’s more detailed legal analysis available over at The American Capital Project, and the constitutional case for returning that slice of Virginia to D.C. is solid.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Republicans have to stop playing nice. This is exactly the kind of response that shows Democrats the era of one-sided hardball is over.
Do it, President Trump. Do it.
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/22/2026 - 17:20Perhaps indicative of the fragility of the current rebound - as Software stocks have recently ripped higher for 8 straight days - SaaS stocks are all deeply in the red after-hours as ServiceNow - the potential poster-child for AI disruption - cut its margin outlook amid lackluster results, sending shares reeling.
At first glance, it was a good print - the provider of business task management software posted first-quarter adjusted earnings of 97 cents a share, which was in-line with Wall Street estimates, according to FactSet.
Revenue for the quarter rose 22% to $3.77 billion, marginally above analyst expectations of $3.75 billion.
Additionally, ServiceNow said that subscription revenue will increase about 23% to $3.82 billion in Q2, the company said (marginally above the consensus of $3.75 billion).
But it wasn't all pretty...
But, it appears Wall Street was hoping for more - with investors already worried about the disruptive impact of AI on software stocks - as NOW shares sank 13% in extended trading...
...after the software company also cut its full-year forecast for subscription adjusted gross margin...
The software giant now expects a 31.5% margin on its full-year adjusted income from operations, whereas ServiceNow (NOW) was previously targeting a 32% margin.
The company's forecast for a 26.5% adjusted operating margin in the second quarter is also meaningfully below the 30.1% Wall Street consensus
But have no fear, the future looks incredibly rosy!!??
The lukewarm result was blamed on the Mideast conflict:
In Q1 2026, subscription revenues growth saw an approximately 75 basis point headwind from delayed closings of several large on-premise deals in the Middle East, due to the ongoing conflict in the region. This outlook reflects a prudent assessment of those geopolitical headwinds on deal timing for the remainder of FY 2026.
The margin narrative overshadowed ServiceNow's rosier view of its AI prospects, as CEO Bill McDermott said he expects $1.5 billion in AI revenue for 2026, up from a $1 billion projection before. McDermott told MarketWatch that the new outlook could be conservative.
But NOW's weakness was already impacting the rest of the SaaS space as pre-war worries re-blossomed...
Among other software stocks:
Salesforce -5.2%,
Atlassian -6.6%,
HubSpot -5.5%,
Workday -4.6%,
MongoDB -1.9%,
Snowflake -2.3%,
Cloudflare -1.2%,
Microsoft -1.5%
Not pretty...
“We believe it will be difficult for results or management commentary to alleviate concerns around medium-term AI disruption,” wrote Brad Zelnick, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, in a note ahead of earnings.
Even more difficult now...
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/22/2026 - 17:03California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday released a largely unredacted court filing packed with internal emails that allege Amazon strong-armed brands like Levi Strauss and Hanes into pressuring Walmart, Target and other rivals to raise prices - all to protect Amazon’s $2.66 trillion empire.
The 19-page memorandum, filed in support of a preliminary injunction in San Francisco Superior Court, paints a picture of coordinated price elevation that Bonta calls “naked” and “per se illegal” under California’s Cartwright Act. The evidence builds on documents the Guardian first reported on last week, but goes significantly further by naming major brands and quoting verbatim email chains that had remained heavily redacted until Monday.
"You don’t see price fixing so explicitly and egregiously in writing like this," Bonta told reporters, framing the documents as proof that Amazon used its market dominance to eliminate real competition across the internet.
The case, The People of the State of California v. Amazon.com Inc. (CGC-22-601826), dates back to September 2022. California accuses Amazon of running what it calls a "Retail Price Fixing Scheme" that relies on threats of lost Buy Box placement, suppressed search visibility and outright order suspensions - tools the state says gave the company "overwhelming bargaining leverage" over vendors.
The emails tell the story in real time.
In one exchange detailed in the filing, Amazon flagged "styles of concern" to Levi’s - specifically Easy Khaki Classic pants listed cheaper at Walmart. The next day, Levi’s replied that it had "partnered with" Walmart to raise the price back to the desired $29.99 ladder. Amazon then matched the higher price.
Similar patterns appear with Hanes (pressuring Target and Walmart), Allergan eye drops (Walmart raised prices after Amazon suppressed the listing), pet treats coordinated with Chewy, and furniture sold through Home Depot. Vendors repeatedly acted as intermediaries, contacting rival retailers at Amazon’s direction to "fix" or "resolve" lower prices elsewhere.
The filing also describes Amazon’s internal enforcement mechanisms: "CRaP" (Can’t Realize a Profit) flags, Guaranteed Minimum Margin demands, and instructions to discuss pricing by phone to avoid a paper trail.
According to the filing, Amazon's conduct harms consumers by creating an invisible price floor across major online retailers. "The company is price fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires - beyond what is fair," Bonta said in a statement.
Amazon just got caught running a secret price manipulation operation with Levi's, Home Depot, Walmart, and many more.
Every time you "comparison shopped" online, you were looking at prices that were already rigged.
Here's what happened:
Amazon would monitor prices on Walmart,… pic.twitter.com/sCmIGY1cL4
Amazon pushed back sharply, calling the release "a transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case" and noting that the evidence is years old. "Amazon is consistently identified as America’s lowest-priced online retailer, and we’re proud of the low prices customers find when shopping in our store," a spokesperson said. "Amazon looks forward to responding in court at the appropriate time."
The timing is notable. Bonta filed the preliminary injunction request in February; a hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2026. Full trial begins January 19, 2027 - one of at least three major Amazon antitrust trials now teed up for next year, including the FTC’s separate monopoly case (joined by 18 states and the DOJ) that also features allegations of algorithmic pricing tactics known internally as "Project Nessie."
The Federal Trade Commission and 17 states sued Amazon in 2023, accusing the company of illegally maintaining a monopoly in online retail by squeezing merchants who sell on its site and prioritizing its own products. Those actions resulted in “artificially higher prices,” according to the government’s suit.
In September, the F.T.C. agreed to settle a lawsuit against Amazon that accused the company of making it difficult for consumers to cancel its Prime subscription service. Under the terms of the settlement, Amazon agreed to pay up to $2.5 billion — including $1 billion in penalties and additional payouts to consumers. It did not admit or deny wrongdoing. -NYT
Legal experts say the explicit emails could make this one of the more straightforward price-fixing cases in recent Big Tech history - though Amazon is expected to argue that vendors set their own prices and that its practices ultimately benefit consumers through lower prices and greater selection.
For now, the unredacted documents give regulators, lawmakers and the public a rare, granular look inside the mechanics of modern retail pricing power. Bonta’s office framed the release as a transparency win amid a national affordability crunch. "Amid a crisis of affordability," the attorney general said, "Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices."
Tyler Durden Wed, 04/22/2026 - 17:00