Raw Story

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo highlighted revenue losses suffered by Donald Trump's Truth Social platform.

During a Sunday interview with Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes, Bartiromo reviewed the company's financial condition.

"President Trump's media company has had a volatile two weeks," she noted. "The stock finished down about 30% this week. The company, which operates Trump's Truth Social platform, lost $4 billion in market value after gaining six billion in value during its debut on the Nasdaq two weeks ago."

"For 2023, Trump media posted a loss of $58 million on revenue and $4.1 million [profit] in a regulatory filing," she continued. "The company also disclosed that its auditor had raised concerns about its ability to continue operating before its recent merger and IPO."

The Fox News host then welcomed Nunes.

"I was looking at the filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the loss," Bartiromo said. "When would you expect this company to turn profitable?"

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters

Nunes blamed the losses on overregulation.

"So even if you take the ridiculous cost that it took us to get to this point, we are well positioned," he said. "Because we have no debt. We're coming out of this with no debt, a platform that works really, really well, that communicates to millions of people. And then we have $200 million in the bank."

"There's never been a company like this," he added. "And we're really the only game in town that can accomplish this."

"Those are all the issues that we're that we're focused on and including, you know, making sure that we're dealing with like a three-year plan here where we can go out and put this whole company together where we're not relying on big tech."

Watch the video below from Fox News or at the link..

With six months to go before the 2024 election, the House Republican leadership is busy putting out fires and encouraging members of their caucus that things will get better so they should stick around.

According to a report from the Washington Post, there is a severe morale problem among House Republicans who are tired of the chaos that has led to the ousting of previous Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and the back-biting that has led to a whopping 21 lawmakers who are leaving — five of whom who are bailing before the election.

That, along with the ouster of Rep. George Santos (R-NY), has left the GOP with the slimmest of margins and is creating headaches for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) who is also facing calls for his demotion as the House leader.

ALSO READ: Lauren Boebert’s high school has canceled the congresswoman

What worries Republicans even more is the possibility more members will announce their departure and then step down immediately handing possible control of the chamber to the Democrats.

Johnson was candid about his dismay of a declining majority, stating in an interview: “We’ve got to be ready to govern, and we’re going to turn this mess around 180 degrees, but we’ve got to get through this difficult valley to get to that other side.”

According to the Post, former Rep. Ken Buck (R-Co), who has already stepped aside, claimed there could be more to follow him.

“This is a dysfunctional place and I’m not making an observation that others haven’t made,” he admitted.

"The decision to step back is yet another sign of the broader drop in morale within the GOP conference. Many Republican lawmakers have largely accepted that their inability to govern is a predicament of their own making. They acknowledge that overcoming their legislative impasse relies on not just keeping control of the House in November, but growing their ranks significantly to neutralize the handful of hard-liners who wield influence by taking advantage of the narrow margins," The Post is reporting before adding, "But many also continue to say privately what few have acknowledged publicly: Republicans believe they are likely to lose the majority."

You can read more here.

Fox News host Howard Kurtz reminded Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt that her boss could still talk about his hush-money case even though a judge put a limited gag order in place.

While speaking to Leavitt on Sunday, Kurtz noted that former President Donald Trump had said he was willing to go to jail after Judge Juan Merchan prevented him from talking about court staff or the judge's family.

"If this partisan hack wants me to put, wants to put me in the clink for speaking the open, obvious truth, I will gladly become a modern-day Nelson Mandela," Trump wrote about the gag order, Kurtz reported.

"So why is he comparing himself to Mandela?" the Fox News host asked. "And is he now worried about going to jail in this case?"

"No, not at all," Leavitt insisted. "Truth will ultimately prevail in this case and in all of the cases. The Democrats want President Trump confined to a courtroom."

"Unfortunately, he'll have to be on trial in a dark, dirty New York City courtroom because Alvin Bragg is a far-left district attorney who has spent more time persecuting President Trump than prosecuting real violent criminals on the streets of New York," she continued. "President Trump is exposing the truth in all of these Biden-led witch hunts."

ALSO READ: Inside the neo-Nazi hate network grooming children for a race war

Leavitt attributed the gag orders to Democrats who want to "silence" Trump.

"And that's exactly why you see these gag orders coming down," she opined. "Not only are they prosecuting him, but they want to silence him."

"It's a complete violation of his First Amendment rights."

Kurtz ended the interview with a correction.

"He can still talk about the case," the Fox News host said. "But I'm glad to have your response on that."

Watch the video below from Fox News.

Judge Aileen Cannon appears to "resent" having to take steps to protect witnesses against former President Donald Trump from threats in his Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance told MSNBC's Joy Reid on Tuesday.

