Outright racism has long been a major plank of the Republican Party. But it appears that the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away a constitutional right of millions of Americansa move that will disproportionately affect Black and brown womenhas emboldened GOP officials to drop whatever lingering apprehension they had about going full white supremacist and just go for it.

At a Saturday rally held by Donald Trumpi.e., a guy who kicked off his first bid for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and whose entire brand is racismRep. Mary Miller said into the microphone: President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday. Then she clapped her hands as the audience cheered.

After an onslaught of condemnation, Millers spokesman insisted to the Associated Press that the congresswoman from Illinois had misread her remarks and meant to say the ruling was a victory for the right to life. Yet that explanation would be a lot more believable if Miller didnt have a history of embracing the views of people who are famously about white life. At a Moms for America event last year, the lawmaker told the crowd that Hitler was right on one thing. He said, Whoever has the youth has the future. (She later issued a statement claiming she was sincerely sorry for any harm her words caused.) So youll have to forgive us if we find it hard to believe this was simply a slip of the tongue.

Whats more, Miller undoubtedly knew she was speaking before a group of people who would be receptive to such a point of view, given that Trump was headlining the event. While examples of the ex-president being an unabashed racist could fill several books (or Twitter timelines), a small representative sampling includes starting an entire movement around the lie that the countrys first Black presidentwasnt born here; calling for theexecutionof five Black and Latino teenagers; telling four congresswomen of color to go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came, despite the fact that three quarters of those women came from the U.S.; banningtravelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.; pardoning a guy who the Justice Department saidoversaw theworst pattern of racial profilingby a law enforcement agency in U.S. history; throwing atotal shit fitover the removal of a statue of a Confederate general who thought Black people should be white peoples property; and reportedly calling white supremacists my people. As Ahmed Baba, a columnist for The Independent, tweeted on Saturday, Whether it was a slip or not, the audience heard white life and didnt flinch. They applauded.

Meanwhile, Miller wasnt the only Republican lawmaker to put racism on full display this weekend. Also on Saturday, Republican Texas senator John Cornynin the view of manycalled for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling deeming racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. After Barack Obama tweeted that the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologuesattacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans, Cornyn quote-tweeted him and wrote: Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. (Cornyn has since suggested he was merely noting the importance of long-standing precedent being overturned.)

Read the original post:

Republican Officials Spent the Weekend Going Full White Supremacist - Vanity Fair

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., joined from left by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., speaks at a news conference on Dec. 7, 2021.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

At least nine people close to Donald Trump reportedly requested preemptive pardons following Jan. 6.

Former Trump aides named six GOP lawmakers while testifying before the Jan. 6 panel this month.

A former aide also said Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani asked the then-president for pardons.

At least six Republican members of Congress requested preemptive pardons from former President Donald Trump in the wake of the Capitol insurrection, according to testimony from former Trump aides last Thursday.

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, riot has hosted six public hearings so far revealing their findings, which also included public damning testimony from former staffers in the Trump administration.

GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene were among the six GOP lawmakers also asked Trump to pardon them for their efforts in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

During a surprise hearing on Tuesday, June 28, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, also testified that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were among those who asked the former president for a preemptive pardon after the pro-Trump mob descended upon the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Hutchinson also previously testified that former Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio had discussed pardons with the White House but never asked for one.

On Sunday, Jordan responded to his mention during the hearing, accusing the January 6 House panel of "misrepresenting" a video clip of him saying "the ultimate date of significance is Jan. 6 in a presidential election in determining the winner."

"This committee, I think the country understands, is purely partisan," Jordan said. "And they're frankly not paying much attention to what's being said."

Here are all of the people who sought a pardon from Trump following the Capitol riot, per testimony:

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Hutchinson, who served as a top aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows at the time of the insurrection, testified on Tuesday that her former boss asked the president for a preemptive pardon in the wake of the Capitol siege.

Story continues

Rudy Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In the surprise public hearing on Tuesday, Hutchinson also alleged that Giuliani asked Trump for a pardon over the January 6 attack.

Media outlets previously reported that Giuliani had also requested a preemptive pardon ahead of the siege in December 2020 related to a criminal probe into whether the former New York City mayor violated foreign lobbying laws through his business dealings in Ukraine.

Giuliani did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona

Rep. Andy Biggs.US House of Representatives

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified in a previous video deposition that Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona was among six GOP lawmakers who requested a pardon from Trump for any connection to the January 6 Capitol attack.

The select committee in May requested that Biggs testify about any communications he'd had with Trump, Trump administration officials, and Stop the Steal rally organizers regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The lawmaker refused to cooperate with the probe and accused the committee of engaging in a "baseless witch hunt."

Following Hutchinson's public allegation that he sought a presidential pardon for January 6, Biggs denied the accusation in a Twitter statement and said the former aide was "mistaken" in her testimony. He accused the panel of "deceptively" editing Hutchinson's words to "make it appear as if I personally asked her" for the pardon.

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama.AP Photo/Vasha Hunt

In the days following the insurrection, Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama requested a blanket pardon not only for himself, but for all 146 GOP members of Congress who objected to the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 win, per the January 6 committee.

In an email to Molly Michaels, Trump's former White House executive assistant, Brooks asked for "all purpose pardons" for the lawmakers. The January 6 panel earlier this month shared an image of the email with a subject line reading "Pardons."

In the correspondence, Brooks specifically said he was writing on behalf of Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, as well.

In a statement to Insider last week, Brooks confirmed the legitimacy of the email and said he had made the request because there was "concern" that Democrats would prosecute and jail Republicans following January 6.

"Fortunately, with time passage, more rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was unnecessary after all," he said.

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida at the White House on May 8, 2020.Anna Moneymaker-Pool/Getty Images

Former Trump aides also named Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida as one of the lawmakers who sought a preemptive pardon related to the Capitol siege and efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election.

Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said Gaetz's pardon request covered "from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things," asking for a pardon similar to the one received by President Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal.

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson also testified that Gaetz's requests for a pardon dated back as early as December 2020 weeks before a mob of Trump supporters laid siege to the US Capitol.

Following the aides' testimony, Gaetz did not deny having asked for a pardon. Instead, he attacked the select committee as "an unconstitutional political sideshow" in a Twitter statement.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, listens during a news conference at the Capitol Building on December 07, 2021 in Washington, DC.Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

After former Trump aides testified last Thursday that Gohmert sought a pardon from Trump, the Texas lawmaker denied doing so and accused the January 6 committee of spreading "propaganda."

"I have never sought a pardon for myself and anybody who says otherwise is a liar and possibly a lot worse," Gohmert tweeted last Friday.

Ahead of the Capitol riot in January 2021, GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert attempted to overturn the 2020 election by filing a suit maintaining that former Vice President Mike Pence, not US voters, had the power to decide the presidency.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from GeorgiaTom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide, testified that she heard that Greene had asked for a pardon from the White House Counsel's Office following the Capitol riot.

In response, Greene tweeted a clip of Hutchinson's testimony, writing "Saying 'I heard' means you don't know."

"Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th Witch Hunt Committee is all about," she wrote in the tweet.

Greene, a staunch Trump ally, has been vocal about disputed claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, though in July 2021 she was among those who rejected the conspiracy theory that Trump will be reinstated as president in August.

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania outside the Capitol on December 3, 2020.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, who serves on the January 6 House panel, said during a hearing that Perry had requested a pardon for his role in seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Perry, along with several other Republican lawmakers, has refused to testify before the committee.

According to the January 6 committee, the Pennsylvania Republican played a significant role in the then-president's efforts to stay in power by introducing Trump to sympathetic DOJ official Jeffrey Clark and pushing then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to set in motion a plan to keep Trump in power.

