Raw Story

MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT — Donald Trump's judge launched into Friday's hearing by fact-checking the former president's claim that a gag order was stopping him from taking the stand in his own defense.

Trump had made the complaints in front of TV cameras as he left the courtroom after proceedings closed in his hush money trial Thursday.

"I'm not allowed to testify because of the unconstitutional gag order," he said. "We're appealing the gag order and let's see what happens."

Trump was fined $9,000 earlier this week for violating the order, which forbids him from talking about potential witnesses, jurors, court staff or their families in the case, which has hit him with 34 charges of falsifying business records involving payments to adult movie actress Stormy Daniels to cover up a sexual relationship she allegedly had with him before the 2106 election.

Judge Juan Merchan started Friday's hearing by talking directly to Trump — and putting him right.

"There may be a misunderstanding how it impacts Trump's right to testify," the judge said. "I want to say the Mr. Trump, you have an absolute right to testify. The order restricting extrajudicial statements does not restrict you from testifying in any way. As the name of the order indicates, it only applies to extrajudicial statements."

ALSO READ: Noem book describing dog killing is a donation perk at upcoming GOP fundraiser

Trump has said he intends to take the stand in his own defense in the trial, though several experts have suggested that may not be wise.

The former president began the day in court smiling as he whispered to his lawyers, but he turned on a scowl when the cameras showed up before proceedings started.

Donald Trump's recent sit-down with Time Magazine for a wide-ranging interview under the title "If He Wins" provides clues that he has become increasingly "unfit" to hold office again, according to a professor from Arizona State University.

In his Substack column, author and scholar Steven Beschloss claimed every voter should be alarmed by the former president's answers, including suggestions that he is not averse to violence similar to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot if he fails to win re-election in 2024.

Posing the question over whether Trump is "unfit" to serve in the Oval Office again, he added the former president is now "dangerously unfit."

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

Writing that Trump told Time reporter Eric Cortellessa of his desire to "pardon January 6 insurrectionists, deploy the National Guard in American cities at will, give police immunity from prosecution, close the White House office responsible for pandemic preparedness, and permit red states to monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute abortion ban violators," Beschloss claimed Trump's replies should raise red flags about his mental state.

Noting a close reading of the Time transcript reveals, "a deeply untrustworthy man untethered from reality, swarming in lies, absorbed by grievance, unable to grapple with policy nuance and dependent on empty slogans to motivate himself," he added, "None of this is surprising, but when you read through the hours of interview material, you can see just how shallow his thinking is, how unreliable are his pronouncements and equivocations, how utterly ill-equipped he is to confront the complexities of our modern world — and, really, how crazy it is that serious people are forced to take this man seriously."

According to Beschloss, Trump seems to believe "his rejection of factual reality is a badge of honor."

With that in mind, he warned, "It will take more than divine intervention to ensure a man like this never sees the inside of the Oval Office again. It will take all of us — and tens of millions of others who decide that they will vote and do everything they can to ensure the survival of American democracy, the promise of America, basic human decency and the primacy of factual reality."

You can read more here.

Concurrent with Donald Trump's hush money trial finishing up its second week of prosecution testimony, the former president's emails to his supporters are becoming increasingly over-the-top and shrill, leading to speculation he is not only having donation problems but also the pressures of his legal problems are getting to him.

As noted by Salon's Chauncey DeVega who has been reporting on the former president's diminishing mental state and possible psychological problems, there is a growing vibe of panic in Trump's emails as evidenced by a recent one that blared: "All hell breaks loose in 24 hours!" and another declaring he is being held "hostage."

According to DeVega's report, the strident tone in the emails begging for donations are demonstrating an increasing spiral in victimhood as he sits day after day in a Manhattan courtroom while facing the possibility of jail time if convicted on just one of the 34 felony counts he is charged with related to paying hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

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

"With the beginning of Trump’s first criminal trial in New York, his emails have only become more extreme – and will only continue to – as the 2024 election and potentially three other criminal trials are closing in on him," he wrote before pointing to the recent Trump email that stated: "Friend, in 24 hours, the hearing on my GAG ORDER will begin. I COULD BE THROWN IN JAIL AT THAT VERY MOMENT! This is what the Hate-America Deep State has always dreamed of. STAND WITH TRUMP I won’t be able to campaign. I will be muzzled and silent. And Democrats will have free rein to destroy our country."

That led DeVega to argued that, "Of course, Donald Trump is lying. There is no substantive evidence to support his fabulist conspiratorial delusions-fantasies of persecution and other harm. The corrupt ex-president is in no way a victim, except perhaps of his own apparent sociopathy if not outright psychopathy, and other parts of his obviously diseased mind."

Add to that, he wrote that there is a sense that the former president is struggling to raise money to fund both his multitude of legal teams fending off criminal indictments as well as his presidential campaign.

RELATED: Trump howls about 'unconstitutional gag order' in all-caps early morning rant

To make that point, he cited a recent Washington Post report that relayed, "In the years after Donald Trump lost the presidency to Joe Biden, Trump sent so many emails and text messages asking for money that Republican consultants warned his mailing lists could become useless. The former president’s friends told him that they were being asked for too much, too often, and Trump himself ordered aides at one point to slow the solicitations. Some of his fans, pockets emptied, mailed handwritten letters apologizing for not being able to give more. Now, as Trump and Biden prepare for a rematch, Trump’s vaunted small-dollar fundraising operation is not bringing in as much money as it once did."