This comes after Cannon, a South Florida judge appointed by Trump himself, agreed to protect the names of certain government witnesses against Trump — after special counsel Jack Smith demanding protection for several witnesses he warned would be vulnerable.

"Aileen Cannon seems to be trying to protect herself from getting this case taken from her by the 11th Circuit," said Reid. "She's ruled for Jack Smith, his request to redact the names of some two dozen government witnesses that Trump wanted to reveal in public versions of one of his big filings. It seems to be a very big deal, but it also seems to be self-protective on her part."

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why Judge Cannon must step away from Trump trial immediately

"You know, every time we find an issue where Judge Cannon rules for Jack Smith, I feel like putting it in air quotes, because here, even though she rules for him, she does it after really criticizing him for behavior that's just not objectionable by a prosecutor," said Vance. "She seems to have the view that he was dilatory in filing and did it in an irresponsible fashion. The reality is that Smith will still have to justify all of these redactions of the names of witnesses from public view."

The idea that a judge would find this a burden is astonishing, she continued.

"Look, every judge has an obligation to protect the integrity of their courtroom, to protect witnesses and jurors who are engaging in public service when they participate in the criminal justice system," Vance said. "It's just unthinkable that a judge would not be very careful with the safety and security of those people, and yet this judge almost seems to resent having to protect them, simply because it's the special prosecutor that's asking for that."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

Joyce Vance says Aileen Cannon "resents" protecting witnesses www.youtube.com

Special counsel Jack Smith is to blame for the ongoing delay in former President Donald Trump's federal election interference case, according to Washington Post columnist Jack Willick.

Willick laid into Smith for bringing a "flashier" charge he believes allowed Trump to cry presidential immunity and take that claim all the way to the Supreme Court.

"Smith — apparently fearful that the Supreme Court might recognize some presidential immunity for official acts — says that allegations of Trump’s 'private misconduct are more than sufficient to support the indictment,'" writes Willick.

"Then why insist in the first place on charging Trump for official conduct, inviting a Supreme Court showdown over the scope of immunity?"

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on April 25.

Their ruling effectively puts on hold the Washington D.C. federal case, in which Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges linked to his actions between the November 2020 election and the U.S. Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump's argument — that commanders in chief must enjoy absolute immunity to effectively lead the nation — stands in stark opposition to Smith's contention that presidents must be bound by the law they have sworn to uphold.

But Willick argues Smith blundered, first in delaying to bring charges against Trump then opting to connect those charges to official acts.

"This holdup is on the Justice Department," Willick writes. "Biden’s Justice Department bet instead on a flashier but less strategic approach," he writes. "The resulting appellate delays were predictable."

Willick notes time is of the essence in Smith's case as Trump could conceivably kill it should he regain the White House in 2025.

"If Trump makes it to November without a Jan. 6 conviction," Willick concludes, "he’ll have Jack Smith to thank."

New York Attorney General Letitia James doubled down Tuesday on her demand that the judge in former President Donald Trump's $464 million civil fraud trial allow her to investigate him after his former CFO pleaded guilty to perjury, court records show.

The Attorney General's office Tuesday filed a quick reply to Trump and Allen Weisselberg's attorneys sharp rebuttal to her demand for leeway to investigate from Justice Arthur Engoron.

"It is clear that Defendants and their counsel are completely incapable of independently disclosing any impropriety," wrote Senior Enforcement Counsel Kevin Wallace. "Outside certification is the only means to get to the truth."

The filing, first reported by MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, arrives one day before Weisselberg is expected to face sentencing to perjury counts linked to his testimony in Trump's civil fraud trial.

ALSO READ: No, Donald Trump, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment

"James has doubled down on her request that Judge Engoron investigate why documents that go to the heart of Allen Weisselberg's admitted perjury during the civil fraud trial were not turned over," Rubin explained. "[James is] insisting that any fraud on the court during a concluded trial is nonetheless within the court's power to investigate."

The former president's attorneys have pushed back against this demand, calling it "extraordinary and wholly improper."

Weisselberg pleaded guilty to lying under oath in the course of his testimony during the New York civil fraud trial against Trump.

During that trial, he claimed to have never seriously considered the square footage of Trump Tower, but Forbes turned up emails from years ago in which he was explicitly defending Trump's claims about the area of the property, directly undercutting his claims.

The fraud case centered on Trump's falsification of the value of his properties, for the purposes of manipulating his tax liability and the terms of loans he got from banks. Trump has always maintained he did nothing wrong, but Engoron found him liable for more than $450 million in the case.

Trump is currently appealing that decision, and was allowed by a higher court to have his bond reduced to $175 million while he appeals.