Category Archives: Donald Trump

In 1974, fresh out of college, I found myself transfixed by the televised Watergate hearings.

Richard Nixon was responsible for the illegal entry into the Democratic headquarters. After massive attempts at covering up the scandal, conspirators went to prison. Faced by senators who could no longer support him, Nixon resigned before facing congressional trials.

Now Donald Trump, the first president in history who refused to concede, is still claiming a stolen election despite losing by over 7 million votes. Its the direct cause of a tragic insurrection that resulted in six deaths, 700 people arrested and about 200 already sentenced.

Now we discover that Trump has destroyed untold numbers of presidential papers (in violation of a law with no enforcement). And the latest transgression has this dangerous thug taking 15 boxes of paperwork, some bearing the top secret designation, to his Florida estate.

Now a big difference between the two former presidents is that in 1974, GOP officeholders felt more obligation to the United States than to their party. Now, Republicans are far different.

We have both senators and representatives who stand by Trump and the big lie. We have the minority leader of the House refusing to support the Jan. 6 Commission. And the two GOP members of the commission are being censured by their own party for having the courage to investigate the insurrection.

Why does Trump have these politicians running so scared?

Read the rest here:

Letter to the editor: The difference between Richard Nixon and Donald Trump - Summit Daily

A look at some of the top headlines trending online today around the world including Russias latest moves in Ukraine, Trump news, coronavirus developments and much more.

Ukraine moves to impose state of emergency as U.S., allies pressure Russia with sanctions (NBC)

Europe braces for further strife as Ukraine crisis escalates (AP)

China accuses U.S. of creating panic over Ukraine crisis and dismisses sanctions against Russia as ineffective (CBS)

How a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, could hit supply chains (CNBC)

Trump sides with Putin as Biden tries to stop a war (CNN)

Supreme Court formally ends Trumps fight over Capitol attack records (Reuters)

COVID-19 updates: US daily death average falls below 2,000 for 1st time in month (ABC)

D.C. Braces for Possible Trucker Protests, Asks for Pentagon Assistance (US News)

Reduced testing is concerning, WHO official says (Washington Post)

California nearly back to pre-omicron level of COVID spread, tests and wastewater show (Sacramento Bee)

South Korea COVID-19 cases skyrocket under Omicron wave; PM urges calm (UPI)

What Is Truth Social? What to Know About Donald Trumps Social Network (WSJ)

Oscars slim down, will hand out 8 awards ahead of broadcast (AP)

Mark Lanegan, Screaming Trees and Queens of the Stone Age Singer, Dies at 57 (NY Times)

Gary Brooker, frontman of rock band Procol Harum, dies at 76 (AP)

The Wendy Williams Show is ending (NPR)

Read more:

Russia, Donald Trump & more: Whats trending today - cleveland.com

Thomas venerated his grandfather, Myers Anderson, who was as influential in his life as his wifes mother was in hers, and titled his memoir My Grandfathers Son. But the relationship was often fractious. Anderson, who donated to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, wasnt happy with his grandsons choices, Kevin Merida, now the executive editor of The Los Angeles Times, and Michael A. Fletcher wrote in a 2007 biography, Supreme Discomfort. The authors quoted Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Black former clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer whom Biden is now considering for the vacancy being created by Breyers retirement. She remembered sitting across from Thomas at lunch and thinking: I dont understand you. You sound like my parents. You sound like people I grew up with. But the lessons he tended to draw from the experiences of the segregated South seemed to be different than those of everybody I know.

Clarence and Ginni met in 1986 at a conference on affirmative action, which they both opposed. After a stint at the civil rights office of the Education Department, he was running the E.E.O.C.; she was an attorney at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and mused that year to Good Housekeeping about someday running for Congress. She had extracted herself from a New Age-y self-help group called Lifespring, which she would denounce as a cult, but was still attending meetings held by a cult-deprogramming organization, and she took him along to one. He would describe her as a gift from God, and they married in 1987 at a Methodist church in Omaha; it was her first marriage, his second. Theres no other way to politely say this, but the fact she married a Black man mustve caused an uproar in that family, I cant even imagine, said Scott Bange, who dated Ginni in high school. In 1991, one of Ginni Thomass aunts told The Washington Post that the future justice was so nice, we forgot he was Black, adding, He treated her so well, all of his other qualities made up for his being Black.