"They will need to find a way to trigger more fear, pain, discomfort, terror, and other negative emotions among the MAGA people and other prospective Trump donors and voters. Those negative emotions will be the motivation for giving a literal form of protection money to Donald Trump and the MAGA leadership," the Salon columnist suggested.

You can read more here.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has come out with a new way to spin her story about killing a family dog that she said she "hated."

In a new tweet posted on Thursday morning, Noem claimed that the news media had taken her out of context when it accurately reported that she killed a 14-month old dog that she described as "less than worthless... as a hunting dog."

"Don’t believe the fake news media’s twisted spin," she said. "I had a choice between the safety of my children and an animal who had a history of attacking people and killing livestock. I chose my kids."

Of course, Noem described her feelings for the dog in a much more personal nature, as former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) pointed out in response to her post.

"What??" Kinzinger wrote. "You said you hated the dog."

Kinzinger went on to accuse Noem of trying to rewrite history.

"Don’t let her get away with this," he said. "She told the story because she thought you would be impressed. Now she’s trying to rewrite it."

ALSO READ: Noem book describing dog killing is a donation perk at upcoming GOP fundraiser

Some other Noem followers also cast doubt on her latest attempt at spin.

"While it hasn't worked for anyone else, Kristi Noem is convinced she can tweet though it," commented The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona.

"As the saying now goes, If you want a friend in Washington, don’t kill your dog in South Dakota," commented national security expert Mark Toth. "Not a political comment. Rather, as anyone who knows me, I am a huge fan of cats and dogs. Noem had plenty of other humane options."

Noem did find at least one prominent defender, however: Disgraced Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who is under criminal indictment on multiple campaign fraud charges.

"A lot of people didn’t listen when I said there was more to the story," wrote Santos. "Again, I’ve been really struggling with the whole situation but, I know Gov Noem and I know she’s a good human being. As I said before non of us are perfect and we all might make decisions we aren’t particularly proud of later… we are flawed because we are human."

Donald Trump's use of a pseudonym in a non-disclosure agreement with adult movie actress Stormy Daniels has left legal experts bewildered.

The fact that he’s identified by the name David Dennison in the paperwork has confused lawyers, particularly as everything in an NDA is confidential — including the identities of those involved.

Daniels is named in the agreement as Peggy Peterson.

The NDA secured the silence of Daniels over a sexual relationship the pair allegedly had. Trump is currently on trial over business fraud allegations concerning a payment he’s accused of making to Daniels to buy her silence.

"It is unusual for a non-disclosure agreement to use pseudonyms as the agreement itself would be subject to the confidentiality clauses within it," New York lawyer Colleen Kerwick told Newsweek.

The NDA lists the fake names throughout, Newsweek reported. The two were only identified by their real names in a section that was meant only for their lawyers to see.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains how Americans achieve a post-Trump democracy

Daniels’ lawyer, Keith Davidson, gave evidence in Trump’s trial earlier this week that he drafted the agreement, in which he said his client used the name Peggy Peterson, taking P for plaintiff, and he chose Trump's moniker using D for defendant.

The Dennison name came from a high school colleague of Davidson’s, he said.

"Using a John Doe name isn't a crime, but it's a building block for a case about a cover-up,” Kerwick told Newsweek.

“It was never a crime to purchase the intellectual property rights in someone's story. The alleged crime is the falsification of records to cover it up."

The use of the fake name also got attention from MSNBC correspondent Katie Phang, who wrote on X, "Why would Trump use a pseudonym in a confidential settlement agreement unless he was trying to HIDE something?"

Trump has denied all 34 charges against him.

The regulator set to hear a campaign finance complaint about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has a yard sign for the senator's campaign at his house, reported the San Antonio Current on Wednesday.

"Trey Trainor, an attorney serving on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) — the panel scheduled to hear the complaint — recently retweeted a photo his wife Lucy Trainor shared of a yard sign outside their Austin-area home promoting the Texas Republican's campaign for a third term in the U.S. Senate," said the report. "'Got my new ⁦@tedcruz⁩ yard sign installed today,' Lucy Trainor tweeted April 19, 10 days after a pair of campaign-finance watchdogs filed their FEC complaint against Cruz. Trey Trainor retweeted the image the same day his wife posted it."

Per federal contribution records, Trainor also made three contributions to Cruz in 2013, totaling to $325.

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

"Trainor's retweet follows last month's report by the Current that FEC Chairman Sean J. Cooksey served as Cruz's deputy chief counsel in 2018. From 2019 until joining the FEC in 2020, Cooksey served as general counsel for Missouri U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a GOP hardliner frequently aligned with Cruz," noted the report. "Both Trainor and Cooksey are Trump appointees to the six-member FEC, which is comprised of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats."

The complaint in question stems from iHeartMedia, which hosts Cruz's podcast, making a $630,000 payment to Truth and Courage PAC, which supports Cruz. Senate rules prohibit senators from accepting greater than "nominal value" gifts from companies that employ lobbyists, as iHeartMedia does.

Cruz, for his part, denies that anything about this arrangement is unlawful.

The senator has personally challenged campaign finance laws in the past. For instance, in 2022, after he ran afoul of a law that limited how much he could pay himself back with campaign contributions for money he loaned to his own campaign, he got the Supreme Court to toss out the law altogether.