In response, to the allegation, Perry tweeted: "The notion that I ever sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress is an absolute, shameless, and soulless lie."

Lawyer John Eastman

John Eastman testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 4, 2013.Charles Dharapak/AP

Conservative lawyer John Eastman, who pushed a plan to overturn the 2020 election results, asked Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to put him on a pardon list following the insurrection, the House Select Committee revealed earlier this month.

"I've decided I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works," Eastman wrote in an email to Giuliani. The committee read the email out loud during a June 16 hearing.

When Eastman was deposed by the committee, he ultimately pleaded the Fifth Amendment 100 times, the panel said.

Eastman did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more here:

Here are all the people who sought preemptive pardons from Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, per January 6 committee witnesses - Yahoo News

A video showing supporters of former President Donald Trump calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States has gone viral on social media.

The comments came after Justice Clarence Thomas said in a concurring opinion to the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last week that the court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in rulings like Obergefell.

In the video, Jason Selvig, a member of the comedy duo the Good Liars, speaks to a man and woman wearing Trump apparel. It is not clear where the video was taken but the caption states that Selvig spoke to the pair over the weekend. The footage has so far been viewed over 400,000 times and shows Selvig trying to find out their opinions on the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that secured the right to abortion in the United States.

After the woman said she was against abortion, Selvig asked: "There's been some talk with some people saying we need to protect life, sperm is the seed of life. Would you be in favor of all males who are not married getting vasectomies?"

The man responded "no" to the question, while the woman said: "to each their own."

The video then skipped to when Selvig highlighted Thomas' comments about Obergefell v. Hodges. Selvig asked in the video: "Clarence Thomas, said yesterday, maybe we should take a look at the same-sex marriage ruling. Is that something you think we should look at as well?"

The pair said they did not believe that same-sex couples should be able to get married. Selvig then confirmed whether they would like to see this decision reversed, and the pair agreed. When asked why the female Trump supporter said: "[It is] just how I was brought up and how I believe...It is to each their own, but everyone should have respect in their own biblical sense."

"So, to each their own, but you don't want gay people getting married, and you don't want women choosing what to do with their body?" Selvig said, to which the woman replied "right."

Newsweek reached out to the Good Liars for comment.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Supporters Call on Gay Marriage to Be Overturned Next - Newsweek

Musician Jack White blasted former President Donald Trump on Friday, blaming him directly for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

In a lengthy Instagram post, White called Trump an "unchecked egomaniac" who took the US down "the worst, regressive path to the point of an insurrection in our capital building threatening the lives of the vice president and congress members, and in turn made our govt. an embarrassment to the entire world."

He also lashed out at Trump for appointing three conservative justices to the Supreme Court during his single-term presidency.

"The two party system by proxy puts this clown in a position to pick THREE conservative supreme court justices, THREE," White wrote. "And now these three judges, completely disinterested and unaffected by what the actual majority wants and needs, have just taken the country back to the 1970's to start all over again fighting for women's rights."

White's remarks come after the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The ruling was feared since May when Politico published a leaked draft opinion in which Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito called the decision "egregiously wrong from the start."

Abortion, however, remained legal in the United States until the court handed down the final verdict. But the draft itself was enough to put reproductive rights activists and doctors who perform abortions on edge.

By overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has put the question of the legality of abortion in the hands of individual state legislatures and has essentially made it illegal in at least 22 states to obtain an abortion. There are expected to be added restrictions in several others.

"Well trump, you took the country backwards 50 years," White said. "I hope your dad is smiling and waving down on you from heaven, while his other hand holds a record of all the abortions you secretly paid for behind closed doors."

Others have also credited Trump directly for Roe v. Wade's demise, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

"Thank you President Trump," Greene said. "God bless you. This got overturned today because of your great work as president, and we want him back."

White with his remarks joins a slew of other prominent individuals who've blasted the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Read the original here:

Jack White blames Donald Trump for the overturn of Roe v. Wade - Business Insider

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Now Playing

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

UP NEXT

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

What Some Women Currently Face on Abortion Access06:16

Abortion Access Rights in Peril08:19

The Aftermath Of Roe V Wade Supreme Court Decision01:50

The Fourth January Sixth Committee Hearing11:10

The Newest Group to Qualify for the Covid Vaccine06:09

The Case Building Against Donald Trump10:57

Remembering and Celebrating Juneteenth08:14

Displaced by Force The Alarmingly Increasing Number04:12

January 6 Committee Hearings: Brad Raffensperger06:48

Analyzing Week Two of The January six Committee Hearings07:40

Ginni Thomas Invited By 1/6 Committee To Testify05:26

January 6th Committee Focuses On Mike Pence's Role06:47

Unmasked: Revealing the Identities of Hate Group Members05:55

Symone Sanders is joined by a political panel to discuss the January 6th hearings and the new bombshell testimony by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson about the actions of former President Donald Trump on the day of the insurrection.June 28, 2022

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Now Playing

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

UP NEXT

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

Read this article:

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection - MSNBC

Members of the Houses Jan. 6 committee are apparently split over whether to refer Donald Trump to the Justice Department, even though many if not all of the committee members appear to have concluded that the former president engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

Its absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing what a number of people around him were doing that they knew it was unlawful, Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said last weekend. They did it anyway. (Trump of course denies he has done anything wrong.)

There doesnt seem to be much doubt among the committee members about whether Trump committed federal crimes.

Indeed, the committee made that case in federal court recently, when it argued in a filing that it has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The evidence was enough to convince U.S. District Judge David Carter, who wrote that the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

Referring to Trumps legal henchman John Eastman as part of a civil lawsuit seeking to block the House committee from obtaining big lie-related emails sent from and to Eastman, Carter wrote: Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history.

Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower it was a coup in search of a legal theory, the judge continued. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nations government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.

Despite all of this, members of the select committee probing the Capitol insurrection are reportedly worried that actually making a criminal referral might not be prudent. According to The New York Times, some members worry that even a largely symbolic referral would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Departments expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.

You may have seen this movie before. Again and again during Trumps campaign, his presidency and now his post-presidency weve seen responsible figures determine that something must be done about Trumps behavior. And then, inevitably, they decide to let someone else do it.

Theyve rationalized their timidity as political prudence, but the result has been a pandemic of buck-passing.

In the 2016 campaign, Trumps Republican rivals mostly refused to take him on until it was too late, all the while hoping that someone else would do the hard work for them. After his election, congressional Republicans fell into line. They rationalized that appeasement as a matter of tactical savvy. I told myself I gotta have a relationship with this guy to help him get his mind right, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told political reporter Tim Alberta.

And we saw the same pattern with Roberts Mueller probe, which documented Trumps obstruction of justice at great length but declined to recommend either impeachment or criminal indictment.

To the end, though, Mueller hoped that someone else would take action. During congressional hearings, he was asked point-blank by lawmakers, "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

And Mueller responded with an unequivocal "yes." He also specifically affirmed that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office.

But that never happened.

Like other establishment figures who were rolled over by Trump, Mueller was held hostage by his excessive faith in guardrails.

In the end, as Andrew Weissmann, a member of Muellers team, wrote in his inside account, Where Law Ends, Mueller was so worried about overstepping his role that he opted instead to issue a mealy-mouthed report that documented all the ways Trump had obstructed justice but refused to do much of anything about it.

Like other establishment figures who were rolled over by Trump, Mueller was held hostage by his excessive faith in guardrails, institutional integrity and the virtues of staying in ones lane.

They brought cucumber sandwiches to a gunfight, and the outcome was never in doubt.

Even after Jan. 6, members of Trumps own party continued to engage in wish-casting. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared: "There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.

"A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name," he said. "These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

But McConnell voted against a Senate impeachment conviction, because, he argued, Congress had no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.