Thomas had custody of a teenage son, Jamal, from his previous marriage to Kathy Ambush, his college girlfriend. For several years, the couple also raised his great-nephew, Mark Martin. Jamal Thomas, who did not return requests for comment, has spoken warmly, if rarely, of his father on Facebook, writing in a 2015 Fathers Day post: Dad showed me that you can enjoy all sorts of music. His album collection is legendary. Country, R&B, Classical, Blues, Gospel, Jazz, and yes, even Culture Club. But I kind of compare that to his ability to relate and connect with anyone.

Together, the Thomases considered themselves happy warriors. If he was estranged in some ways from his own upbringing, he embraced her world, and even became an ardent fan of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. They have this happy-kindness, Nebraska thing going on, one longtime friend of the couples said. Ginni can be annoying and obnoxious with the happy talk, but when youre with her one on one, she can be very kind. And with Clarence too, theres a kindness too; its not just the manipulative happy talk. But theres an underbelly of pain, and they turn it against other people.

Clarence Thomas has always maintained that he had to be talked into accepting an appointment to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when he was nominated as a federal judge in 1989. I was minding my business, he said, recounting the story in his remarks at the Heritage celebration. He was championed by Danforth, by then a senator, who said on the Senate floor: I hope that people would not attack Clarence Thomas because of some stereotype of what they think a Black lawyer should believe.

Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement from the Supreme Court in 1991, and President George H.W. Bush turned to Thomas. His confirmation hearings, presided over by Joe Biden, then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, began with an attempt to determine his views on Roe v. Wade. Then, after an F.B.I. report was leaked, Anita Hill, a law professor who worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the E.E.O.C., testified that he made numerous unwelcome advances, persisted in workplace conversations about his sexual prowess, described graphic pornography and said he found a pubic hair on a cola can and asked who had put it there. The future justice flatly rejected the allegations, calling the public inquiry a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.

Asked during the hearing whether he wanted to withdraw, he said, Id rather die. He did not watch Hills testimony. I was the one that tried to watch what was going on for as long as I could, Ginni Thomas said in a 2020 documentary on Justice Thomass life and legal philosophy, Created Equal, made with the Thomases participation and funded by the far-right Charles Koch and Bradley Foundations. It was all so wrong, she continued. It was so untrue. When Biden informed Thomas in a phone call that he would vote against him, he tried to reassure him about the process. As she listened in, Ginni Thomas took a spoon from a kitchen drawer and pretended to gag herself, her husband later recounted. (Biden was also criticized for excluding testimony favorable to Hill and, much later, expressed regret.) Friends and associates said that the couples rage over the confirmation battle came to both define and unify them.

Here is the original post:

The Long Crusade of Clarence and Ginni Thomas - The New York Times

Former President Donald Trump has been teasing another presidential run since he left office but hasn't officially confirmed his plans. Instead, Trump has maintained an interest in his decision by telling reporters people will be "very happy" with his choice, that he would be able to turn the country around and pointing to his strong polling numbers.

Despite being voted out of office in November 2020, Trump still remains the strongest candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, according to polls. He regularly comes out as the top choice and some polls have found he has double the support as any other potential candidate.'

In many ways, Trump is already campaigning. At a rally in Iowa in October, the former president told supporters: "We're going to take America back." He is endorsing federal and state candidates and sends out fundraising appeals almost daily for his political action committee, "Save America," which had amassed $90 million when it last made a disclosure to the Federal Election Commission in June.

Trumps body language is designed to convince people hes running, and his power is such that the GOP nomination is his for the asking, said Fox News columnist Howard Kurtz on Nov. 24.

Trump told Fox News on Nov. 8 that he would "probably" wait until after the 2022 midterm to announce whether he will run again in 2024.

"I am certainly thinking about it and well see," Trump said. "I think a lot of people will be very happy, frankly, with the decision, and I probably will announce that after the midterms."

His Thanksgiving statement also teased a possible bid, drawing on his 2016 campaign slogan Make America Great Again.

