Raw Story
Featured Stories:
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce still didn’t announce pregnancy, despite AI rumors
‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech

President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.
In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.
Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."
Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."
Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."
Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.
"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history

New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.
"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.
A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.
"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.
The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.
“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”
Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.
"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."
"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."
"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.
Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.
“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”
Trump’s ex-doctor issues another statement in effort to end rally shooting doubts

Donald Trump's controversial former physician tried to put to rest lingering questions about the injuries the former president suffered in an apparent assassination attempt.
Rep. Ronny Jackson, the former White House physician, said last week that the bullet struck the tip of Trump's right ear, less than a quarter inch from his head, and opened a two-centimeter gash that could not be closed up with stitches. He issued another statement Friday after FBI director Christopher Wray suggested to a House committee that the injury could have been caused by shrapnel.
"There is absolutely no evidence that it was anything other than a bullet," Jackson said in a letter posted on Trump's Truth Social account. "Congress should correct the record as confirmed by both the hospital and myself. Director Wray is wrong and inappropriate to suggest anything else."
Jackson said he has reviewed the former president's medical records from his initial treatment at Butler Memorial Hospital in Pennsylvania and examined the wound himself, and he said both he and the doctors and nurses who treated him at the hospital all agreed the wound was caused by a bullet.
However, those medical records have not been publicly released and the doctors who treated him have not spoken publicly about his injuries.
Trump himself angrily pushed back on Wray's comments about his injuries, saying the FBI had never examined him, and attacked the agency for prosecuting Jan. 6 rioters and allowing vandalism by demonstrators protesting the Israel-Gaza war.
"No, it was, unfortunately, a bullet that hit my ear, and hit it hard," Trump posted. "There was no glass, there was no shrapnel. The hospital called it a 'bullet wound to the ear,' and that is what it was. No wonder the once storied FBI has lost the confidence of America!"
However, doubts about the cause of his injuries persist.
ALSO READ: 'I hope she eats him alive': Giddy panel of seniors looking forward to Harris/Trump debate
"He was totally, definitely, 100% hit by bullet and that's why we won't allow access to the actual hospital records or to the actual doctor who treated the actual injury," said A.J. Delgado, a former Trump 2016 campaign staffer turned outspoken critic.
"We must see Donald Trump’s official medical records," said Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY).
"Trump has only himself to blame for the controversy over what happened to his ear," said Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf. "Release the medical records, let an independent doctor provide an assessment and we can move on."
"Great news, journalists!!!" said legal expert Marcy Wheeler in response to his Truth Social post stating that the hospital had determined he was injured by a bullet. "Trump has given you cause to demand his medical records from the hospital in Butler (including the C2 scan results), and a waiver so the doctors can provide a press conference."
‘Just a lie’: Fox guest shreds claim that Kamala Harris is to the left of Bernie Sanders

Former New York Democratic State Sen. David Carlucci on Friday slapped down claims made by former President Donald Trump and his allies that Vice President Kamala Harris is more left-wing than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is an avowed democratic socialist.
While appearing on Fox News, Carlucci was asked by host Harris Faulkner to respond to Democratic strategist James Carville warning Democrats to not get too excited about Harris being their new nominee because she would have to face a flurry of right-wing attacks that she would have to answer for.
Carlucci, however, was not buying into this framing.
"When you talk about the liabilities for Kamala Harris -- it's not a liability, it's just a lie from Donald Trump... that she is left of Bernie Sanders," he said.
ALSO READ: Boebert, MTG and far-fight friends derail Speaker Mike Johnson’s summer plan
At this point, Faulkner interrupted him and pointed to voting-record data showing that, for one calendar year, Harris had the most liberal voting record of anyone in the United States Senate.
Of course, a one-year snapshot does not account for a senator's entire record and Sanders has embraced policies such as eliminating all private health insurance in the United States that Harris has not.
Carlucci pointed out that Harris actually had trouble in the 2020 Democratic primary because she was outflanked on the left by rivals such as Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
"She is a moderate Democrat," he said. "She was a prosecutor, she was the head prosecutor in California."
Faulkner interjected and tried to change the subject.
"How's she done on the border?" she asked.
"Look, I think Kamala Harris is exactly what Donald Trump has been afraid of," he shot back.
Watch the video below or at this link.
YouTube www.youtube.com
‘I hope she eats him alive’: Giddy panel of seniors looking forward to Harris/Trump debate

