Featured Stories:
‘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.”
‘Old and tired and mad’: Trump’s demeanor in court detailed by Rachel Maddow
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, inside Manhattan’s Criminal Courthouse on Monday, declared that Donald Trump appeared “old and tired and mad” as she delivered observations about the ex-president on trial for 34 counts of falsification of business records in the alleged pursuit of election interference to protect his 2016 presidential run.
Trump “seems considerably older, and he seems annoyed. Resigned, maybe, angry. He seems like a man who’s miserable to be here,” the journalist told MSNBC viewers Monday afternoon.
“I’m no body language expert,” she conceded, “and this is just my observation. He seemed old and tired and mad.”
The New York Times’ Susanne Craig, inside the courthouse Monday morning, reported: “Trump is struggling to stay awake. His eyes were closed for a short period. He was jolted awake when Todd Blanche, his lawyer, nudged him while sliding a note in front of him.”
The Biden campaign was only too happy to pick up and report Craig’s observation, adding “feeble.”
Former Obama senior advisor David Axelrod, pointing to his piece at The Atlantic, wrote of Trump: “He has charmed & conned, schemed & marauded his way through life. He was bred that way. But the weariness & vulnerability captured in courtroom images betray a growing sense in Trump that he could wind up as the thing his old man most reviled:
A loser.”Watch Maddow's video below.
Kremlin-linked Truth Social investor linked to dangerous ‘sex pills’ operation: report
A Russian entrepreneur who loaned millions to Donald Trump's social media platform was behind a series of websites that pushed potentially dangerous "sex pills" that sparked warnings from health regulators about dangerous ingredients, according to a report.
The product, called VMax, promised improved sexual function for those who take it and sparked warnings from the FDA that its ingredients could cause serious health defects.
The sites where the product was sold have been traced to 40-year-old Anton Postolnikov, who reportedly has family links to the Kremlin, according to The Daily Beast which reported he has a history of "success in niche online businesses such as providing financial services to porn stars and camgirls."
Postolnikov, who has donated to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is suspected by the U.S. government of making nearly $23 million in 2021 from alleged insider trading on Truth Social, the social media platform owned by Trump. Although he hasn't been charged in the case, the FBI's investigation found he participated in the scheme, according to the Beast's report.
Also read: 'Old and tired and mad': Trump’s demeanor in court detailed by Rachel Maddow
"Before his alleged foray into Florida high finance, Postolnikov was involved in the selling of Vimax, which was sold via offshore companies in the U.S., Cyprus, and Mauritius, according to the products’ websites," the Beast reported.
"New Century Beauty LLC, the company which was described as owner and operator of vimaxtrialoffer.com on the site, is registered at the California address of Postolnikov’s mother, Lyudmila Postolnikova, aged 73. Izef LLC which listed Postolnikov as an administrator, handled sales of Vimax for a period, according to archived snapshots of the sales websites," The Beast's report stated.
The sex pills were marketed as being a "100% natural product," but the FDA says they contain the Ingredient tadalafil, which could lower blood pressure and negatively interact with other drugs. But according to Andrei Octav Moise, whose company trademarked the product, the FDA only examined counterfeit versions of the product.
“The FDA did indeed find knockoffs of Vimax sold by a Chinese company without any authorization from nor relationship to the Vimax brand. Essentially the knockoff products did contain illegal substances and were investigated by the FDA who ultimately held that they were not authentic Vimax products and had nothing to do with Vimax per se,” he said according to The Beast.
U.S. prosecutors are looking at Postolnikov over the way he structured the loan to Truth Social through an obscure entity called “ES Family Trust.”
"Wire transfer documents show that Trump Media received $2 million from Paxum Bank and another $6 million from ES Family Trust. Documents obtained by the authors show that the trustee for ES Family Trust is Angel Pacheco, who reportedly listed himself as an employee of Paxum Bank on LinkedIn."
Read the full report over at The Daily Beast.
Insider describes ‘stunning’ moment judge made Trump ‘meekly’ sit down like a ‘little boy’
Donald Trump hasn't listened to anyone telling him to sit down since he was sent to boarding school, but that streak ended with Judge Juan Merchan the other day, according to a man who was in the room at the time that it happened.
During an appearance on MSNBC, columnist and longtime Washington insider Jonathan Alter set the scene for what happened when Merchan instructed Trump to have a seat. It has been reported that Trump was "fuming" after being made to sit like a dog would.
The host asked Alter how the event might affect Trump's "psyche."
ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances
"In the final minutes of the trial on Friday as Donald Trump was standing to leave the courtroom, the judge firmly told Donald Trump, 'Sir, can you please have a seat?' That moment has come to represent the stripping of control from a man who used to be the most powerful person in the United States, some could argue in the world. How could you -- how does this impact Donald Trump's psyche?" she asked Alter.
"Well, first of all, I was in the courtroom when it happened and it was a stunning, dramatic moment," he said. "You know, you have a former president of the United States who since the time he was a little boy never listen to anything -- anyone about anything. He was sent to military academy for being disobedient. Ever since, he has never sat down when someone told him to. In this case, he had to. He sat down meekly, like the obedient little boy he never was, and it was quite striking and I think it symbolizes that he is not the most powerful person in that courtroom."
"That honor," accord to Alter, "belongs to his honor, Judge Juan Merchan, who the country is becoming increasingly familiar with."
"And he is going to make Donald Trump face the music."
‘They want him killed’: Alan Dershowitz says Trump would be murdered in prison
Law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted that Donald Trump would be murdered in prison if he is stripped of his Secret Service protections.
Dershowitz made the remarks to Newsmax after Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) introduced a bill to revoke Secret Service benefits if the former president is convicted of a crime.
"So he would not have Secret Service if he's behind bars," a Newsmax host told Dershowitz.
"Well, that's ridiculous," the law professor replied. "That means that they want him killed, because he's obviously a target. We live in an age where everybody is in danger."
"Look, Bobby Kennedy ought to be getting Secret Service protection, but certainly Donald Trump needs to get a Secret Service protection," he insisted.
ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters
In the end, Dershowitz predicted Trump would never serve jail time.
"The judge is going to bluff and fine and threaten, but he's not going to throw Donald Trump in jail," he explained. "That would be a guaranteed victory."
"It would even get people like me, perhaps, to vote for him if he was thrown in jail on an unconstitutional charge," Dershowitz added. "So I don't think it's going to happen."
Watch the video below from Newsmax or at the link.
Letitia James may start ‘seizing Trump’s properties’ as he sits in criminal trial: expert
As Donald Trump sits in criminal court facing 34 felony charges for purported financial records violations stemming from an attempt to bury a story about an alleged affair with an adult film actress, he may also face a separate prosecutor seizing his real estate holdings, according to a legal expert.
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner published a "Justice Matters" video on Saturday in which he covers a recent filing by New York A.G. Letitia James, who sued Trump in a civil case for business fraud based on his chronic exaggeration of assets to get better loan terms. Specifically, the ex-prosecutor noted how James recently urged state Judge Arthur Engoron to reject the $175 million bond that Trump has posted in his civil fraud case, citing trustworthiness and competency concerns with the institution that agreed to bond him.
For Kirschner, this tells us a good amount about what might happen in the future as these cases move forward.
ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances
Kirschner first covers the three reasons James gives for doubting the validity of the bond, including that the company purportedly doesn't have the financial backing to provide such a large bond, and then goes on to explain what will happen if the judge agrees with her and Trump does nothing to cure the problem.
"At this rate, it looks like there is a fair chance that while Donald Trump is in that New York courtroom being prosecuted for 34 felony crimes, Attorney General Tish James might be up the street seizing Trump's properties," he said. "And I'm OK with that."
GOP operative loses appeal of conviction for funneling Russian money to Trump campaign
A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of a Republican operative who had been pardoned by Donald Trump in the waning days of his presidency.
The District of Columbia Circuit Court rejected an appeal by Jesse Benton, a former senior aide to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul, of his November 2022 conviction for orchestrating a scheme to conceal a $100,000 donation from a Russian national to his GOP consulting firm — and pocketing most of it.
Russian businessman Roman Vasilenko wired the money under his own name to the consulting firm, but Benton kept $75,000 for himself and gave $25,000 under his name to the presidential campaign for Trump, who posed for a photo with Vasilenko. Benton then filed a false report with the Federal Election Commission to conceal the source of the funds, the court found.
The Trump campaign was not aware of the true source of that donation.
Benton had appealed the conviction, saying Trump's 2020 pardon should have prevented the jury from hearing about his previous election crimes before convicting him of the newer charges.
ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president
However, prosecutors argued that the unusual manner in which Trump handed out pardons by sidestepping the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney should have allowed them to present evidence of Benton's previous conviction for bribing an Iowa politician to switch his endorsement in 2011 to Ron Paul's long-shot presidential campaign.
The 45-year-old Benton, who is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for that straw donor scheme.
— (@)
Popular articles
‘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.”
