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.”
‘Uncharacteristically messy’ Trump seen napping for third time in 4 days: Maggie Haberman
Eagle-eyed New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman once again caught former President Donald Trump dozing off during a hearing related to his hush-money trial in New York on Friday.
In an update posted to the New York Times' live blog of the proceedings, Haberman wrote that "Trump appears to have fallen asleep in court again," and then added that "it happened several times just now" as "his eyes were closed for extended periods and his head dropped down twice."
Haberman also had some observations about Trump's appearance as he entered court on Friday.
"His hair is uncharacteristically messy," she wrote. "Like the wind hit it on the way into court."
Multiple reporters this week have observed Trump nodding off during his criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records related to his 2016 hush-money payments of adult film star Stormy Daniels.
READ MORE: Busted: Paul Gosar campaign consultant linked to antisemitism and white nationalism
Trump's sleeping through an event that could end with him becoming a convicted felon has led to widespread ridicule on the internet all week, as Twitter hashtags such as "#SleepyDon" and "#DonSnoreleone" have trended at various times.
Although Trump appears to be subdued inside the courtroom, his behavior is markedly different outside of it, where he has gone on extended tirades against Judge Juan Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and even trial witnesses such as former "fixer" Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Trump's trial related to hush-money payments is far from the only legal trouble he faces, and many legal experts have called the other charges that have been leveled against him — including allegedly trying to defraud the United States with a scheme to illegally stay in power and allegedly obstructing government efforts to retrieve top-secret government documents from his Mar-a-Lago resort — as significantly more serious.
‘Frazzled’ Trump looks to be ‘fraying a bit at the edges’ after days in court: expert
Reacting to an angry rant delivered by Donald Trump when he showed up for court on Friday morning, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig noted the former president looked "frazzled," which could be a clue to prosecutors that they are getting to him after only three days in court.
Speaking with host Kate Bolduan after the former president had already been admitted into the courtroom, where he will tried on 34 felony counts in the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, Honig noted that Trump seemed agitated as he addressed the press and listed off a series of grievances.
"Elie, from just watching how Donald Trump was in speaking to reporters before he went in, he was — he was definitely at least projecting that he was angry and frustrated, if he wasn't actually angry and frustrated," CNN's Bolduan prompted her colleague. "If you're a prosecutor and you're watching him act the way he did this morning, what do you think? Do you already think you are winning?"
ALSO READ: A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different
"So he definitely looked frazzled," the legal analyst replied and then added, "I think that's a good word we can use for this."
"If he's frazzled now, just wait until week three because I think what Donald Trump is learning is that it is enormously stressful to be on trial," he continued. "I've never even had, of course, the experience of being the defendant, I've just done it as a lawyer."
"It's incredibly stressful," he elaborated. "It's long days, it's excruciating. It can be boring. We saw him nodding off during jury selection and it will get to him.
"And I think, if I'm the prosecutor — I'm not so into the head games in the psychology of it all — but I do think I would see someone who's perhaps fraying a bit at the edges and, who knows, that may lead to poor strategic decisions by Donald Trump or other behavior that could be self-destructive."
CNN 04 19 2024 09 33 00 youtu.be
Trump Media scrambles to stop short sellers from tanking share prices
Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, is scrambling to stop short sellers from tanking its share values.
NBC News reports that Trump Media this week sent around suggestions to shareholders to prevent their shares in the company from winding up in the hands of short sellers who are essentially betting on the company's failure to make money.
According to NBC, the "tips include holding DJT shares in a cash account at a brokerage firm as opposed to a margin account, 'opting out of any securities lending program,' moving Trump Media shares to the company’s designated transfer agent, and transferring shares to a bank and 'holding them in your retirement account.'"
Short sellers essentially pay brokerage firms fees to borrow shares on a temporary basis on the belief that the shares will sink in price.
READ MORE: From 'really rich' to begging: Inside Trump's U-turn on one of his first campaign lies
After borrowing the shares, the short sellers proceed to sell them on the open market and then by them back by a specific date when they have to be returned to their owners.
If the share price in that time has indeed gone down, then the short sellers pocket the difference they made between the original sale and the repurchase.
If the share price increases, however, the short sellers lose money because they'll be buying back the shares at a higher price than the original sale.
Short sellers have swarmed to Trump Media shares for weeks now, as its price has plummeted from a high of $66.22 on March 27th to a low of $22.84 on Tuesday, although its price has recovered some of that lost value in the last day-and-a-half of trading.
The longer-term threat to Trump Media's value likely isn't short sellers, however, but simply a lack of profitability. The selloff in shares started earlier this month when the company released an earnings report showing that it lost $58 million in the last fiscal year while generating just $4 million in revenues.