Once again, he held out hope somebody else might hold Trump accountable. President Trump, insisted McConnell, is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet yet. But that was more than a year ago, and no one else has taken action.

So now it is up the select committee and the Justice Department, which both seem to be caught in a cycle of hand-wringing. They worry about the taint of a referral and agonize over fears that Trump and the GOP will discredit any investigation as a partisan witch hunt.

But heres a reality check: No matter what they do, no matter how cautiously they act, Trump will react with bad faith and demagoguery.

The Justice Department could hire an avatar of respectability and integrity to handle the prosecution (see: Robert Mueller) and it wouldnt matter. Whatever it does, Trump will let loose the dogs of disinformation, deceit and obstruction.

Knowing it cant control the reaction, maybe the select committee should just do the right thing and finally, finally end the cycle of timidity, self-deterrence and buck-passing.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump should be charged for Jan 6. Don't let the House pass the buck. - MSNBC

Mentions of Donald Trump have been rare at the first few trials for people charged with storming the US Capitol, but that has changed: the latest Capitol riot defendant to go on trial is blaming his actions on the former president and his false claims about a stolen election.

Dustin Byron Thompson, an Ohio man charged with stealing a coat rack from the Capitol, doesnt deny that he joined the mob on 6 January 2021. But his lawyer vowed Tuesday to show that Trump abused his power to authorize the attack.

Describing Trump as a man without scruples or integrity, defense attorney Samuel Shamansky said the former president engaged in a sinister plot to encourage Thompson and other supporters to do his dirty work.

Its Donald Trump himself spewing the lies and using his position to authorize this assault, Shamansky told jurors Tuesday during the trials opening statements.Justice department prosecutor Jennifer Rozzoni said Thompson knew he was breaking the law that day.

He chose to be a part of the mayhem and chaos, she said.

Thompsons lawyer sought subpoenas to call Trump and Rudolph Giuliani as witnesses at his trial this week. A judge rejected that request but ruled that jurors can hear recordings of speeches that Trump and Giuliani delivered at a rally before the riot.

Thompsons jury trial is the third among hundreds of Capitol riot prosecutions. The first two ended with jurors convicting both defendants on all counts with which they were charged.

In a February court filing, Shamansky said he wanted to argue at trial that Thompson was acting at the direction of Trump and his various conspirators. The lawyer asked to subpoena others from Trumps inner circle, including former White House strategist Steve Bannon, former White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and former Trump lawyers John Eastman and Sidney Powell.

Prosecutors said Thompson cant show that Trump or Giuliani had the authority to empower him to break the law. They also noted that video of the rally speeches perfectly captures the tone, delivery and context of the statements to the extent they are marginally relevant to proof of Thompsons intent on 6 January.

Thompsons lawyer argued that Trump would testify that he and others orchestrated a carefully crafted plot to call into question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. Shamansky claimed that Giuliani incited rioters by encouraging them to engage in trial by combat and that Trump provoked the mob by saying that if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore.

Shamansky said Thompson, who lost his job during the pandemic, became an avid consumer of the conspiracy theories and lies about a stolen election.This is the garbage that Dustin Thompson is listening to day after day after day, Shamansky said. He goes down this rabbit hole. He listens to this echo chamber. And he acts accordingly.

US district Judge Reggie Walton ruled in March that any in-person testimony by Trump or Giuliani could confuse and mislead jurors.

More than 770 people have been charged with federal crimes arising from 6 January. Over 250 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Thompson is the fifth person to be tried on riot-related charges.

Thompson has a co-defendant, Robert Lyon, who pleaded guilty to riot-related charges in March.

Thompson, then 36, and Lyon, then 27, drove from Columbus, Ohio, to Silver Spring, Maryland, stayed overnight at a hotel and then took an Uber ride into Washington DC on the morning of 6 January. After Donald Trumps speech, Thompson and Lyon headed over to the Capitol.

Thompson was wearing a Trump 2020 winter hat and a bulletproof vest when he entered the Capitol and went to the Senate parliamentarians office, where he stole two bottles of liquor and a coat rack worth up to $500, according to prosecutors.

Thompson is charged with six counts: obstructing Congress joint session to certify the electoral college vote, theft of government property, entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.

Lyon pleaded guilty to theft of government property and disorderly conduct. Both counts are misdemeanors punishable by a maximum of one year imprisonment. Walton is scheduled to sentence Lyon on 3 June.

Read more:

Capitol riot defendant blames actions on Trump and false election claims - The Guardian

Donald Trump has suggested that he is perhaps the most honest human being ever created.

The former POTUS naturally didnt hold back when speaking of his character, prompting laughter from his followers.

At a rally in Selma, NC on Saturday the former president defended himself from the multiple investigations probing his tax affairs and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

You know, youve been investigated years and years, millions and millions of pages of documents, they found nothing,' Mr. Trump said, supposedly quoting private remarks from a friend. You are the cleanest on Earth when you think about it.'

He continued: I think Im the most honest human being, perhaps, that God ever created. As laughter broke out from his supporters, Mr. Trump added: Perhaps.

His comments come hot on the heels of prosecutors in New York asking a court to hold Mr. Trump in contempt, claiming he is refusing to comply with an order to turn over documentsin her probe ofhis companys business dealings.

New York Attorney General Letitia James also requested that Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron fine the former president $10,000 for each day he allegedly fails to respect the ruling.

Trump was ordered by a judge in February to comply with subpoenas for documents, but James office says that rather than meet the March 31 deadline, he instead raised new objections.

The ship has long since sailed on Mr. Trumps ability to raise any such objections, AG lawyers said in papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court Thursday.

Mr. Trumps purported response violates the courts order; it is not full compliance or any degree of compliance, but simply more delay and obfuscation, the filing alleges. Mr. Trump should now be held in civil contempt and fined in an amount sufficient to coerce his compliance with the courts order and compensate [The Office of the Attorney General] for its fees and costs associated with this motion.

In a statement, James said the judges order for Trump to comply with her offices subpoena and hand over relevant documents had been crystal clear.

Instead of obeying a court order, Mr. Trump is trying to evade it, she said. We are seeking the courts immediate intervention because no one is above the law.

Trumps lawyer Alina Habba said, We are prepared to adamantly oppose the frivolous and baseless motion filed by the Attorney Generals office today.

Our client has consistently complied with the many discovery requests served by the Attorney Generals office over the years.

The former president also issued a lengthy statement, blasting James probe as a witch hunt and accusing her of serving as an operative for the Democrat Party in a political prosecution.

This Democrat prosecutorial misconduct began the second I came down the escalator in Trump Tower, and has continued in an attempt to silence a President who is leading in every single poll, Donald Trump said. Never before has this happened to another President, and it is an absolute violation of my civil rights.

Originally posted here:

Donald Trump says he is 'perhaps the most honest human' ever

Former US president Donald Trump celebrated his 75th birthday on Monday and the event was a low-key affair. Trump marked his 75th birthday with a dinner at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Donald Trump Jr, the son of former US president, took to his Instagram account to share some photos of the birthday party. The guests included Donald Jr.s girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle, former NFL star Herschel Walker, Indiana congressman Jim Banks and Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert.

The most notable absentee was Donald Trump's wife and former First Lady, Melania Trump.

Ex-wife Ivana Trump once said in an interview that "Donald hates his birthdays", and a source also told People magazine that Melania "keeps her own schedule and leads her own life" away from her husband.

The absence of Melania has once again sparked the divorce rumors between the couple but writer Kristyn Burtt said that it is wrong to say that Melania has decided to part ways with Donald Trump.

She said: "She did that at the start of his administration when she and son Barron remained in New York City so he could finish out the school year before they moved to Washington, D.C. The couple has very different hobbies and seems to prefer their independent activities, but no one should read too much into her absence. This shouldnt be seen as a sign that there is trouble in their marriage."