"A very interesting time in our Country, but do not worry, we will be great again and we will all do it together," Trump said.

A long list of Republicans could potentially take a shot at a presidential run, including names like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio and Ron DeSantis, but it was thought unlikely any of them would take on Trump.

If Donald Trump decides to run in 2024 again, hes going to be the Republican nominee, said Rubio, the Florida senator in April.

Now what is the impact of Trump running again would be interesting to see but its hard to tell what all the cards are on Trump and President Joe Biden. As with the way things are going for the Biden Administration, Trump's running could be the Democrats' only chance to win the presidential election and not get trounced for House and Senate seats.

Even that might not be enough; Trump could have a decent chance at victory for the presidency. Aside from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, perception of support for open borders, the administration wanting to pay undocumented immigrants $450,000 instead of vigorously contesting the ACLU (over journalistic mistreatment) lawsuits, and perception that the Democrats support race consciousness indoctrination in the schools, Biden has a developing huge inflation-driven economic crisis to deal with, and the economy is usually the most important issue. And on top of that, the Rittenhouse verdict has left voters disproving as Bidens approval has dropped significantly to 41%.

This will hurt Democrats even more as they will be perceived as being sympathetic to criminal unrest, and if they are not sympathetic to the BLM rioters and come out in support of arresting and prosecuting them, they could lose votes from the far Left.

The combination of all of the above could bury the Democrats for the 2022 and 2024 elections. But Trump's odious presence and legal problems could still help the Democrats win if they play their cards right.

Daniel Fortin is a staff writer.

Read the original post:

With 2024 rapidly approaching, will Donald Trump return to politics? - Bulletin

TRUTH Social, former PresidentDonald Trump's "free speech" social media platform, is set to launch on Feb.21.Part of the popular crusade against "Big Tech tyranny," TRUTH promises to be an oasis of unrestricted political speech. But the platform's recent decision to use auto-moderation bots, as well as its oddly restrictive terms of service, suggest Team Trump has perhaps developeda newfound appreciation for both the virtue and necessity of Section 230, the law which enables platforms to choose the content they host. TRUTH Socialwon't realizeits vision of freewheeling free speech.But itwill serve as a much-needed reminder of the value of that law.

Devin Nunes, the former GOP representative-turned-Trump Media CEO,said on Wednesdaythat TRUTH Social will be the most "family-friendly" social media site on the market. This means it intends to moderate content that offends social conservatives even more heavily thanits Big Tech rivals do.To this end, TRUTH alreadyenlistedHive, a Silicon Valley AI company, to auto-moderate"hate speech, spam, pornography, and bullying." This is the same technology used by Facebook and Twitter, and for good reason.

Prior attempts at creating "free speech" platforms, like Parler and Gettr, became sooverrun with offensive junk they became practically unusable.The reasonthat TRUTH Social can work with Hive and maintain a "family friendly" environment isbecause Section 230 gives them the freedom to do so without facing liability the very law that Trump (as well as nearly five dozen bills in Congress) wants to repeal.

Other examples of speech that runs afoul of TRUTH'sterms of serviceincludecontent that "disparage[s]"Trump Media and content that "annoy[s]" Trump himself. Curiously,TRUTH users may also be banned from the site for"excessive use of capital letters."TRUTH has the right to make all these rules precisely because of the Section 230 protections Trump tried to nix while president.

Manywho oppose Section 230 claim it allows "stifling of free speech." Speaking fondly about the launch of TRUTH Social this week,Fox host Maria Bartiromosaid"we're living in the worst period of political censorship in American history."But TRUTH Social's own willingness to remove and curate contentillustrates the paradox of that complaint.

Without the immunity from liability for user content that Section 230 provides, platforms would likely remove even more controversial content to avoid costly lawsuits. Absent 230's protections, offensive content would flood platforms and push many users away.

In short, thanks to 230's immunity from liability for leaving stuff up, TRUTH may host its users' controversial views. And it can remain "family friendly" thanks to 230's immunity from liability for taking things down. TRUTH's unusual terms of service highlight another benefit of 230: enabling platforms to create cohesive online communities of like-minded individuals, which, in this case, may mean those who do not annoy Donald Trump.

