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 attorney gets schooled on the law by witness: ‘It’s not illegal in New York’

Manhattan Criminal Court — Donald Trump's attorney was schooled on the law by the former president's ex-attorney Michael Cohen as he sat in the witness box during his cross-examination Thursday.
Cohen delivered his lesson to attorney Todd Blanche, the lead defender in Trump's criminal hush money case, as the two discussed conversations that Trump's former fixer had recorded.
Blanche took a stern tone when he demanded to know if Cohen had informed those he recorded of that fact, and appeared astounded when Cohen said he had not.
But Cohen remained calm as he said into the microphone, "It’s not illegal in New York."
New York allows "one-party consent," which allows anyone participating in a conversation to legally record it without informing other parties.
This check did not stop Blanche from pushing Cohen on recorded conversations he shared with reporters such as New York Times Maggie Haberman and with clients who Blanche argued were unilaterally protected by privilege.
When Blanche asked if there were any exceptions to attorney-client confidentiality, Cohen yet again had an answer: the rule that mandates lawyers to disclose conversations — advice for example — that would contribute to criminal activity.
ALSO READ: Trump told to pay up before rallying in N.J. town he previously stiffed
Blanche sputtered a question asking incredulously if Cohen was claiming to have relied on this exception. Again, Cohen was calm.
"You asked if there were exceptions," a deadpan Cohen replied. "And I said 'Yes, the crime-fraud exception."
This exchange occurred on the second day of Cohen's courtroom battle with Blanche in the Manhattan criminal courtroom where Trump stands accused of falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Trump pleaded not guilty, denies an affair with Daniels and contends he is the victim of a political witch hunt, without evidence.
Blanche had a rocky start Thursday morning that saw his request to consult Judge Juan Merchan swiftly shut down with a resounding "No."
His jab at members of Congress fell flat, and in front of several Republican House members who came to the New York City courtroom to back up Trump.
ALSO READ: 'Bootlickers': GOP lawmakers supporting Trump nailed by protest sign at hush money trial
The morning's session also saw Merchan sternly order Blanche to fix a problem raised by prosecutor Josh Steinglass that Blanche had unfairly suggested Cohen was engaged in improper conduct tied to the District Attorney's criminal indictment.
Expert on Trump case says lawyer’s grilling of Cohen left even him confused: ‘Needs work’

A former top prosecutor for ex-FBI chief Robert Mueller heralded Michael Cohen for being "unflappable" while testifying in Donald Trump's hush money trial Thursday.
The cross-examination of Cohen continued for the second day as prosecutors called Trump's former lawyer as a witness. The former president denies charges that he created false business records around a hush-money scheme.
Earlier this week, Andrew Weissmann revealed that he was the one who discovered the hush money paid to adult movie star Stormy Daniels while reading evidence while investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. He told Mueller it was a "blue dress problem," a reference to Bill Clinton's affair with an intern.
But on his second day of cross-examination, Weissmann had nothing but praise for Cohen.
Read Also: How a billionaire's privilege is taking down our republic
"The striking moment when you heard the voice of Michael Cohen on his podcast, which was distinctly different than the in-court Michael Cohen. That doesn't mean Michael Cohen is lying on the stand. But it is useful for the jury to see that that is not what — he is not always in the mode that he is in the courtroom," said Weissmann.
Cohen's podcast voice when he reads his opening statement is distinctly different from his conversational voice when he speaks with guests, as can be heard here.
"For every day that he has been on, whether on direct or cross, he is unflappable," Weissmann assessed.
"Even on cross-examination that mentions his wife, [and] cross-examination with texts with his daughter, which I personally think is playing poorly. The cross there is about essentially the daughter thinking how great he is and how he deserves so much. That's what you would want your child to think.
"I'm not sure that was the right decision. [Trump lawyer] Todd Blanche is doing better than the last time we saw him, [but] that's a very low bar."
"His technique needs some work," Weissmann said of Blanche. He confessed that he had a difficult time following at times — and he is an expert on this case.
"That's actually because of the techniques that Todd Blanche is using," Weissmann said.
See the comments below or at the link here.
Cohen called 'unflappable' by top Mueller prosecutor who discovered hush money scandal www.youtube.com
‘Rather angry’: Yelling Trump unloads after Michael Cohen testimony