Notably, the only family members who were present during Donald Trump's 75th birthday celebration were Donald Jr. and his girlfriend. Daughter Ivanka Trump was also not present at the event.

Continue reading here:

Melania Trump to divorce former US president Donald Trump ...

I expected to discuss all sorts of things with political scientists in Chicago last week, but Ill be honest: When it came to current politics, people were mostly talking about the 2024 presidential nominations especially the Republican one. And folks I spoke with were split right down the middle: About half thought that former President Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, and half threw up their hands and said they had no idea what would happen.

Im in that second group.

The argument that Trump has the nominationlocked up is pretty straightforward. No, we dont know for sure that hell be running in 2024, but he certainly is running for 2024 right now. That is, hes doing all the things that candidates for president do holding rallies, campaigning,raising moneyand, in his own fashion, putting together a policy platform. Sure, the platform begins and ends with complaining that people are unfair to Donald Trump, but thats pretty much all he did as presidentanyway.

Trump, the case continues, has strong support from primary votersand is liked by almost all of them. Thats usually a winning combination. Yes, a significant group of party actors, including many elected officials, appear to oppose him at least in theory. But only a very small subset of those who tell reporters off the record that Trump is a disaster for the party are willing to say sopublicly. Theres no reason to think that theyllbe any better at coordinating against him than they were in 2016, or that theyll be any better at convincing Republican voters to follow their lead.

Thats not all. In 2016, Trumps big vulnerability was that he had no apparent commitment to the normal Republican policy agenda. That shouldnt be a problem for him after four years in the White House. The first time around, Christian conservatives were skeptical; now, theyre among his strongest supporters. The most notable difference he had with Republican orthodoxy while in the White House was on foreign policy, and in 2024 a lot more party actors are on his side and few voters care about itanyway.

So why wouldnt he win?

I cant speak for everyonewho took thisposition. But for me, its less one big thing than many, many small ones. To begin with: I was wrong about 2016, and while I thinkI understand what happened, Id hesitatebefore making confident predictions aboutRepublican nomination politics again.

Beyond that? Ill note that while Republican voters by all accounts like Trump, thats not actually saying that much; most voters like politicians from their own party once they get to know them. Theres just no way to know how strong their attachment is to Trump how strong any voters attachment is to any politician until its put to the test. Well learn a little more about this when primaries resume in coming weeks. Should the candidates Trump endorsed do badly, its possible that the fear of opposing him will dissipate.

Then theres Trump himself. Yes, he certainly seems to want to be president again. But the idea that hes invincible among Republicans is far from proven. His 2016 nomination was a narrow one, aided by all sorts of odd events includinga fair amount of luck. He also has an electoral record now, and its not exactly an impressive one; after all, he lost re-election, and Republicans lost the House (in 2018) and the Senate (in 2020) while he was in office. His tantrum over losing the presidency and his false claims about fraud have widely been credited for the loss of two Senate seats in Georgia. Republicans may trust Trump more on policy than they once did, but they should have even less confidence that hell be a team player now. That could mean more opposition from party actors than last time.

That leaves the question of whether voters would listen if party actors tried to oppose Trump. They certainly didnt in 2016. Would it be different this time? It might depend on which party actors; if Fox News hosts and talk radio turned against Trump (or, perhaps, just strongly supported some other candidate) I could imagine it mattering.

And thats without getting into the possibility that Trumps various legal entanglements catch up to him. Or that hes less interested in being president again than he is in extracting money from Republican donors, a process that might be disrupted if he formally declared a run for office. Right now the nomination looks extremely valuable, given President Joe Bidens low approval ratings. Butthat could change, and if so Trump might shy away from the risk of a worse loss than he had in 2020.

Besides, were still almost two years from the first caucus or primary. At this point in the 1992 election cycle, incumbent president George H.W. Bush was so overwhelmingly popular that most high-profile Democrats passed on the race; by the time of the New Hampshire primary, Bush was so unpopular that a fringe candidate took 37% of the vote against him.

None of this is to say that Trump wont be the nominee. Its just a case for uncertainty. Perhaps Trumps triumph against all odds (and most expert opinion) in 2016 really does mean that the party is his as long as he wants it to be. Or perhaps it means that the party,the process or both are just a lot less predictable than I and others once believed. Which is true? Sorry. I have no idea.

Go here to see the original:

Is Donald Trump a Lock for the 2024 Nomination? - Bloomberg

Donald Trump Jr. has suggested that New York subway cameras were intentionally disabled for political reasons to prevent a mass shooting from being recorded.

The eldest son of former President Donald Trump made the remarks on Twitter Wednesday, referring to New York Mayor Eric Adams' admission that cameras were not working when a shooter opened fire on commuters on Tuesday. Trump Jr.'s comments are the latest in a string of tweets accusing law enforcement of bending to politics as they responded to the shooting.

Following the shooting, reports emerged that security cameras at Sunset Park's 36th Street station, the scene of the attack, were not working and did not capture the incident. Adams confirmed to WCBS that there was "some form of malfunction with the camera system," which he said was under review.

The shooting presented a significant challenge for Adams, a Democrat, who has prioritized public safety in the nation's largest city, particularly on its public transit system.

"Why do the security cameras never seem to work when the reality of the crime isn't good for the leftist narrative???" Trump Jr. said on Twitter.

Police on Wednesday arrested suspected shooter Frank James, who faces terrorism charges for the incident that left 10 people wounded.

Leading up to the shooting, James had posted videos to YouTube predicting a "civil war" between races. He also said that white people viewed Black people as being rightfully slaves. James in a video also criticized Adams, saying the mayor had contributed to his mental health problems and he had emerged from a facility with "more issues."

Trump Jr. on Wednesday retweeted a tweet from a writer for conservative blog RedState referencing James' videos saying "the media won't care a bit that he was motivated by left-wing talking points."

In another tweet, Trump Jr. suggested the attack wasn't described as "terror" because "the description wasn't good for the narrative."

He also took aim at the FBI, which was criticized by the former president and his allies for its investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia.

"Great work NYPD," wrote Trump Jr. "Despite the constant attacks from the leftist leaders of New York you guys still get it done... unlike the FBI leadership who seem far more interested in creating crimes and letting the actual bad guys go."

Twitter users responded to Trump Jr.'s tweet suggesting politics were behind the malfunctioning subway cameras by pointing to recently revealed text messages showing he sought to block certification of the 2020 election. Another Twitter user posted video of speeches given by Trump Jr. and his father before a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in 2020.

Another Twitter user pointed to Donald Trump's ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein was famously found dead in his New York jail cell and his death has been labeled a suicide.

However, conspiracy theories have continued to circulate that he was murdered by a powerful figure worried about potentially compromising information held by Epstein, who faced charges for running a sex trafficking operation.

A big driver behind the conspiracy theories was the two malfunctioning cameras outside his cell.

Newsweek has reached out to Adams' office for comment.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Jr. Blames Failed Security Cameras on 'Leftist Narrative' - Newsweek

The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justices investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.

With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Bidens election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.

Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while theres growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Bidens win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trumps corrupt intent a necessary element to convict him probably requires more evidence and time.

In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold all January 6 perpetrators, at any level accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this assault on our democracy, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.

But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.

Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.

We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same, panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to do your job so we can do ours.

About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.

Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Bidens election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.

When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation, the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.

DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nations history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence and the most defendants, he added.

Bromwich added that people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.

The departments investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.

Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation and why charges have not been filed against Trump have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.

Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump more likely than not broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.

Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history, Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.

Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a criminal conspiracy to block Congress from certifying Bidens win.

On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme reportedly spearheaded by Trumps ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.

Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 Save America rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.