TRUTH Social insists it will not moderate based on political viewpoint, yet defining hate speech, spam, and bullying is an inherently political task. Many conservatives on Twitter have been deplatformed for purposely misgendering transgender users, which Twitter classifies as hate speech. TRUTH is unlikely to consider erroneous pronouns hate speech but may instead choose to ban users for phrases like "ACAB" or comments about white fragility. Rather than moderatelesscontent than Big Tech or achieve some fantastical conception of neutrality, then, Section 230 allows TRUTHto create moderation rules better suited to the political views of its user base.

That's a good thing, and adiverse public is best served by a diverse array of products. For example, Section 230 allowsPopJam to maintain an enriching art-sharing community for children by exerting a heavy hand over inappropriate content. HuntingNet fosters a valuable niche platform for its users by excluding animal rights posts. Ravelry, a progressive knitting site, excludes pro-Trump political content which, the users determined, interfered with their enjoyment of the site.

Likewise, TRUTH Social will provide a somewhat moderated environment where anti-vax views are welcome but "excessive use of capital letters" is not.TRUTH Social shows that even Section 230's most consistent detractor will leverage its protections to create the platform that best serves its users. That is a ringing endorsement of keeping thelawaround, whatever Trump himself may say.

Read more:

Trump's new social network needs the tech law he hates - The Week Magazine

The ongoing Comelec drive to take down election-related posters includes those displayed on private property that exceed the maximum size of 2 x 3 prescribed in Comelec Resolution No. 10730. Pushback and resistance from the campaigns have been immediate and audible. This contention focuses the spotlight on the 2015 decision of the Supreme Court en banc in Diocese of Bacolod vs. Comelec (GR No. 205728, 21 January 2015).

This decision, penned by Justice Marvic Leonen, involved the right of the Diocese of Bacolod to display on its own compound two tarpaulins advertising the Roman Catholic Churchs stand against the Reproductive Health Law and listing candidates in the 2013 mid-term elections who were either for or against the statute. The basic facts are simple and straightforward:

On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6) by ten feet (10) in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the message IBASURA RH Law referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading Conscience Vote and lists candidates as either (Anti-RH) Team Buhay with a check mark, or (Pro-RH) Team Patay with an X mark. The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by petitioners as comprising Team Patay, while those who voted against it form Team Buhay.

Then as now, measured against the maximum dimensions for election paraphernalia prescribed in pertinent Comelec regulations, 6 x 10 tarps are certainly outsized. Thus, because of its immediate and obvious relevance, Diocese has been repeatedly referred to, and invoked, in recent pronouncements both from Comelec and from the legal teams protesting the takedowns.

A clear understanding of this decision is indeed critical in at least two senses. To begin with, in the immediate sense, citizens and campaigners, as well as Comelec and law enforcement agencies, must know what they can, and cannot do, in the remaining days of this campaign period. There must be an accurate, across-the-board understanding of the true dimensions of the campaign window opened by Diocese.

More than just an authoritative election guideline, however, Diocese is an extraordinary invitation for Filipinos to reverse the traditional dynamic of election speech and conduct. It is an exhortation to the electorate not merely to listen passively to what the candidates and parties have to say, but to re-discover its own voice, to freely tell the candidates and parties what matters most to them. It is, in short, an invitation to popular and democratic empowerment. In the Courts own words:

Too often, the terms of public discussion during elections are framed and kept hostage by brief and catchy but meaningless sound bites extolling the character of the candidate. Worse, elections sideline political arguments and privilege the endorsement by celebrities. Rather than provide obstacles to their speech, government should in fact encourage it. Between the candidates and the electorate, the latter have the better incentive to demand discussion of the more important issues. Between the candidates and the electorate, the former have better incentives to avoid difficult political standpoints and instead focus on appearances and empty promises.

Large tarpaulins, therefore, are not analogous to time and place. They are fundamentally part of expression protected under Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution.

From these insights and to give effect to the constitutional command to accord the greatest protection to free expression, and to political speech in particular, the Court articulated the law in this way:

Regulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made by persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party which are, taken as a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue that the public must consider during elections is unconstitutional. Such regulation is inconsistent with the guarantee of according the fullest possible range of opinions coming from the electorate including those that can catalyze candid, uninhibited, and robust debate in the criteria for the choice of a candidate.