Lara Trump downplays hush money charges as simple ‘bookkeeping error’
Lara Trump downplayed the criminal charges against her father-in-law Donald Trump as a mere "bookkeeping error."
The Republican National Committee co-chair appeared Wednesday on Sean Hannity's Fox News program, where she suggested Manhattan prosecutors were engaged in election interference for trying the former president on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up alleged hush money payments to adult movie actress Stormy Daniels, reported HuffPost.
"Everyone can see what this is about," Lara Trump said. "They have, and are forcing, Donald Trump to sit in a courtroom — this is a former president of the United States, the current nominee for the Republican side of the aisle for president — for weeks on end. For what, Sean? They claim a bookkeeping error — really?"
“This is insane," she added. "We can all see exactly what this is all about and what the goal of this is. Of course, it’s to keep Donald Trump from the campaign trail."
Prosecutors allege in their indictment that Trump directed his then-attorney Michael Cohen, who has already served nearly three years in prison after pleading guilty in the scheme, to pay Daniels off in the weeks before the 2016 election to ensure her silence about an extramarital affair.
ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election
Trump then allegedly falsified business records by reimbursing Cohen in a series of transactions described as payment for legal services.
Trump has denied all the allegations.
The ex-president's campaign circulated talking points ahead of the trial, which started Monday, directing surrogates to describe the case as a "a full-frontal assault on American Democracy and the Constitution" and a "witch hunt," and recommending that supporters do not refer to the case as a "hush money case," but to instead describe it as "entries in the company’s records."
‘Virtually impossible’: Trump demands delay to classified docs case as NYC trial continues
Former President Donald Trump Thursday demanded a pause in his classified documents case in Florida, arguing his lawyers are too busy trying to keep him out of jail in New York City, court records show.
Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche and Chris Kise doubled down on the weekend's deadline extension demands, opposed by special counsel Jack Smith, in a new request to Judge Aileen Cannon, according to Florida federal court documents.
The attorneys claim they cannot continue without access to a sensitive compartmented information facility, a military term for an enclosed area used to process sensitive information.
“Simply put, [former] President Trump and his counsel cannot prepare — or even discuss — the required filings anywhere but an appropriate SCIF,” the attorneys write. “A virtually impossible task given President Trump and Messrs. Blanche ... involvement in People v. Trump.”
People v. Trump is more commonly known as the hush money trial, which began this week in New York City, where the former president faces 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up payments made to a star of adult films, Stormy Daniels.
Legal experts also call it an election interference case, as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg contends Trump paid Daniels not to talk about sexual encounters ahead of the 2016 presidential race. Trump denies the allegations.
Blanche is overseeing both the hush money and the classified documents case — in which the former president stands accused of Espionage Act violations linked to classified documents found in his Mar-a-Lago bathroom, among other places — as well as weighing in on the D.C. election interference case.
Reports from inside the courtroom show Blanche’s many responsibilities Thursday included chastising Trump for disobeying court rules by taking out his phone.
ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election
“Trump is using his phone in the courtroom, openly flouting the rules of the courtroom,” reported NBC correspondent Kyle Griffin. “Blanche just told him to stop and Trump tucked the phone in his pocket while looking annoyed.”
Thursday’s filing also contains the promise that the New York City trial is moving along at rapid speed.
“The trial is proceeding expeditiously,” the lawyers write. “And jury selection may be completed by the end of this week.”
This letter arrived the same day two jurors were excused, leaving just five selected for a panel of 16.
This is hardly Trump's first attempt to delay the Florida trial, a tactic legal experts say is aims to push the court date past the presidential election. If Trump reclaims the White House, he could essentially kill the case.
‘Coming for them’: Ex-prosecutor says Trump is promoting ‘fake allegations about jurors’
Donald Trump is already sharing "fake allegations about jurors" in his criminal hush money case, a former federal prosecutor said on Wednesday.
Trump made history this week when he became the first former president to face criminal trial after jury selection began in the case accusing the ex-president of falsifying business records to hide an affair from the public ahead of the election. Before the fog has even settled on the jury selection, the former president is now coming directly for those jurors, according to MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance.
For his part, Trump quoted Fox News host Jess Watters.
ALSO READ: 15 worthless things Trump will give you for your money
"'They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury,' Jesse Watters," Trump wrote on his own social media network, Truth Social, Wednesday. He didn't add further context.
But Vance thought that was inappropriate behavior coming from a criminal defendant.
"Trump is now 're-truthing' fake allegations about jurors," she wrote on Wednesday. "A fully jury isn't even sworn in and he's already coming for them."
Democrat Harry Sisson called it "jury intimidation."
"This is absolutely jury intimidation," he said. "This is against the rules of the court and Donald Trump should be held accountable for it. No more playing games."
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.”