We won this election, and we won it by a landslide, Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. You dont concede, when theres theft involved, he said, urging the large crowd to fight like hell, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.

A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a circus of partisanship. And Budowich attacked Judge Carters ruling as absurd and baseless, noting that Carter was a Clinton-appointed judge in California.

Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck, he said.

On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent. Citing Carters ruling that Trump more likely than not broke the law, Ayer said that the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.

Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.

Garlands between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political, Aftergut said.

Theres nothing easy about the position Garlands in, Aftergut added. The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than youd require in any other case.

Ayer added: Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted, a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJs credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law.

There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.

Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts, the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.

That seems to fit with Garlands approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.

And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.

DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.

Garland, McQuade added, is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.

Ultimately, McQuade said that Garlands biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someones mind, but it is not impossible.

Follow this link:

Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-president - The Guardian

Donald Trumps upcoming Texas two-step will give him the chance to tout his Lone Star endorsements for the May 24 GOP state primary runoffs.

Trumps visit, however, is more personal.

Still the most influential voice in the Republican Party, the former president has an eye toward 2024, when he could make another run for the White House. And like his previous presidential runs, Texas would play a critical role.

This is perceived as a very strong base for him and he needs to keep the wires alive to tap into that Texas energy for him, said Bill Miller, an Austin-based Republican consultant and lobbyist. If the hard core here in some way should say, Yeah, I really like him, but ..., thats not what he wants. Hes got to keep that but right out of the conversation.

On May 9, Trump is scheduled to headline a Dallas dinner to raise money for Republican congressional candidates. The National Republican Congressional Committee began rounding up donors for that about a month ago.

Trump also has announced an all-day rally in Austin for May 14. Its part of his American Freedom Tour, a series of campaign-style events that seem designed to keep his profile high and to generate income.

Tickets to the Dallas dinner are treated as campaign contributions, but tickets for the American Freedom Tour event are not campaign donations, which suggests that proceeds go to the organizers and speakers.

Trump will likely use both events to tout his Texas endorsements. Trump-backed candidates are part of five GOP runoffs, most notably Attorney General Ken Paxton, whos running for a third term against Land Commissioner George P. Bush.

Despite the stakes, Trump has more than Texas runoffs on his mind.

He says he loves Texas. The Lone Star State has helped propel his political career. For his presidential bids, Trump had the help of prolific fundraisers like Dallas businessman Roy Bailey, who served as co-chairman of Trumps national finance committee. Dallas businessman Tommy Hicks Jr., an early Trump supporter, is now co-chairman of the Republican National Committee. Bailey said more money came out of Texas for Trump than any other state.

In 2020, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was Trumps Texas campaign chairman. And Paxton filed the ill-fated and critics say ill-advised lawsuit to overturn election results in key battleground states.

Most of Trumps Texas rallies have been well-attended spectacles and a celebration of his movement. Where else will you find a woman draped in a dress decorated with photos of Trump?

If he runs for president in 2024, Trump needs Texas Republicans to maintain their energetic support for him, as well as the continued doling of campaign cash.

Thats why the May visit wont be his last trip to Texas, particularly if he plans to stay on the national political scene.

Meanwhile, other Republicans, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, will continue to position themselves as potential 2024 presidential hopefuls.

Then theres Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who this year wants to beat Democratic challenger Beto ORourke by 10 or more percentage points to help propel him as a possible 2024 candidate for president or vice president.

DeSantis and Abbott have been dueling each other on the most provocative new law or public policy. The Florida governor recently signed the Parental Rights in Education law, which prohibits instruction related to gender identity or sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade. The law, which critics have dubbed dont say gay legislation, would possibly restrict such instruction for older kids, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Last week Abbott made a bold move of his own. He announced that Texas officials would begin busing migrants to the steps of the U.S. Capitol and inspecting vehicles driven in from Mexico. He called the move an unprecedented response to illegal immigration.

Abbotts latest move escalates his clash with President Joe Biden over how to handle illegal immigration. The governor has sent thousands of state police and Texas National Guard soldiers to the border to arrest migrants on trespassing charges. In a nod to Trump, Abbott also has committed $1 billion to erecting a barrier along the states border with Mexico. That came after Biden issued an order to discontinue wall construction begun by Trump.

Critics, including ORourke, have called Abbotts latest border tactic a political stunt.

The maneuvers by potential 2024 candidates wont matter, however, if Trump is a candidate in 2024. The way he keeps beating a path to Texas, it appears another Trump presidential bid is on the horizon. And entering 2022 Trumps various campaign accounts had totaled $122 million. While that money technically cant be rolled over into a 2024 presidential campaign, he can spend it now.

Until and unless he says hes not running, Trump is the Republican front-runner for 2024.

Republicans want to win, Miller said. Theyre going to take a long hard look at Trump. It wont be automatic. Hell have to work for it, but hes the front-runner for the nomination.

More:

Trump visits Texas ahead of primary runoff election - The Dallas Morning News

Every time a president moves into the White House, the new occupant tweaks the place to their own personal style and preferences. Gerald Ford brought in striped couches. George W. Bush had the walls of the Oval Office painted ecru. Barack Obama replaced much of the 19th-century still lifes, pastorals and portraits that dominate[d] thepublic rooms with bold, abstract art works. The latest transition, however, apparently required more extensive modifications than simply swapping some color schemes here and art choices there. Thats because, according to Joe Bidens sister, they basically needed to rid the place of Donald Trumps demon spirit.

In a new memoir published Tuesday, Valerie Biden Owens, the sister and closest confidante of the 46th president, wrote that as part of the team decorating the Oval Office, she wanted everything Trump had touched out of there. That meant getting rid of the former guys chosen portrait of 19th-century populist president and ethnic cleanser Andrew Jackson and replacing it with one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as adding busts of MLK, Cesar Chavez, RFK, Rosa Parksall of which reflected Joes understanding and reverence for the soul of this nation. Biden Owens said that she wanted to ditch the Resolute desk Trump used and bring in FDRs in its place, but was unable to do so as the latter resides at FDRs family home in Hyde Park. Thus, the desk Trump had sat behind remained. Still, the fact that the desk was used by both JFK and Obama made her feel better about her brother having to sign documents behind a piece of furniture where the worst president in history also conducted business. So that was certainly good enough, and went a long way toward exorcising from my mind the repugnant image of its previous occupant, she wrote.

Speaking of exorcisms and Biden Owenss thoughts on Trump, the presidents sister, like many Americans, appears to view the last inhabitant of the Oval Office as being on par with the devil, a characterization some people might say is unfair to Satan. In her book, Biden Owens said, If ever there was a force of anti-empathy in the world, it is Donald Trump. He is a bully, pure and simplea narcissistic, incompetent, and incomplete man. He is the embodiment of resentment. His power comes from tapping into our baser instincts. She observed that Trump, appealed to our lowest common denominator and didn't just represent policy failure or erratic personal behaviors; he represented something darker, more primal, more insinuating, striking deeper into the heart of what made us who we are. Biden Owens was initially hesitant about her brother running, she said, because she could see the campaign Trump would run. It was as vivid as a movie. Brutal. Crass. Classless. And every time I saw that movie, I would feel sick. (Incidentally, she wasnt wrong. Among other things, Trump suggested his 2020 opponent was taking performance-enhancing drugs, and during the first presidential debatethe one where we later found out Trump showed up after secretly testing positive for COVID-19the then president interrupted Biden talking about his deceased son to call the one whos still alive a deadbeat.) He had the mind not of a President, but of a vengeful dictator, and running against him felt almost degrading, Biden Owens wrote.