Turning to more immediate and practical concerns, the following questions are most probably foremost in the minds of many conscientious Filipinos involved in these elections, whether as voters, campaign workers, Comelec officials, or law enforcers. For them, the answers supplied by Diocese will be instructive.

Q: ISNT THE COMELEC REGULATION CLEAR, THAT EVEN TARPS DISPLAYED IN PRIVATE PROPERTY CANNOT EXCEED 2 X 3?

A: These maximum dimensions for tarps, whether in private or public places, are applicable only to election paraphernalia. Tarps that primarily express advocacies or opinions on matters important to the voter are not election paraphernalia, however, even if they incidentally exhort other members of the electorate to vote for or against particular candidates or parties. These tarps contain constitutionally protected speech that lie beyond Comelecs regulatory reach. Again, as the Court said, regulation of election-related speech by non-candidates that are principally advocacies of a social issue that the public must consider is unconstitutional. By necessary implication, tarps displayed on private property which are not election paraphernalia because they mainly advocate on issues, may exceed 2 x 3 in size.

Q: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE USUAL TARPS THAT ASK THE PUBLIC TO VOTE FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE OR PARTY?

A: These traditional vote for tarps are election paraphernalia that are subject to Comelec size regulation. Therefore, even if displayed in private property, they cannot exceed the maximum prescribed dimensions of 2 x 3.

Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech of persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party if they are not candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal object the endorsement of a candidate only. xxx

These distinctions between vote for and advocacy tarps, and between election paraphernalia and expressions of advocacy and opinion, are critical. The Court itself dwelt at length on this matter:

The message of petitioners in this case will certainly not be what candidates and political parties will carry in their election posters or media ads. The message of petitioner, taken as a whole, is an advocacy of a social issue that it deeply believes. Through rhetorical devices, it communicates the desire of Diocese that the positions of those who run for a political position on this social issue be determinative of how the public will vote. It primarily advocates a stand on a social issue; only secondarily even almost incidentally will cause the election or non-election of a candidate.

The court continues:

The messages in the tarpaulins are different from the usual messages of candidates. Election paraphernalia from candidates and political parties are more declarative and descriptive and contain no sophisticated literary allusion to any social objective. Thus, they usually simply exhort the public to vote for a person with a brief description of the attributes of the candidate. For example Vote for [x], Sipag at Tiyaga, Vote for [y], Mr. Palengke, or Vote for [z], Iba kami sa Makati.

Given the remarkably detailed description of constitutionally protected advocacy and opinion, tarps that merely banner the slogans and catchphrases usually devised and deployed by parties and candidates will not suffice to remove them from the reach of Comelec regulation.

Q: DOES THIS MEAN THAT A PARTY OR CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION CAN DISTRIBUTE ADVOCACY TARPS AND DIRECT ITS CAMPAIGN WORKERS TO ARRANGE FOR THEIR DISPLAY IN PRIVATE PROPERTY?

A: No, this may not be done. Constitutionally protected advocacy that may not be interfered with by Comelec must truly and authentically emanate from the electorate. Advocacy tarps sponsored in any way by candidates or campaign organizations must submit to Comelec regulation, including size regulation, even if displayed exclusively in private property.

In upholding the right of the Diocese of Bacolod to display its outsized tarps, the Court invoked the clear limitation imposed by law on the extent of Comelec regulation, and then declared those large Team Patay/Team Buhay tarps as exempt from such regulation because they were found not to have been paid for by any candidate or party. Thus:

These provisions show that election propaganda refers to matter done by or on behalf of and in coordination with candidates and political partiesxxx The tarpaulin was not paid for by any candidate or political party. There was no allegation that petitioners coordinated with any of the persons named in the tarpaulin regarding its posting. On the other hand, petitioners posted the tarpaulin as part of their advocacy against the RH Law.

Q: ISNT COMELEC REGULATION OF TARPS IN PRIVATE PROPERTY A VIOLATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?

