Raw Story

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) took another stab at defending her decision to shoot and kill a 14-month old puppy years ago that attacked some chickens, by citing a South Dakota law that allows animals that kill "livestock" to be put down.

Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, the embattled Republican attempted to put out the firestorm she created by writing in her new book that she "hated" the puppy named Cricket and after an incident took it to a gravel pit and shot it while also claiming it was "worthless" as a hunting dog despite its young age.

On Sunday, she wrote, "I can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch, in my upcoming book — No Going Back. The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned."

ALSO READ: ‘Fraudulent’: Trump tormentor Lincoln Project loses big money in cybertheft scheme

She then continued:

"What I learned from my years of public service, especially leading South Dakota through COVID, is people are looking for leaders who are authentic, willing to learn from the past, and don’t shy away from tough challenges. My hope is anyone reading this book will have an understanding that I always work to make the best decisions I can for the people in my life. The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did. Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it’s hard and painful. I followed the law and was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. As I explained in the book, it wasn't easy. But often the easy way isn't the right way."

That did not satisfy Noem's many internet critics.

As one put it, she seemed more invested in selling her book, writing, "Stop using you murdering your dog in cold blood to try to sell copies of your book you sicko."

That was one of the nicer responses she received.

Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa said, "It sounds like out of at least three options 1) train the dog; 2) drive any distance to a shelter; or 3) shoot it on the spot, you literally took the easiest one."

Former Trump campaign aide A.J. Delgado called Noem a "liar."

"BTW, liar, he never 'killed' livestock -- only attacked, which every dog does (i.e., runs after them). Quit changing your story. Your career is OVER."

@OurShallowState said, "The dog frustrated you. You killed it. That wasn't a tough decision by an empathetic person. That was a weak and lazy decision by a sociopathic person. Leading in government is making the right choices. You are insensitive and impatient. Your choices suck."

Democrat Harry Sisson also weighed in.

"There is no justifying your actions. What you did was disgusting and unforgivable. Also, nobody is going to buy your damn book," he said.

Noem even lost the support of some commenting users.

@colin_fendley said, "I have been a farm owner, I have been a K9 Handler, and I have trained thousands of dogs; you can not justify this, my dear. I'm a conservative, and you lost my support."

Donald Trump is likely going to be convicted in the hush money cover-up case he's currently facing, but the real punishment is being forced to be a criminal defendant, a former prosecutor said Sunday.

Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti appeared on MSNBC's Alex Witt Reports, where he was asked about whether or not Trump will be held accountable for any potential wrongdoing.

"Big picture, Renato, do you think some sense of accountability is near for Donald Trump, given everything in his legal sphere that is going on?" the host asked.

ALSO READ: ‘Fraudulent’: Trump tormentor Lincoln Project loses big money in cybertheft scheme

"I personally think some measure of accountability is here for Donald Trump," he responded, noting that the New York trial is likely the only one to take place before the upcoming election. "I do not think he wants to be sitting in a cold courtroom. I do not think he is enjoying this experience. I think he feels humiliated. He is being ordered around by a judge referring to him as Mr. Trump and telling him what to do. I think there is already some measure of accountability."

That being said, however, Mariotti also made a prediction about the case's conclusion.

"Do I think there is likely a conviction here? Yes, I do. Obviously that is not the only piece of this that I think has an impact on Donald trump."

Watch below or click here.

Donald Trump's legal team has been working overtime to force Special Counsel Jack Smith to make public his prosecution team's evidence against the former president in the criminal documents case, and they just had a victory... sort of.

Recently, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed several documents in the Florida criminal case, resulting in a trove of new revelations. One of those newly disclosed details was that Walt Nauta, Trump's valet and co-defendant in the case, previously told a grand jury that his boss would throw papers "on the floor" when he "would leave for the evening."

But those filings also showed some information that "undercuts" Trump's claims in the case, according to a report from ABC.

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

"A coat hanger or 'very tiny screwdriver' could be used to unlock the Mar-a-Lago storage room where former President Donald Trump stored highly classified documents for more than a year, according to a witness in Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation," it states. "The account was relayed to FBI agents by an unidentified aide to Trump in January 2023, according to newly released exhibits, and further undercuts claims by Trump that the highly-classified materials he's accused of taking with him after leaving office were secured at all times."

The report further notes the origin of the crucial release.

"The transcript of the interview was released as part of an ongoing effort by Trump and his co-defendants to make additional evidence gathered by Special Counsel Smith public," it reads.

ABC notes that the reported detail "further bolsters concerns raised by Smith about the lack of security surrounding the documents while they were stored in Mar-a-Lago."

"In his indictment of Trump, he included photos showing boxes believed to have contained classified documents in a ballroom at the club as well as a bathroom," it reported.

Read the full article here.

The general public already knows a lot about the prosecution's case against Donald Trump in the criminal hush money cover-up case, but there's one detail that is keeping former Richard Nixon White House counsel John Dean "on the edge of his seat."