Elsewhere, Biden Owens said she wasnt surprised in the slightest that Trump chose not to attend her brothers inauguration because, essentially, hes a little bitch. A small man does not rise to the occasion, she wrote.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Probably Wont Be Splitting a Milkshake Anytime Soon CNN Leaves the Drama Behind With Focus on War in Ukraine Trumps Truth Social Is an Even Bigger Humiliation Than Previous Business Failures The Clock Is Ticking on the January 6 Investigation The Washington Post Checks In, Finds Trump Is Still a Lying Sociopath A Ukrainian Woman Explains the War to Europes Skeptics From the Archive: How Playboy Imran Khan Became the Prime Minister of Pakistan Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

See the original post here:

Joe Bidens Sister Had to Exorcise the White House of Trumps Demon Spirit - Vanity Fair

The USFL will launch on Saturday, April 16 in yet another attempt to start a professional football league.

This is the second attempt at spring football for the USFL. The first league enjoyed short-lived success from 1983-86. The new USFL will bank on that nostalgia factor with the same franchises and team names from the 1980s. It's also not a direct challenger for the NFL.

Why did the original USFL catch on and eventually fail? That's a history lesson worth looking at.

New Orleans businessman David Dixon, who helped get the Saints to the NFL, had a vision for a spring and summer football league, and that groundwork was laid in 1980.

MORE USFL: Top players from original league | Ranking uniforms | Rule changes | Schedule

The timing helped. The NFL had a strike-shortened season in 1982, and the USFL's first season was the following spring in 1983. The league had 12 teams, and several of those teams played in NFL stadiums.

The league also secured solid television deals. The 1983 USFL championship game between the Michigan Panthers and Philadelphia Stars was televised on ABC and Keith Jackson and Lynn Swann called the game.

The league lasted three seasons from 1983-85.

The USFL originally planned to bar underclassmen, but that changed when they allowed Georgia star Herschel Walker, arguably the greatest college football player of all time, to sign with the New Jersey Generals after his junior season. Heisman Trophy winners Mike Rozier and Doug Flutie followed Walker to the USFL over the NFL.

The talent level in the USFL was legitimate. Future Pro Football Hall of Famers Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Reggie White and Gary Zimmerman also played in the league. Kelly and Young played in a legendary 34-33 shootout between the Houston Gamblers and Los Angeles Express in 1985; a game in which Kelly passed for 574 yards and five TDs.

On the field, the USFL allowed for two-point conversions, a rule the NFL would not adopt until 1994. That was one of the quirks of a league that enjoyed modest success in its first season.

The USFL didn't have a salary cap, and that made for financial trouble for some franchises. The stability of those franchises from year to year was tough.

The league tried to expand from 12 to 18 teams for its second season, and by the third season it trimmed back down to 14 teams. Only six of those USFL franchises lasted all three seasons.

The new version of the USFL will start with eight teams in 2022.

Donald Trump also was involved in the USFL. He became the owner of the New Jersey Generals in 1984, and he led the push for the league to move to a fall schedule and directly compete with the NFL. The USFL filed an antitrust lawsuit with the NFL and won the case for $1, but the three-year court battle added to the league's financial woes.

The USFL would ultimately fold in 1986.

The original USFL had success and was seen as a fun alternative for the NFL and offered a blueprint for success in some cases.

The nostalgia factor will be high, too. The new USFL kept the teams names and it paid homage to the original league. The glamour franchise (New Jersey Generals), their biggest rival (Tampa Bay Bandits) and the most-successful franchise (Philadelphia Stars) are back.

Marv Levy and Bill Polian took the lessons learned from the Chicago Blitz and built a four-time AFC champion with the Buffalo Bills around Kelly at quarterback.

Ultimately, the financial instability and directly challenging the NFL led to the league's demise. That's a lesson the XFL would learn later, and the new USFL would be better served as a developmental league that experiments with new innovations the NFL can use later.

The USFL is in the right window on the sports calendar, and this time it coincides with the MLB coming off a lockout. Don't be surprised if there is modest success at the start, but can it maintain that viewership?

Read more:

What happened to the original USFL? Herschel Walker, Donald Trump and an ill-fated NFL lawsuit - Sporting News

Ask people what they remember most about the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and many responses would likely show that people continue to be astonished that such a terrible thing could have happened in our nation.

But one person remains fixated on something else: the size of the crowd that gathered at the Ellipse, the park between the White House and the National Mall. It was the site of a rally by those who believed, despite exactly no evidence supporting such claims, that Democrat Joe Biden had stolen the November 2020 election from then-President Donald J. Trump.

Here was Trump, in a recent interview with The Washington Post: The crowd was far bigger than I even thought. I believe it was the largest crowd Ive ever spoken to. I dont know what that means, but you see very few pictures. They dont want to show pictures, the fake news doesnt want to show pictures. But this was a tremendous crowd.

There he goes again, focusing on something that might boost his always-delicate ego, but completely missing the point.

In that same interview, the former president strongly hinted that hed be likely to run again in 2024, with one important caveat: his health. You always have to talk about health. You look like youre in good health, but tomorrow, you get a letter from a doctor saying, Come see me again. Thats not good when they use the word again, he said.

One could read that statement as a forecast of Trumps anticipated way out. Trump repeatedly talks of running, hints of running, raises money for another campaign, but then, at the very last minute, uses his health as a reason to bail.

The last thing Trump would want is to be seen as a two-time loser. But not only that, its entirely possible that when he launched his bid for the presidency with his famed ride down an escalator at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015, he did so with no thought of actually winning, but instead with an eye on boosting his brand. He went on to win not only the Republican Partys presidential nomination, but ultimately the presidency.

Its easy to imagine that what Trump most wants going forward is what would be best for the bottom line of the Trump organization and his various business ventures.

See the original post here:

For Donald Trump, its all about his businesses success (Editorial) - MassLive.com

A series of 13 studies with over 10,000 participants tested the change in Americans prejudice following the presidency of Donald Trump. The researchers found that explicit racial and religious prejudice increased amongst Trumps supporters, while prejudice decreased among those who opposed him. This research was published in Nature Human Behavior.

In recent decades, there has been a downward trend in prejudice toward racial and religious minorities. However, some studies suggest that racial and religious prejudice had a critical role in Trumps presidential victory. While some commentators have suggested that numerous trends following the 2016 elections (e.g., increases in reports of hate crimes, minorities reporting more discrimination) point toward a rise in racial and religious prejudice in America, others have argued that these increases may be a consequence of increased national attention to issues of prejudice. Other commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that even if there has been a rise in discrimination, it only reflects extremist fringe groups, rather than the broader American population.

In this work, Benjamin C. Ruisch and Melissa J. Ferguson examine whether a single counter-normative public figure, and his widespread acceptance by a large portion of the American people, can lead to large-scale changes in social norms and societal prejudices.

The authors tested two key predictions. First, that racial and religious prejudice significantly increased among Trump supporters but not other Americans. Second, that increase in prejudice reflected the increased acceptability of expressing prejudice (i.e., changes in social norms).

Studies 1-9 were multi-year longitudinal studies involving over 1000 participants, examining the the breadth and depth of changes in prejudice across various target groups and measure types. At Time 1, they included at least one measure of prejudice and various questions assessing views on social and political issues. Time 2 measures were nearly identical, and also included a question regarding support for Donald Trump.

The researchers included a wide range of measures on political ideology, political party identification, perceptions of the US economy, perceived threat and political knowledge/sophistication, as well as demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, education and income. As well, they looked at environmental factors, including income inequality, racial diversity and voter turnout in participants home counties by extracting this information based on participants geographic location.

Study 9 included data from the VOTER survey conducted by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group and YouGov. Responses on voting history, political attitudes, daily lives, social group memberships, health history and demographics from over 7500 participants who completed this survey in both 2016 and 2019 were included. These studies did not allow for the isolation of Trump support as a causal factor of changes in prejudice. However, they did allow the researchers to track changes before and after his political ascension, while statistically adjusting for over 80 possible predictors.