A: Not always. The definitive element is still the content of the tarp. A tarp displayed on private property that primarily contains advocacy is not subject to Comelec size regulation. In contrast, a vote for tarp will always be subject to regulation and must conform to the prescribed 2 x 3 maximum dimensions, even if this is displayed in private property. The constitutional protection of property rights, and the greater limitation upon state interference in such rights, are triggered when they are coupled with a liberty interest (the property owners interest in the free expression of his advocacies and opinions). As noted by the Court, the guarantee of free speech is rendered meaningless, if there is no protected space (the private property) within which the speech can be made:

Freedom of expression can be intimately related with the right to property. There may be no expression when there is no place where the expression may be made. Comelecs infringement upon petitioners property rights as in the present case also reaches out to infringement on their fundamental right to speech.

Respondents have not demonstrated that the present state interest they seek to promote justifies the intrusion into petitioners property rights. Election laws and regulations must be reasonable. It must also acknowledge a private individuals right to exercise property rights. Otherwise, the due process clause will be violated.

Q: WHAT DOES ALL THESE MEAN FOR THE VARIOUS CONTENDING CAMPAIGNS?

A: For immediate and practical utility, it should be clear that Comelec may not take down outsized tarps displayed in private property when the following conditions are all met: (a) the tarp primarily advocates for a position on an issue relevant to the electorate even if it also, incidentally, invites people to vote for or against particular candidates; and (b) the tarp is displayed with the consent of the owner of the property, without any collusion with, or sponsorship by, any party or candidate.

Diocese is a powerful reiteration of the primacy accorded free expression in our hierarchy of constitutional values, and of the dictum that (S)peech with political consequences is at the core of the freedom of expression and must be protected by this court. But its true contribution to Philippine democracy is the disruption it proposes. It proposes that during elections, it is the voice of the voter, not the candidates, that should ring loudest. It is indeed a radical notion, most especially in the Philippines, that it should be the voter talking to the candidate about what truly matters, rather than the other way around.

Traditional campaigns run and engineered by elite political strategists and manned by veteran political operators, will have to suffer increasingly stringent Comelec control over almost all facets of the electoral exercise. On the other hand, campaigns based on grassroots initiative and authentic volunteerism will be in the best position to benefit from the democratic disruption Diocese invites us to. Rappler.com

Original post:

[OPINION] Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec: Giant tarps, free speech, and democratic disruption - Rappler

Mazars decision to withdraw was clearly a result of the A.G.s and D.A.s vicious intimidation tactics used also on other members of the Trump Organization, Mr. Trump said in his statement. Mazars, who were scared beyond belief, in conversations with us made it clear that they were willing to do or say anything to stop the constant threat which has gone against them for years.

Numerous inquiries. Since former President Donald Trumpleft office, there have been many investigations and inquiries into his businesses and personal affairs. Heres a list of those ongoing:

Investigation into criminal fraud. The Manhattan district attorneys office and the New York attorney generals officeare investigating whether Mr. Trump or his family business, the Trump Organization, engaged in criminal fraud by intentionally submitting false property values to potential lenders.

Investigation into tax evasion. As part of their investigation, in July 2021, the Manhattan district attorneys office charged the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer with orchestrating a 15-year scheme to evade taxes.A trial in that case is scheduled for summer 2022.

He pointed out that, in its letter informing the Trump Organization that its financial statements from 2011 to 2020 should no longer be relied upon, Mazars also said it had not concluded that the statements, as a whole, contained material discrepancies. The firm did say, however, that the totality of circumstances, including its own investigation into the financial statements, had led it to conclude they were unreliable.

Mazars did not respond to a request for comment.

The somewhat muddled nature of the explanation by Mazars makes it hard to assess the motivation, and potential legal implications, behind its decision to part ways with Mr. Trump. Lynn Turner, the former chief accountant at the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the new information that Mazars learned of could require its previous financial statements to be revised. Although those original statements contained many disclaimers, coming into possession of significant new facts could leave the firm vulnerable to a lawsuit.

They aint gonna issue that letter otherwise, he said.

In addition to signing off on Mr. Trumps statements of financial condition, which were used mostly when seeking bank loans or other credit, Mazars also prepared his tax returns, though the firm did not raise doubts about those in its letter.