Dean, who recently highlighted a case that he said proves Trump has "no criminal immunity" when it comes to his actions as president, appeared on CNN Newsroom Live on Saturday and was asked about the case involving allegedly falsified records and an adult film star.

Dean noted that tabloid publisher David Pecker "was a good witness" and that it was "an attention-grabbing week for the jury and the public."

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

Dean goes on to say that there are a lot of documents involved in the case, and that we know what many of them are already.

What we "don't know," according to Dean, is "if they have or do not have information or witnesses or documents that directly link Donald Trump to the falsification of the documents or whether that's going to be something that has to be inferred by really overwhelming evidence that there's no other way it could have happened other than from his allowing it to happen."

"That's a thinner case. If they have a direct witness or they have direct evidence, that's going to be a powerful case," he added. "So, this is what's keeping me on the edge of my seat as I watch what unfolds."

Watch the video below or click the link right here.

Donald Trump may be looking bad right now, but the next six months are going to be even worse for him, according to a former official in the ex-president's administration.

Former White House communications chief Anthony Scaramucci appeared on MSNBC's Alex Witt Reports on Saturday, where he was asked about how he thinks Trump is handling the grueling schedule that accompanies his criminal trial and presidential campaign. He has previously warned Trump about a financial "avalanche" that is going to hit him.

On MSNBC Saturday, the host asked Scaramucci about how Trump, who is used to drinking "up to a dozen" Diet Cokes per day, is doing.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why Trump’s Manhattan trial is the biggest threat to his freedom

"I mean, this guy is eight years older than he was when you were spending that kind of time with him," the host added.

Scaramucci replied, "You know, he looks terrible."

"I mean, who is kidding who? The question, though, is what is going to be the aftermath of this? ... he probably doesn't go to jail. Let's say the worst thing happens to him, he will probably be confined. I don't think they would put a former president in jail, he'd probably end up with an embarrassing ankle bracelet and will have to campaign over Zoom for a period of time. But, it is embarrassing."

Scaramucci went on to say the "real question" is, "How is this man still standing for president? And what does it say about you if you are supporting Mr. Trump at this moment in U.S. history?"

"I would really caution people about all of this. I think the next six months for Mr. Trump are going to be worse for him than the prior six months."

Watch below or click the link here.

As Donald Trump's first criminal trial got underway, proceedings received extensive coverage in the media.

But over at Fox News, the story is not the center of the news world — and the network's focus was more centered around Trump's grievances over the trial, which accuses him of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made to adult movie star Stormy Daniels.

According to The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona, "The rest of the cable news landscape has devoted round-the-clock coverage to the trial," but Fox has "mostly dipped in and out."

"Spending the bulk of its time on the pro-Palestinian protests at Ivy League schools, Fox News has centered a large portion of its Trump trial coverage on criticizing the case and the court’s treatment of the former president," Baragona wrote.

Baragona contends that Fox's approach to coverage of Trump's trial is causing its hosts and guests to take "increasingly goofy and zany positions" in order to defend Trump, and he cites a number of examples, including from The Five host Jesse Watters.

Also read: 'Perma-scowl': Observers say Trump is not doing well at hiding frustration from jurors

“The guy needs exercise. He’s usually golfing. And so, you’re going to put a man who’s almost 80, sitting in a room like this on his butt for all that time? It's not healthy,” Watters said during a segment this Monday.

“You know how big of a health nut I am. He needs sunlight and he needs activity. He needs to be walking around, he needs action. It’s really cruel and unusual punishment to make a man do that. And any time he moves, they threaten to throw him in prison!”

Baragona then points to the roundtable show Outnumbered, where GOP operative and regular Fox News guest Ian Prior compared Trump being criminally tried to the fall of Rome.

“The very problem that we have here is we are weaponizing the justice system to go after former presidents. You back up 2,000 years and this is the kind of thing they would do in the Roman Republic that led to the end of the Roman Republic,” Prior said. “Caesar is out there and says if you do not come back to Rome…and face prosecution, what did he do? He crossed the Rubicon and there’s the end of the Republic.”

Then there's Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt, whose take on the matter didn't make much sense to Baragona, and he asked his readers to decide what the following commentary means.

“Does this set a precedent for other people who want to run for president?” Earhardt sighed. “What if they've done something like this in the past and they can say, 'Oh, well, they told me in the 8th grade they want to run for president, so since they paid off a girl when they were 30 years old, then that was election interference!'”

But the craziest take, according to Baragona, came from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

“I am deeply worried that tomorrow, a totally corrupt judge and a totally corrupt district attorney are going to try to put a former president of the United States, candidate of his party, and front-runner in the polls in jail. Now, I think this is so horrendous that there has to be some way to reach out to the Supreme Court,” Gingrich said on Monday night’s Hannity.

“This is literally like some of the civil rights workers in Mississippi in the 1960s. The New York system is now so deeply corrupted and it's so bitterly, deeply anti-Trump.”

Read more at The Daily Beast.