Any hope that Donald Trump's campaign may have had that the elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris as the projected Democratic party's presidential candidate may be off-putting to elderly white voters suffered a bit of blow on Friday during a CNN report.
In a clip featuring elderly voters in the key state of Pennsylvania, CNN's John King found a smattering of senior white voters who are not fans of Donald Trump in the least with one simply describing him as a "monster."
While CNN's Sara Sidner introduced the segment with, "Some say they are energized by Harris' has run while others aren't sure," King asked for a show of hands if any of them were "more optimistic" with Harris as the candidate, three out of four agreed.
ALSO READ: Boebert, MTG and far-fight friends derail Speaker Mike Johnson’s summer plans
According to voter Pamela Aita, who disagreed, "I don't think a lot of men will vote for Harris, I just don't. Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, whatever, I just don't think the majority of men are ready for a female president."
Asked "Who wants to see them debate," one unidentified woman blurted, "Oh yeah!" as all four raised their hands.
With King reporting all of them are "bursting with energy" over the Harris campaign, another told him, "I don't even like to hear the word Trump," she then added she calls him a "monster."
When voter Larry Malinconico was asked, "Are you looking forward to Harris debating Trump?" he shot back, "Absolutely. I'm hoping she'll just eat him alive."
Pat Levin, 95, advised Harris, "Get into those swing states and show her enthusiasm and her stamina strength, and be able to communicate strongly."
You can watch below or at the link here.
CNN 07 26 2024 08 39 03 youtu.be
‘Big win today!’ Trump threatens media companies after favorable ruling in defamation suit

Donald Trump gloated after a Florida judge rejected a motion to dismiss his defamation lawsuit against ABC News and host George Stephanopoulos Wednesday.
Attorneys for the network and Stephanopoulos had asked a federal judge to throw out the former president's defamation suit based on a March interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) where the host asked her "more than 10 times" whether Trump had been found “liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll civil case.
But District judge Cecilia Altonaga allowed the case to move forward.
"A big win today in high Florida court against ABC fake News, and Liddle' George Slopadopolus," the former president posted in all capital letters on his Truth Social account.
"A powerful case! Before you know it, the fake news media will be forced by the courts to start telling the truth. This is a great day for our country. MAGA2024"
Defense attorneys had argued that Trump intends to re-litigate "a meritless theory of defamation" that has already been rejected twice in New York, arguing that a jury in that state had found the former president committed a violent sexual assault, so it would not be considered defamatory under Florida law to say that he had committed rape.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump ‘secretary of retribution’ won't discuss his ‘target list’ at RNC
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,'” wrote New York-based District Judge Lewis Kaplan in that case.
“Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages to author E. Jean Carroll after the jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
How Trump is distorting what happened to Jaleel Stallings to attack Kamala Harris