Intentionally filing false tax returns with the government is a criminal offense, and there has been no indication that prosecutors are pursuing that avenue. As such, Mr. Trumps tax filings have long been considered perhaps the most accurate portrayal of his financial condition.

The New York Times in 2020 obtained decades of tax return information for Mr. Trump and his companies, which revealed that for all his claims of stellar business acumen and high net worth, he actually lost money in many years, had huge bank loans coming due and faced a long-running I.R.S. audit that could cost him $100 million. He often paid little or no federal income taxes.

Original post:

Trump Makes New Claims About His Wealth After Accountants Drop Him - The New York Times

Clinton Responds To Report Alleging Attempted Infiltration Of Trump Towers, White House

(Washington, DC) Hillary Clinton is blasting reports that her 2016 presidential campaign paid operatives to try and infiltrate Trump Tower servers and servers in the White House. Clinton tweeted that former President Trump and Fox News are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from Trumps real scandals. She added, the more Trumps misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie. The reports are rooted in Special Counsel John Durhams ongoing investigation of the origins of the Russia investigation.

An indictment from Durham reportedly accuses Clinton operatives of trying to establish an inference and false narrative linking Trump to Russia. Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has already been indicted for allegedly making false statements to the FBI about a possible connection between the Trump Organization and Russia.

The rest is here:

Reports say Hillary Clinton--who delegitimized Donald Trump's election--may have paid operatives to spy on Trump. Her response doesn't disappoint. -...

Most of the Republican candidates backed by former President Donald Trump are expected to win their midterm races in November, according to a betting aggregator.

The odds for his preferred contenders demonstrate that Trump still has a firm grip on the Republican Party, US Bookies has suggested.

The aggregator's predictions will be welcomed by Trump loyalists who are hoping to re-take the House and the Senate from the Democrats in November. Republicans have opened up a significant lead ahead of the midterms, a new poll has found.

Ron Johnson, who is running for re-election as senator for Wisconsin, has the best odds of the Trump allies. He is the overwhelming favorite to win his race at 1-10, according to US Bookies.

A US Bookies spokesperson said: "Control of Congress will likely come down to a few key races during the 2022 midterm elections and it looks like Donald Trump's endorsement will be a significant factor in securing Republican control.

"Most Trump-endorsed candidates are odds-on favorites to win, with some of the only exceptions being gubernatorial candidates."

Trump ally Herschel Walker has odds of 1-3 to win a Georgia Senate seat lost to the Democrat Raphael Warnock in a special election in 2021.

US Bookies has also highlighted the political cost to Republicans who oppose Trump, particularly Rep. Liz Cheney of Wisconsin.

Trump has repeatedly targeted Cheney, who said last week that the hearings of the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot would show the violence was caused by his baseless claims of election fraud. Cheney is vice chair of the committee and one of the former president's fiercest critics in the GOP.

The US Bookies spokesperson said: "Liz Cheney's story proves that not only does Trump's endorsement usually help Republicans win elections but that speaking against the former president also comes with grim results.

"Cheney now holds 4-1 to be re-elected to her seat in the House of Representatives, with Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman being the odds-on 1-3 favorite."

However, some GOP candidates who are competing against Trump picks are holding their own. In Alabama, the former president has endorsed Mo Brooks for Senate.

A US Bookies spokesperson added: "Of the congressional candidates endorsed by Trump who are favorites to win their respective elections, Mo Brooks has the worst odds. Brooks' 5-4 odds to win are best among all candidates, but fellow Republican Katie Britt is very close behind at 11-8."

Newsweek has contacted Trump's office for comment.

Although betting on elections is not legal in any U.S. state, US Bookies said its aggregate figures were for "illustrative purposes" and based on betting markets in Europe and the rest of the world, where it is legal.

Some polls have shown the Democrats gaining ground in recent weeks. Analysis from poll tracker FiveThirtyEight found there had been an upswing of support for the Democratic Party since late January, but it still needed to close a big gap in order to keep control of the House and Senate.

Should Republicans make significant gains in November it will allow them to significantly weaken President Joe Biden's agenda.