Using both correlational and experimental methodologies, Studies 10-13 included 1402 participants and were conducted for the purpose of providing support for a causal explanation.

Across Studies 1-9, Ruisch and Ferguson found that support for Donald Trump predicted a significant increase in prejudice towards a range of social, racial and religious minoritized groups. Those who generally opposed Trump, including liberals and conservatives, showed decreases in prejudice in the same time period. Studies 10-13 provided indirect support for the mechanism behind the shift in social norms.

Trump supporters perceived that expressing prejudice had become more acceptable since his election, and this perception predicted greater personal prejudice among them. As well, experimentally leading participants to feel that Trump supporters approved of his controversial rhetoric significantly increased Trump supporters personal expressions of prejudice .

The authors concluded, Together, this research suggests that the presidency of Donald Trump may have substantially reshaped the topography of prejudice in the United States.

The research, Changes in Americans prejudices during the presidency of Donald Trump, was authored by Benjamin C. Ruisch and Melissa J. Ferguson.

Continue reading here:

Donald Trump's presidency associated with significant changes in the topography of prejudice in the United States - PsyPost

In April 2022, an image supposedly showing Don Jr. and Eric Trump grinning unusually large, Joker-esque smiles was posted to social media:

This is not a genuine photograph of two of former U.S. President Donald Trumps sons. The image was digitally manipulated.

Using a reverse image search, we found that the above-displayed, doctored photo was created from a photograph of Don Jr. and Eric at the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester, New York, on Sept. 15. The photograph was taken by Grant Lamos IV and is available via Getty Images with the caption:

BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY SEPTEMBER 21: (L-R) Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump attend the 9th Annual Eric Trump Foundation Golf Invitational Auction & Dinner at Trump National Golf Club Westchester on September 21, 2015 in Briarcliff Manor, New York. (Photo by Grant Lamos IV/Getty Images)

Heres a look at the doctored image (left) and the genuine photograph (right):

Trumps eldest sons have been the subject of a number of photographic rumors over the years. There was the rumor that supposedly showed how Eric didnt know the front end of the shovel, the photo that appeared to give a particularly grotesque look at Trumps two sons, and the photo that seemingly showed Don Jr. and Eric during a big game hunting trip. One of those three rumors is true, while the other two are false.

Sources:

Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump Attend the 9th Annual Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/donald-trump-jr-eric-trump-and-ivanka-trump-attend-the-9th-news-photo/489506564. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

Ivana Trump: Ex-Husband Donald Can Win Election. The Mercury News, 23 Sept. 2015, https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/23/ivana-trump-ex-husband-donald-can-win-election/.

Boucher, Ashley. Eric and Donald Trump Jr. Test Negative for Coronavirus 1 Day After Donald Trump and Melania Test Positive. PEOPLE.Com, https://people.com/politics/eric-and-donald-trump-jr-test-negative-for-coronavirus/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

More here:

Is This Photo of Don Jr. and Eric Trump Smiling Real? - Snopes.com

(The Hill) The Jan. 6 Select Committee has signaled it intends to explore potential criminal wrongdoing by formerPresident Trump, marking a significant escalation for the investigationthat could put pressure on the Biden administration.

The panelhas said it could referTrump to the Justice Department for prosecutionif it finds damning evidence, in what would be seen as an open invitation to Attorney GeneralMerrick Garlandto be more aggressive towards the former president than he has been in his tenure thus far.

Rep.Liz Cheney(R-Wyo.), the select committees vice chair, gave the first indication at a hearing earlier this month that the panel is examining whether Trump committed a crime.

Quoting the statutory text for a felony obstruction offense, Cheney said that a key question for the select committee investigation is, Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress official proceedings to count electoral votes?

Obstruction of an official proceeding is a charge that carries a maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison. Federal prosecutors have wielded it against hundreds of rioters alleged to have participated in the attack on the Capitol.

But bringing the same charge against a president who never set foot in the building would require far more complex legal and political calculations.

The challenge isthis undefined territory of the circumstances under which an executive official crosses the line between exercising executive power to actual obstruction of justice, said Daniel Hemel, a University of Chicago law professor.

The comments about Trumps potential wrongdoing come after months of growing frustration among Democrats and Trump critics that Garland and the DOJ arent doing enough to address potential illegal activity in the highest levels of the previous administration.

Any criminal referral from the select committee alleging that Trump violated the law would be an overt escalation of lawmakers efforts to pressure the Biden DOJ into being more aggressive towards the former president.

But criminal referrals from congressional investigators have no legal weight to compel federal prosecutors to bring charges, unlike the criminal contempt of Congress referrals that must be approved by a floor vote in the House and have already resulted in charges againstSteve Bannon, Trumps former White House strategist who pleaded not guilty last month to a pair of misdemeanors for defying the select committees subpoenas.

Jeff Robbins, a former federal prosecutor who has also served as an investigative counsel on two Senate committees, said that in order for such a referral to be persuasive to federal prosecutors, it must be backed up by solid evidence that would not only support bringing charges but show evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A committee that wants to make a persuasive referral will be as specific and as detailed and as evidence-based as possible, delivering something as close to a basis for an indictment on a silver platter as can be provided, he said.

Robbins said that any referral involving a former president would be held to an even higher standard, but added that the committees credibility would support its findings in the eyes of the Justice Department.

There will be an inclination to review very, very, very carefully any criminal referral involving Donald Trump, to kick the tires again and again and again, Robbins said. But on the other hand, theyll treat a criminal referral by this committee given its leadership and the quality of the lawyers as a serious document if thats what blows its way.

Throughout the first year of the Biden administration, Garland has sought to keep politics at arms length as he inherited a department that had been repeatedly used to further Trumps political ends and protect his personal interests over the previous four years.

In some high-profile cases, Garlands DOJ has backed the legal positions pushed by the department during the Trump administration, including defending the former president in a defamation suit from E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of raping her in the 90s, and arguing that an internal DOJ memo clearing him of wrongdoing in connection with the Mueller investigation should remain under wraps.

The department has shown little sign that its pursuing a criminal investigation into Trump.

Its going to be really hard to convict him here in part because I dont think we have a Nixon Watergate-style smoking gun, Hemel said, noting that even if a jury is filled with people who hate Trump with every bone in our body, they might be hesitant to convict him of obstructing an official proceeding.

And pursuing charges against Trump could be a fraught undertaking beyond the political implications. Such a prosecution would be unprecedented and could be undermined by legal uncertainties surrounding whether a president could be charged with a crime for actions he took while in office.

The obstruction charge that federal prosecutors have brought against many of the rioters in what is considered to be a novel interpretation of the statute has so far survived a series of legal challenges from defendants, but it remains to be seen whether juries will find the obstruction cases persuasive.

The courts have made clear in at least three different rulings that the rioters on the ground can be prosecuted for conspiracy charges; there is no reason to believe, evidence permitting, that the former president cant be similarly charged, Bradley Moss, a national security law expert, told The Hill by email.

If DOJ is to take this politically-explosive step, they no doubt have identified admissible evidence that Trump intended to obstruct the certification proceedings, that his actions in recommending the mob march on the Capitol was more than a mere throwaway line, and that he was aware of efforts by his war room to intervene if the mob did in fact prevent Congress from completing its certification process.

But Hemel sees the downside of losing the case being a far worse outcome, arguing an unsuccessful criminal prosecution of Trump would only strengthen the former president and heighten the threat he poses to American democracy.

There was a lot of criminal activity on Jan. 6. Are they building a case against President Trump? I dont think so. And, gosh, I think Im glad that DOJ isnt devoting resources to a fools errand effort to tear the country further apart and further elevate the political profile and demagogic myth of Trump, Hemel said.