On Tuesday, the Trump campaign accused Vice President Kamala Harris of encouraging people in 2020 to bail out of jail a St. Paul man who tried to kill Minneapolis cops five days after George Floyd’s police murder.
Trump’s “war room” posted on X that Harris raised money to bail Jaleel Stallings out of jail after he was “charged with the attempted murder of two police officers” alongside a photo of Harris laughing and Stallings’ mug shot.
“Kamala Harris is radically liberal and dangerously incompetent,” the post said.
It’s true that Stallings was charged with attempted murder, but the Trump campaign fails to mention that Stallings was acquitted by a jury of all charges and one officer involved in the incident later pleaded guilty to felony assault on Stallings, and apologized to him.
On the night of May 30, 2020, Stallings was standing in a parking lot on Lake Street with a few others when suddenly shots rang out from a white cargo van that had been slowly creeping down the street before coming into view from behind a building. Two rounds were fired at the group.
Stallings was hit in the chest with what he thought was a bullet. He immediately drew his pistol and fired back at who he thought might be white supremacists that the governor had warned were fanning the flames of protest. He later testified that he purposely missed, aiming low, toward the front of the van, hoping to scare off whoever had shot at him.
Suddenly members of a SWAT team piled out of the unmarked van yelling, “Shots fired!” Stallings realized they were police, dropped his gun and lay face down on the pavement, arms spread-eagle, videos show.
He’d been shot with one of the plastic projectiles the SWAT team had been firing at people out past a curfew as police struggled to get control of the city amid protests, arson and riots. Even though they were firing “less lethal” projectiles, under MPD policy, officers weren’t supposed to target a person’s head, neck, throat or chest “unless deadly force is justified,” because they could cause permanent damage or death.
Thinking someone had just tried to shoot them, the officers beat Stallings bloody for 30 seconds, and beat and Tasered his acquaintance for two minutes. Stallings was hospitalized with a fractured eye socket. Stallings is clearly beaten and bloody in his jail mug shot, but he had a weird smile on his face. He later said he was just happy to be alive.
Then-Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman released a statement painting Stallings as a would-be cop killer.
Two years later, Freeman would say the cops lied about what happened, and called the case “justice run amok.” But immediately after the incident, the case made national headlines based on charging documents that said Stallings fired at a uniformed SWAT team.
The case made headlines again when the Minnesota Freedom Fund paid $75,000 cash to get Stallings out of jail. He had no prior criminal record.
After Biden campaign officials donated to the Freedom Fund, then-President Donald Trump’s War Room used the case to raise money, tweeting that “Jaleel Stallings is a would-be cop killer who was in jail for firing at police during ‘peaceful protests.’ Now he’s free thanks in part to Biden campaign officials who donated to pay bail fees.”
And then everybody moved on, until Stallings went to trial a year later.
Stallings’ attorney Eric Rice obtained the officers’ body camera videos, which told a different story than what police and prosecutors had told the public.
Months after the trial, the Reformer was the first to report that Stallings had been exonerated. He’d claimed self-defense, and after a five-day trial, was acquitted by a jury of eight charges, including two counts of attempting to murder police officers.
The city later settled a civil lawsuit with Stallings for $1.5 million, and another lawsuit filed by his acquaintance, who’d been beaten and tasered, for $645,000.
And yet Stallings continues to be tarred and used for political gain.
U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota posted on X Monday that Harris once supported “a bail fund for Minnesota criminals who should have stayed behind bars.”
The Trump campaign followed suit Tuesday with its post highlighting Harris’ June 1, 2020 post encouraging people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund. Spurred on by celebrities like Seth Rogen, Steve Carrell and Harris, the tiny bail fund was overwhelmed with over $30 million in donations, which it used to bail out over 2,000 people as part of its goal of ending the cash bail system in which only people without money have to sit in jail awaiting trial, often at the expense of jobs, housing and family support.
The bail fund was established in 2016 by a University of Minnesota grad student, Simon Cecil, and due to its meager resources initially focused on bails of up to $1,000.
The bail fund has been excoriated for bailing out a twice-convicted rapist and a man who was charged with second-degree murder three weeks after his release, but stands by its decision to bail out Stallings over four years ago.
“We’re really proud of having paid for (Stallings),” spokesperson Noble Frank said last year.
Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com. Follow Minnesota Reformer on Facebook and X.
Fox News invites Kamala Harris to presidential debate at urging of Donald Trump

Following Donald Trump's suggestion, Fox News proposed hosting a debate between the former president and Vice President Kamala Harris in September.
After Harris became the de facto Democratic presidential nominee, Trump hinted he would back out of a pre-planned debate on ABC News. In a Truth Social post, Trump said the debate should be moved to Fox News.
"Now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic nominee, FOX News Media is amending our proposal for a debate this cycle," the network wrote in a letter to both campaigns on Wednesday. "We propose to host the debate in the state of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, September 17, just as early voting is getting underway there and in other key battlegrounds."
Fox News put forward Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum as the "best choices" to moderate the debate.
Exclusive: Harris? Newsom? Whitmer? GOP delegates dish on who they want Trump to face
"In recognition of FOX News Media's capabilities and reputation, we cordially extend an invitation to all concerned parties to discuss our proposal," the letter said.
Popular articles
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce still didn’t announce pregnancy, despite AI rumors
‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech

President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.
In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.
Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."
Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."
Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."
Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.
"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history

New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.
"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.
A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.
"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.
The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.
“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”
Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.
"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."
"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."
"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.
Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.
“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”