See original here:

Majority of Donald Trump-Backed Candidates Expected to Win MidtermsBookmakers - Newsweek

On Jan. 5, marking the one-year anniversary of Jan. 6, Attorney General Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandOvernight Health Care CDC to change guidance, including masking Senate Democrats urge DOJ to open criminal investigation into Sackler family members McConnell's unconstitutional blockade of Garland poisoned subsequent proceedings MORE promised that, following the facts, the Justice Department would pursue anyone, no matter how powerful, responsible for planning and carrying out the assault on the U.S. Capitol. The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.

One month later, its fair to ask: General, what are you waiting for? Why hasnt Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump-nominated FAA administrator to resign at end of March Republican voters split over RNC censure of Cheney and Kinzinger: poll Trump issues endorsements in Texas congressional races MORE yet been charged with any crime? How much more evidence do you need?

True, DOJ has aggressively pursued those who actually broke into the Capitol, arresting over 725 rioters so far, several of whom are already serving prison terms. And the departments reportedly still tracking down another 350 persons involved. But going after foot soldiers is not enough. What about the leader of the insurrection? What about Donald Trump? Every day, we see more evidence of his criminal conduct.

Read the account of Trumps second impeachment trial in Rep. Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinPress: Time for Merrick Garland to flush Donald Trump Press: Clubbing cops is not 'legitimate political discourse' Jan. 6 panel hesitates in asking Pence to testify MOREs (D-Md.) powerful new book, Untitled. While their goal was to remove Trump from office, not convict him of a crime, the impeachment managers laid forth a litany of Trumps illegal actions leading up to and on the day of Jan. 6: personally pressing local election officials to falsify election results; inciting supporters to block election officials from certifying the election: all part of an attempt to overthrow the duly-elected U.S. government.

Documents obtained, over Trumps objections, by the January 6 Select Committee reveal even more criminal behavior: efforts by Trump and his lawyers to persuade people to create false slates of presidential electors; lying in multiple courts of law about alleged voter fraud; pressuring the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon to seize local voting machines. Again, all with the intent of overturning the government.

Now the latest: A request from the National Archives that the Justice Department investigate possible criminal activity by Donald Trump by refusing to turn over 15 boxes of presidential papers some of them classified and marked top secret and taking them to Mar-a-Lago, instead. Clearly, this was no accident. These boxes contained items, like his famous love letters from North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, that Trump had cherry-picked for his hoped-for presidential library. Trump knew what the Presidential Records Act required, he just didnt care.

For the same reason, Trump apparently used his cell phone to call House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin McCarthyRepublican voters split over RNC censure of Cheney and Kinzinger: poll GOP eyes ambitious agenda if House flips DC delegate: Possible bill to repeal home rule 'radical' and 'very unexpected' MORE (R-Calif.), Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanThe real reason Jim Jordan is ranting against Jan. 6 committee staff Press: Time for Merrick Garland to flush Donald Trump Overnight Defense & National Security Top commander vents on Afghan evacuation MORE (R-Ohio), and others on Jan. 6 leaving no official record of White House calls, as required by law.

In fact, according to Trumps former White House Press Secretary Stephanie GrishamStephanie GrishamPress: Time for Merrick Garland to flush Donald Trump Former Trump press aide Sarah Matthews appears before Jan. 6 panel Trump facing legal, political headwinds as he eyes comeback MORE, a general disdain for the law, led by the president himself, permeated the Trump White House. Everybody knew, for example, he ripped up presidential documents in violation of the law. So what? He would roll his eyes at the rules, so we did, too, Grisham told the Washington Post.

Capping it all off is reporting from New York Times reporter Maggie HabermanMaggie Lindsy HabermanDocument dump turns toxic for Trump Press: Time for Merrick Garland to flush Donald Trump Rubio: White House records at Mar-a-Lago 'not a crime, I don't believe' MOREs new book, Confidence Man, that plumbers were often summoned to theWhite House residence to free toilets clogged by official papers Trump had ripped up and tried to flush. Which gives new meaning to the phrase document dump.

What more evidence does he need? Its time for Merrick Garland to flush Donald Trump.

Press is host of The Bill Press Pod. He is author of From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.

Read the rest here:

Press: Time for Merrick Garland to flush Donald Trump | TheHill - The Hill