Raw Story

Donald Trump ally Michael Flynn shot down social media claims he'd been chosen as the former president's vice presidential running mate Wednesday.

A Federal Election Commission filing was shared on Twitter appearing to show Flynn's name added to a Donald Trump fundraising group — with the title "Vice President" accompanying it.

Flynn fired back almost immediately on his X account calling it fake.

"I just saw 2 unauthorized FEC filings referencing my name. They are fake news! I don't know anything about them, and my office has alerted the FEC," he said.

The post comes after Flynn issued an official statement of endorsement for Trump's 2024 campaign.

READ ALSO: 'Fraud': Trump campaign denies federal filing naming Michael Flynn as VP running mate

Last week, Raw Story's Jordan Green reported that a number of fake committees filed documents that inadvertently make false announcements.

"In late 2022, for example, someone created a federal political committee indicating that former Vice President Mike Pence had formed a 2024 presidential campaign committee," recalled Green. "But the committee was a fraud, and Pence's representatives scrambled to correct the record and debunk several premature media reports that Pence, who ultimately would run for president months later, had entered the race."

When a similar Trump-Flynn filing first popped up in June, the Trump campaign debunked it after Raw Story asked about it.

The committee, “Donald J. Trump and Michael Flynn for President 2024 Inc.,” is bogus, the Trump campaign confirmed to Raw Story.

Last week, Flynn himself responded to Raw Story's reporting by indicating he is not in contention to become Trump's vice presidential running mate.

Faced with mounting calls from within his own party to bow out and allow Vice President Kamala Harris to head up the ticket, President Joe Biden so far doesn't appear to be planning for an exit — and there's an important reason for that, wrote University of Pennsylvania psychologist Adam Grant for The New York Times.

Specifically, he wrote, Biden faces a psychological phenomenon known as "escalation of commitment to a losing course of action," or the idea that one tends to prefer doubling down because "it feels better to be a fighter than a quitter."

"One of the tragedies of the human condition is that we use our big brains not to make rational decisions, but rather to rationalize the decisions we’ve already made," wrote Grant — and this goes beyond politicians simply refusing to give up in the face of dimming odds. "We stick around too long in dead-end jobs. We stay in unhappy marriages even after friends have counseled us to leave. We stand by candidates even after they violate our principles."

ALSO READ: How The Onion’s founding editor finds humor in the dismal age of Trump

Past presidents have stuck to failing policies out of this very fear — including the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, he noted. "It happens in business, too: Blockbuster went bust because instead of buying Netflix, leaders escalated their commitment to renting physical videos. Kodak made the same mistake by doubling down on selling film instead of pivoting to digital cameras."

Escalation of commitment is made stronger, Grant explained, when someone feels emotionally attached to the plan, when the end is drawing near, and when there is still some semblance of a path to victory — all of which is true in Biden's case. Which makes it all the more difficult for him to change course — further compounded by the fear many of his own staffers have to speak their mind.

"What Mr. Biden needs is not a support network but a challenge network — people who have the will to put the country’s interests ahead of his and the skill to coldly assess his chances," Grant concluded. "That’s a task for someone who is not affiliated with the campaign in any way, someone whose judgment has proved to be impeccable and most of all, impartial, and someone who is not worried about the possible cost to their own career."

It may be time, he added, for Biden to recognize that "service is not only about stepping up to lead. It’s also about having the courage to step aside."

Republicans are not the victors of a tumultuous campaign week that saw President Joe Biden flub his first debate and former President Donald Trump win a landmark Supreme Court ruling — the oligarchy is, a new analysis contends.

Slate writers Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern presented an alternative Wednesday to the predominant political narrative that Biden’s campaign is nosediving while a newly disciplined Trump reaps the benefit.

Rather than look at the face of the political parties, they raise the specter of Supreme Court rulings they say demonstrate a cataclysmic governmental shift.

“Make no mistake about it,” the pair write, “When a court that has been battered by near-weekly reports of undisclosed oligarch-funded vacations (and gifts and super yachts and tricked out RVs and secret conferences with high-paying Koch supporters getting access to justices) decides to make it easier to bribe public officials—as it did in Snyder v. U.S.—that’s a very public signal that the conservative supermajority does not care what you think.”

The Slate editorial shifts its gaze away from red versus blue and toward the growing powers they say the nation’s political elite managed to wrestle away from the federal government.

ALSO READ: Fact-checker buries celebration of 'disciplined' Trump by using barrage of furious posts

The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision was only one of many rulings they argue dismantle checks and balances and channel power toward a strengthening epicenter of government.

“The Supreme Court’s Republican appointees are sympathetic to wealthy individuals and corporations, so they will contort the law to help them,” write Lithwick and Stern.

“The court has placed itself at the apex of the state, agreeing to share power only with a strongman president who seeks to govern in line with the conservative justices’ vision.”