Its unclear what evidence, if any, the committee has gathered to support a criminal referral aimed at the former president. But if the lawmakers are able to make a persuasive public case that Trump violated the law, some believe it would be important for the DOJ to follow through in order to send the message that nobody is above the law.

Katherine Hawkins, a senior legal analyst at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight, believes its important for the select committee to reach its own conclusions about whether Trump violated the law and, if it finds that he did, to clearly articulate the case against him.

Hawkins said that the DOJs inclination to defend the legality of executive branch actions makes the congressional investigation even more crucial. She pointed to the Senate Intelligence Committees investigation into the CIAs torture practices, a portion of which was made public in 2014 that found that the agency had exceeded the legal justification for the practices and engaged in a cover-up. Despite the Senate panels findings, the DOJ never prosecuted anyone for their role in torturing terror suspects.

I think that the committee should seriously consider making a well-supported referral, because otherwise we just get silence from DOJ, which could be [doing a] diligent investigation, theoretically, but given how the torture investigation went, how the Department of Justice approaches executive law breaking in general and what weve seen from Garland, I doubt it, Hawkins said.

She added that the committees findings will be valuable even if they make a referral that the DOJ chooses not to act upon.

Just getting the truth out is valuable in itself, Hawkins said. Knowing how close we came and what mechanisms could be in place to prevent that from happening again is really important. But also if theres evidence of unaddressed crimes that we dont know if the Department of Justice is going to investigate, I think its definitely appropriate for the committee to put that at the DOJs feet and say, What are you doing with this? Whats going on here?

Read more here:

Jan. 6 panel signals interest in whether Trump committed crime - NewsNation Now

Expectation is growing that Donald Trump might face charges for trying to obstruct Congress from certifying Joe Bidens election this year as a House panel collects more evidence into the 6 January attack on the Capitol, former prosecutors and other experts say.

Speculation about possible charges against the former US president has been heightened by a recent rhetorical bombshell from Republican representative and 6 January panel vice-chair Liz Cheney suggesting the House panel is looking at whether Trump broke a law that bars obstruction of official proceedings.

Former prosecutors say if the panel finds new evidence about Trumps role interfering with Congress job to certify Bidens election, that could help buttress a potential case by the Department of Justice.

In varying ways, Cheneys comments have been echoed by two other members of the House select committee, Republican Adam Kinzinger and Democrat Jamie Raskin, spurring talk of how an obstruction statute could apply to Trump, which would entail the panel making a criminal referral of evidence for the justice department to investigate, say DoJ veterans.

Cheneys remarks raising the specter of criminal charges against Trump came twice earlier this month at hearings of the committee. Experts believe the charges could be well founded given Trumps actions on 6 January, including incendiary remarks to a rally before the Capitol attack and failure to act for hours to stop the riot, say former justice department officials.

Based on what is already in the public domain, there is powerful evidence that numerous people, in and out of government, attempted to obstruct and did obstruct, at least for a while an official proceeding i.e., the certification of the Presidential election, said former DOJ inspector general and former prosecutor Michael Bromwich in a statement to the Guardian. That is a crime.

Although a House panel referral of obstruction by Trump would not force DOJ to open a criminal case against him, it could help provide more evidence for one, and build pressure on the justice department to move forward, say former prosecutors.

Attorneygeneral Merrick Garland has declined to say so far whether his department may be investigating Trump and his top allies already for their roles in the Capitol assault.

The panel has amassed significant evidence, including more than 30,000 records and interviews with more than 300 people, among whom were some key White House staff.

The evidence against Trump himself could include his actions at the Stop the Steal rally not far from the White House, where he urged backers to march to the Capitol and fight like hell [or] youre not going to have a country any more. Trump then resisted multiple pleas for hours from Republicans and others to urge his violent supporters to stop the attack.

Recent rulings by Trump-appointed district court judges have supported using the obstruction statute, which federal prosecutors have cited in about 200 cases involving rioters charged by DOJ for their roles in the Capitol assault that injured about 140 police officers and left five dead.

Still, experts note that the House panels mission has been to assemble a comprehensive report of what took place on 6 January and work on legislation to avoid such assaults on democracy. They caution that any criminal referral to DOJ documenting Trumps obstruction of Congress will take time and more evidence to help bolster a DOJ investigation.

Some DOJ veterans say that any referral to DOJ by the House panel for a criminal case against Trump and perhaps top allies such as ex chief of staff Mark Meadows, whom the House last week cited for criminal contempt for refusing to be deposed might also include Trumps aggressive pressuring of federal and state officials before 6 January to block Bidens win with baseless charges of fraud.

Bromwich stressed that the evidence is steadily accumulating that would prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. The ultimate question is who the defendants would be in such an obstruction case. Evidence is growing that, as a matter of law and fact, that could include Trump, Meadows and other members of Trumps inner circle.

Cheney teed up the issue about Trumps potential culpability first at a House panel hearing last week, when she urged that Meadows be held in contempt for refusing to be deposed, and then hit Trump with a rhetorical bombshell.

We know hours passed with no action by the president to defend the Congress of the United States from an assault while we were counting electoral votes, Cheney said.

Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress official proceeding to count electoral votes?

Cheneys comments about Trump were very precise, including language from the criminal obstruction statute, and she stated that her question is a key one for the panels legislative tasks.

Raskin too has told Politico that the issue of whether Trump broke the law by obstructing an official proceeding is clearly one of the things on the mind of some of the members of the committee.

The possibility of obstruction charges is legally valid, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former DOJ prosecutor who worked on Ken Starrs team during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, noting that two district judges appointed by Trump have recently said that the statute covers the efforts on January 6 to stop the electoral count.

For instance, Judge Dabney Friedrich in a recent opinion rejected the claim by some defendants who were challenging the DOJ view that the 6 January meeting of Congress fit the legal definition of an official proceeding.

Rosenzweig posited that given Trumps various attempts before 6 January to undermine the election results, a broader conspiracy case may be another option for prosecutors to pursue. Should DOJ look at broader conspiracy charges, Trumps persistent pressures on acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and his top deputy for help blocking Bidens victory wouldprobably be relevant, say ex-prosecutors.

On one call on 27 December 2020, Trump pressed Rosen and his deputy to falsely state the election illegal and corrupt despite the fact that the DOJ had not found any evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the fraud section at DOJ, said that Cheneys statements were carefully crafted and obviously based upon evidence the committee had seen. Should Congress ultimately refer the case to DOJ for investigation and prosecution, the DOJs investigation would not be limited to a single obstruction charge, but would more likely investigate broader conspiracy charges potentially involving Trump and other key loyalists.

The panel has accelerated its pace recently by sending out dozens of subpoenas for documents and depositions, some to close Trump aides. Meadows has become a central focus of the inquiry, in part over tweets he received on and near the insurrection that are among approximately 9,000 documents he gave the panel, much to Trumps chagrin.

As Trumps efforts to thwart the panel from moving forward have had limited success, he has relied on sending out splenetic email attacks, including one last month that read: The Unselect Committee itself is Rigged, stacked with Never Trumpers, Republican enemies, and two disgraced RINOs, Cheney and Kinzinger, who couldnt get elected dog catcher in their districts.

Despite Trumps angry attacks on the panel, some ex-prosecutors say that prosecuting Trump if enough evidence is found to merit charges is important for the health of American democracy.

Former Georgia US attorney Michael J Moore told the Guardian: I hate to think of a legal system that would allow the most powerful person in the country to go unchallenged when he has abdicated his highest priority, that being to keep our citizens safe. Trumps conduct that day was not unlike a mob boss.

Follow this link:

Trump could face charges for trying to obstruct certification of election, legal experts say - The Guardian