Raw Story

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.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced Wednesday she's refusing to vote for a bill on antisemitism awareness, arguing it would see Christians arrested for their faith.

Greene made this announcement on X the same day the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) — crafted to combat the problem on college campuses — was slated to go to a vote in the House of Representatives.

"Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act," Greene explained. "[It] could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews."

Greene backs up this claim with two images; the first a screenshot of the bill's definition of antisemitism and the second a printout Greene doesn't source.

The bill uses the definition crafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, of which the U.S. is a member, and adopted by the State department, congressional records show.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews," the IHRA definition states. "Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA website page on which this definition appears also includes a bulleted list of 11 contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life that does not appear in the legislation's text.

But this appears to be the document Greene references in her refusal to back the bill.

"Read the bill text and contemporary examples of antisemitism like #9," Greene demands of her readers.

Number nine, in both the IHRA list and Greene's, reads as follows: "Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."

ALSO READ: Former FBI official accuses Marjorie Taylor Greene of spreading foreign propaganda

These claims, according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia, were commonly repeated by the Nazis.

"The term blood libel refers to the false allegation that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish, usually Christian children, for ritual purposes," the definition states. "The Nazis made effective use of the blood libel to demonize Jews, with Julius Steicher's newspaper Der Stürmer making frequent use of ritual murder imagery in its antisemitic propaganda."

Greene is not alone in refusing to support the bill, but her reasons differ widely from those cited by the American Civil Liberties Union in their letter in opposition to House representatives.

"Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities," the ACLU argues. " H.R. 6090 is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."

As this important debate on a complex issue unfolded in the House of Representatives, Greene's social media followers took the opportunity to remind readers of the Georgia lawmaker's history.

"BREAKING NEWS," wrote X user Mr. Newberger. "Woman who key noted a Nazi rally won't vote for Antisemitism bill."

This likely references Greene's decision to speak at a White Nationalist event in 2022.

"This you?" asked Travis Matthew, sharing an article entitled "Republicans blast Marjorie Taylor Greene's Holocaust remarks" about her likening COVID-19 masks to the Nazi's mass murder of Jewish people.

"This is absolutely nuts," wrote Hadar Susskind. "MTG is just mad that they didn’t accept her space laser amendment."

Former President Donald Trump has personally reached out to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to get her to end her crusade against House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) — but, reported CNN's Melanie Zanona on Wednesday, she is not dissuaded.

Johnson appears set to survive the upcoming vote next week brought by Greene to vacate his office, with House Democrats planning to supply the necessary votes to stop another round of chaos similar to that following the ouster of his predecessor Kevin McCarthy. But Greene, enraged over his decision to allow Ukraine defense aid to pass the House, is determined to move ahead with the vote anyway, which she claims will put everyone in the House on record where they stand.

"Greene says she's actually planning to force a vote next week," said anchor Brianna Keilar, turning to Zanona. "How's this going to play out?"

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

"Well, even though Speaker Mike Johnson is expected to keep his job, there is still a lot of anger towards Marjorie Taylor Greene for pushing ahead with this move," said Zanona.

"Even Donald Trump doesn't want her to follow through," Zanona continued — which follows his decision to hold a press conference with Johnson a few weeks ago expressing his confidence in the speaker. "I'm told that he communicated to the head of the RNC that he wanted him to relay to the House Republican Conference during a meeting yesterday that Trump wants to see the party united ahead of November, but so far that has not deterred Greene."

"She's planning to call it this motion next week," she added. "When that happens, leadership is expected to quickly tee up a vote to kill or table that motion."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

Melanie Zanona says Trump is trying to stop Marjorie Taylor Greene's speaker motion youtu.be

WASHINGTON — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Tom Massie (R-KY) announced on Wednesday from the U.S. Capitol that they will continue to file a motion to remove Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) from his post.

Massie told reporters that Johnson aligned himself with Democratic votes on the omnibus spending bill, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization, and the national security bill that funded Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan military aid.

He and Greene characterized them as the three "betrayals" to the GOP.

The votes passed with overwhelming support from Democrats along with several Republicans.

"He is a lost ball in tall weeds. ... He's in over his head," Massie said about Johnson, according to Jake Sherman at Punchbowl News.

Johnson was voted in after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was removed by members of his own party. Before Johnson was chosen, nearly 20 votes were cast for other candidates for the new speaker.

House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (MA) told Raw Story she wasn't aware of the know what the intention of the far-right flank of the House Republicans.

ALSO READ: ‘Clear indication’: Dems accuse GOP congressional candidate of illegal super PAC ties

She disputed Greene's claim that the Democrats were a "uniparty" united with Johnson after her party's leaders declared Tuesday that they would vote to table any motion to remove him from Greene.

"We are not a party that is endorsing Donald Trump; that is moved to the most extreme position in opposition to what the American people want us to do here," said Clark. "So, our goal here is to get back to governing. And this particular motion to vacate — we will table. But that is not a statement of unity with anything this House GOP is doing."

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) agreed, saying that Democrats were certainly not aligned with the MAGA Republicans.

"Donald Trump Republicans campaign on overturning Roe v. Wade. Republicans overturn Roe v. Wade. Donald Trump bragged about it," Lieu told Raw Story as a way of contrasting the two parties.

He explained that if the Democrats flip the House and keep the Senate, they will pass legislation that would codify reproductive healthcare rights in American law.

"So, the two parties are clearly not the same," Lieu continued. "Marjorie Taylor Greene can make up whatever she wants. But to say that somehow the two parties are the same is factually wrong."

He agreed with Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY), who said that the caucus would vote to table the motion to vacate Johnson from the speakership.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) confirmed that it likely "won't take that many Democrats" to table the motion and ultimately save Johnson.

"Do we want to wait another three weeks, maybe a month, to find another speaker? Who the hell is that going to be?" she said to Raw Story.

"I don't think anyone wants it. I don't think there are the votes for it," she continued. "So, we'll have another period of completely dysfunctional government."