The pair argue the federal checks dismantled in three under-the-radar rulings made in the past week — one obliterating a statute of limitations on government regulation challenges and another a mandate that courts rely on agency know-how — imperil basic necessities of daily American life.

“That is how American government has functioned for well over a century, to the great benefit of the citizenry,” write Lithwick and Stern.

”It’s why there is clean air and drinkable, water and airplanes that stay in the sky and drugs that don’t kill us.”

Unfortunately, while the pair present their readers with a specific vision of an imminent catastrophic future, they don’t have specifics on what an actionable solution might entail.

“Public outrage has somehow made the court more reckless,” the Slate writers conclude. “The time for wishful thinking about the power of shame, institutional legitimacy, and historical legacy is over. The time for action may well be now or never.”

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell's name appears on new subpoenas in former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's bankruptcy case, court records show.

Giuliani's deal with Lindell's streaming site and app FrankSpeech — which the legal news site Law&Crime reports could net $180,000 in extra income — and both men's coffee ventures are at the heart of the documents demanded by the former mayor's creditors, Manhattan bankruptcy court records show.

The demands come from Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors lawyers representing Georgia election worker Shaye Moss, Dominion Voting Systems, and Noelle Dunphy, who has accused Giuliani of wage theft and sexual harassment, according to court records and Law&Crime.

ALSO READ: ‘They could have killed me’: Spycraft, ballots and a Trumped-up plot gone haywire

The creditors seek “All Documents and Communications regarding and relationship between [Lindell] or My Coffee, on one hand, and Rudy Coffee, on the other hand.”

Creditors have recently claimed that Giuliani could be fraudulently “funneling funds that belong to his creditors to his business" which they dubbed "a personal piggy bank," Law&Crime reports.

During a June 17 hearing, Giuliani and his attorneys denied any impropriety and had what Law&Crime dubbed an "awkward exchange" with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane.

ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans subpoena ex-Capitol Police intel head for Jan. 6 inquiry

"You have to provide information” Lane told Giuliani's lawyer Gary Fischoff. “It can’t be on a trust me basis."

When the lawyer admitted he did not yet know the financial details himself, Lane reportedly remarked, “That’s an unfortunate statement for you to have to make."

Former President Donald Trump fired off a more than slightly incoherent rant aimed at President Joe Biden on Monday morning, just hours before the Supreme Court was expected to rule on whether he should be afforded immunity for criminal acts he has been accused of committing.

Taking to his Truth Social platform, the now-convicted felon ex-president continued to obsess over last Thursday's debate on CNN by first ranting, "Only three things could have been the reason that Crooked Joe Biden, the worst President in the history of the United States, failed so badly at the debate on Thursday night."

With that, he proceeded in his normal manner by using arbitrary quotation marks, bursts of punctuation and random capitalization by writing, "THEY WERE: 1) 'TRUMP WAS REALLY GREAT!' In all fairness, and I say in complete and total modesty, many, on both sides of the political spectrum, have said it was the greatest single debate performance in the long and storied history of Presidential Debates. Thank you! 2) CROOKED JOE 'CHOKED' LIKE A DOG. 3) JOE IS A COGNITIVE MESS!

"It could be combinations of all three, but ask yourself this question, as a proud citizen of the United States of America (which no longer means a thing, to many, as millions of people flow into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted!), would you rather have a President who is a CHOKER, or a President who is a COGNITIVE MESS???"

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene buys condo in 'crime ridden hell hole'

He then added, "Also, did my Debate Performance play a role in Joe’s total 'disembowelment' before the World? Our Fake Historians over at CNN & MSDNC would like to know???"

Americans are gearing up to celebrate the Fourth of July, and their thoughts are most likely on how many hot dogs to buy for the cookout and whether a family member needs to go stake out a good spot to watch the parade and fireworks.

While the holiday is focused on revelry, July Fourth actually commemorates a solemn moment in the country’s history, when it declared independence from the colonial power Great Britain. The institutions of government imagined by the founders and their successors over the following decades – among them the presidency, Congress, the departments of State and Treasury, the Supreme Court – have retained their authority and legitimacy for more than 200 years, weathering challenges from wars both internal and abroad and massive economic, political and social upheaval.

But now, the Supreme Court, in the wake of a series of highly controversial rulings and ethical questions about some justices, is experiencing historically low public standing. And that has prompted a national conversation about the court’s legitimacy. It’s even drawn rare public comment from three sitting Supreme Court justices.

What’s referred to by experts as the problem of “judicial legitimacy” may seem abstract, but the court’s faltering public support is about more than popularity.

Eroding legitimacy means that government officials and ordinary people become increasingly unlikely to accept public policies with which they disagree. And Americans need only look to the relatively recent past to understand the stakes of the court’s growing legitimacy problem.

Cost ‘paid in blood’

The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education shined a light on many white Americans’ tenuous loyalty to the authority of the federal judiciary.