Former President Donald Trump delivered one of his angriest post-trial day rants in Manhattan on Monday after his former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen — one of the most important witnesses for District Attorney Alvin Bragg — took the stand to testify about his own role in the alleged criminal scheme.
The former president has made several such speeches at the end of trial arguments, often followed immediately by crushing fact-checks that strip away his false claims — but on Monday he lost his cool more than usual.
"The whole is laughing now at New York's weaponized legal system, watching this unfold," Trump thundered.
He went on to claim that the Federal Election Commission looked into the allegations and found, "There's absolutely no problem," with the payments. He then quoted a number of people sympathetic to his case, including right-leaning law professor Jonathan Turley and even Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), whom Trump quoted as saying the "objective is to keep Trump off the campaign trail, that's all they're trying to do, keep him off the campaign trail."
Trump also went after Judge Juan Merchan, once again accusing him of a conflict of interest due to his daughter's political activity — a point of contention that has previously gotten him held in contempt of court, although this time he took care not to go after Merchan's daughter directly.
ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene delays financial disclosure day after motion-to-vacate debacle
As he spoke, his raised his voice until he was yelling at gathered outside the courtroom.
"A rather angry defendant," remarked CNN's Jake Tapper as Trump walked away.
Trump added of Merchan, "We have a corrupt judge, and we have a judge who's highly conflicted and he's keeping me from campaigning. He's an appointed New York judge, he's appointed. You know who appointed him? Democrat politicians. He's appointed, he's a corrupt judge and he's a conflicted judge, and he ought to let us go out and campaign and get rid of this.
"Every single legal analyst, even CNN, even MSDNC, say the same, there's no case here."
Watch the video below or at the link here.
Trump angrily claims they have no case against him www.youtube.com
Mike Johnson ‘undercuts’ Trump’s key campaign message with accidental admission: columnist

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tried to back up former President Donald Trump's claims that non-citizens were voting in presidential elections during a Wednesday news conference — but his claim was accidentally revealing in a way that is bad for the former president, wrote Aaron Blake for The Washington Post.
This comes as Johnson has also suggested that if he were in a position to block election certification in 2024, under the same "circumstances" as 2020, he would do so.
“'We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable,' Johnson said. 'We don’t have that number."
This comment is "at least somewhat transparent," Blake said — but it "undercuts the leader of the Republican Party, former president Donald Trump, who has ridiculously pegged the number of illegal votes by undocumented immigrants in the 2016 election at 3 million to 5 million (just enough, as it happens, to explain away his 2.9 million-vote loss in the popular vote).
"After the 2020 election, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani also ridiculously pegged the number of such illegal votes in Arizona alone at between 40,000 and 250,000 — as many as 1 out of every 14 votes cast.
"Johnson, at the very least, is implicitly acknowledging that Trump’s and Giuliani’s numbers are pulled out of thin air. It’s part of a broader and long-standing effort in the GOP to water down Trump’s false voter-fraud claims and repackage them," Blake continued.
"But, given that — and given the continued GOP focus on this issue — it’s worth noting how much Republicans have found or come to admit that actual evidence of widespread voter fraud simply isn’t there."
ALSO READ: ‘Outrageous’: Army reservist with KKK ties still in the military
This includes Trump ally Rudy Giuliani admitting that there are "lots of theories" but they "don't have the evidence," far-right groups like True the Vote confessing that there's no proof of ballot stuffing when their claims went up in court, and a 2022 report from longtime Republican officials concluding that “there is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole."
Ultimately, concluded Blake, "Despite the lack of evidence and the abject failure of Trump’s post-2020 voter-fraud lawsuits, some lawmakers apparently feel compelled to construct a boogeyman to toe Trump’s line on combating voter fraud — even as they freely acknowledge they can’t say what the boogeyman is made of."
‘Cohen can’t remember how old his son is’: J.D. Vance days after Trump forgets son’s age