In Brown, the court unanimously held that racial segregation in public education violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The justices were abundantly aware that their decision would evoke strong emotions. So Chief Justice Earl Warren worked tirelessly to ensure that the court issued a unanimous, short and readable opinion designed to calm the anticipated popular opposition.

Warren’s efforts were in vain. Rather than recognizing the court’s authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, many white Americans participated in an extended, violent campaign of resistance to the desegregation ruling.

Resistance in the South to the Supreme Court’s school desegregation order was strong and often violent. This billboard urged impeachment of the court’s then-chief justice, Earl Warren.

AP photo

The integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 provides a pointed example of this resistance.

The Supreme Court had backed a lower federal court that ordered the university to admit James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran. But Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett led a wide-ranging effort to stop Meredith from enrolling at Ole Miss, including deploying state and local police to prevent Meredith from entering campus.

On Sunday, Sept. 30, 1962, Meredith nevertheless arrived on the university’s campus, guarded by dozens of federal marshals, to register and begin classes the next day. A crowd of 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered on campus and broke into a riot. Meredith and the marshals were attacked with Molotov cocktails and gunfire. The marshals fired tear gas in return.

In response, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 and ordered the U.S. Army onto campus to restore order and protect Meredith. Overnight, thousands of troops arrived, battling rioters.

President John F. Kennedy called in federal troops to quell the violence against James Meredith’s enrollment in the University of Mississippi in 1962.

Lynn Pelham/Getty Images

The violence finally ended after 15 hours, leaving two civilians dead – both killed by rioters – and dozens of wounded marshals and soldiers in addition to hundreds of injuries among the insurgent mob.

The next day, Oct. 1, Meredith enrolled in the university and attended his first class, but thousands of troops remained in Mississippi for months afterward to preserve order.

What some call “the Battle of Oxford” was fueled by white racism and segregation, but it played out against the backdrop of weak judicial legitimacy. Federal courts did not command enough respect among state officials or ordinary white Mississippians to protect the constitutional rights of Black Mississippians. Neither Gov. Barnett nor the thousands of Oxford rioters were willing to follow the court order for Meredith to enroll at the university.

In the end, the Constitution and the federal courts prevailed only because Kennedy backed them with the Army. But the cost of weak judicial legitimacy was paid in blood.

Legitimacy leads to acceptance

In contrast, when people believe in the legitimacy of their governing institutions, they are more likely to accept, respect and abide by the rules the government – including the courts – ask them to live under, even when the stakes are high and the consequences are far-reaching.

For example, two decades ago, the Supreme Court resolved a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore, centered on the counting of ballots in Florida. This time, the court was deeply divided along ideological lines, and its long, complicated and fragmented opinion was based on questionable legal reasoning.

Clashes between riot police and Donald Trump supporters near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.

Shay Horse/NurPhoto via Getty Images

But in 2000, the court enjoyed more robust legitimacy among the public than it does today. As a consequence, Florida officials ceased recounting disputed ballots. Vice President Al Gore conceded the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, specifically accepting the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling.

No Democratic senator challenged the validity of Florida’s disputed Electoral College votes for Bush. Congress certified the Electoral College’s vote, and Bush was inaugurated.

Democrats were surely disappointed, and some protested. But the court was viewed as sufficiently legitimate to produce enough acceptance by enough people to ensure a peaceful transition of power. There was no violent riot; there was no open resistance.

Indeed, on the very night that Gore conceded, the chants of his supporters gathered outside tacitly accepted the outcome: “Gore in four!” – as if to say, “We’ll get you next time, because we believe there will be a next time.”

Risks ahead

But what happens when institutions fail to retain citizens’ loyalty?

The Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection showcased the consequences of broken legitimacy. The rioters who stormed the Capitol had lost faith in systems that undergird American democracy: counting presidential votes in the states, tallying Electoral College ballots and settling disputes over election law in the courts.

The men and women who stormed the Capitol may have believed their country was being stolen, even if such beliefs were baseless. So, they rebelled in the face of a result they didn’t like.

The threat of further unrest is real. Polls show the 2024 presidential election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will be a close call, and it is likely that election results in several states will be challenged in federal courts. Some of these claims may raise good-faith questions about the administration of elections, while others advance more spurious claims intended to undermine faith in the election’s outcome.

In the end, Americans’ faith in the timely resolution of those cases and their peaceful acceptance of the presidential election’s result will hinge on whether the losing candidate’s supporters accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judiciary more broadly.

Nothing is certain in politics, but the specter of constitutional crisis looms over the United States. It’s dangerously unclear whether the Supreme Court retains enough legitimacy to ensure acceptance of decisions addressing the upcoming election among those who find themselves on the losing side. If it doesn’t, the court’s abstract legitimacy problem could once again lead to violence and insurrection.

This story is an updated version of a story that was originally published on Oct. 31, 2022.

Matthew Hall, Professor of Constitutional Studies, Political Science and Law, University of Notre Dame and Joseph Daniel Ura, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science, Clemson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.