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) on Monday joined a gaggle of Donald Trump defenders — including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, (R-NY) and the ex-president’s son Eric Trump — at the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse to attend the ongoing “hush money” trial.
At a press conference, Tuberville ranted against "supposedly American citizens" in the courtroom and claimed District Attorney Alvin Bragg is putting the former president through “mental anguish.”
Tuberville also said of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen: “This guy is giving an acting scene.”
Vance, in a series of tweets on X, assailed Cohen's credibility as a witness.
READ MORE: Tuberville slammed for berating 'supposedly American citizens' in Trump hush money courtroom
"Cohen can’t remember how old his son is or how old he was when he started to work for Trump but I’m sure he remembers extremely small details from years ago!" Vance wrote.
But his comment came just days after Trump, in an interview Thursday with Telemundo51, misstated son Barron Trump’s age as 17. Barron Trump turned 18 in March.
In that interview, Trump told reporter Marilys Llanos he’s “able to put [aside]” the ongoing trial and focus on “a lot of things at one time.”
“I’m very ambidextrous, so to speak,” Trump said last week.
READ MORE: 'Ambidextrous' Trump tells Telemundo his 18-year-old son is 17
Despite Trump’s claim that he’s able to compartmentalize the trial, allies like Vance are “[stepping] up attacks” in light of Merchan’s gag order — which the president has violated 10 times, NBC News reports.
“The president is expected to sit here for six weeks to listen to the Michael Cohens of the world,” Vance complained in his tweets. "I’m now convinced the main goal of this trial is psychological torture. But Trump is in great spirits."
The Ohio senator, a vice presidential contender, also appeared to defend Trump against claims he’s fallen asleep in the courtroom, The Arizona Republic reports.
"I’m 39 years old and I’ve been here for 26 minutes and I’m about to fall asleep," Vance wrote.
‘Everything has a price’: Insiders say Trump secret offer left oil barons ‘stunned’

Donald Trump made a transactional offer that reportedly "stunned" top oil executives at an event last month at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
One executive complained about environmental regulations they continued to face despite spending $400 million to lobby President Joe Biden's administration, and the former president pitched what some attendees perceived as a blunt and transactional offer, reported the Washington Post.
"Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House," the Post reported.
"At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation."
The presumptive Republican nominee has already asked the oil industry to help craft his environmental agenda for a possible second term that would roll back Biden's mandates on clean energy and electric vehicles, and Trump told attendees over chopped steak that he would allow new offshore drilling, fast-track permits and relax other regulations.
“You’ve been waiting on a permit for five years, you’ll get it on Day 1,” Trump told the executives, according to one attendee.
ALSO READ: Trump’s Manhattan trial could determine whether rule of law survives: criminologist
Oil executives had hoped Florida GoV. Ron DeSantis or some other Republican would challenge Biden, and so far oil donors and their allies have given only $6.4 million to Trump's joint fundraising committee in the first quarter of this year, but oil billionaire Harold Hamm and others will host a fundraiser for him later this year that's expected to generate larger amounts of money.
“Biden constantly throws a wet blanket to the oil and gas industry,” said Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary. “Trump’s ‘drill baby drill’ philosophy aligns much better with the oil patch than Biden’s green-energy approach. It’s a no-brainer.”
Oil executives are intrigued by Trump's pitch, which Alex Witt, a senior adviser for oil and gas with Climate Power, said shows that "everything has a price" with the former president.
“They got a great return on their investment during Trump’s first term," Witt said, "and Trump is making it crystal clear that they’re in for an even bigger payout if he’s re-elected."
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.”

