Raw Story

Rep. Lauren Boebert is getting skewered in rave reviews for the Colorado restaurant where cops were summoned Saturday over a reported fight between the Colorado Congress member and her ex-husband.

Miner’s Claim was flooded with Google reviews after unconfirmed reports that she publicly punched her ex-husband Jayson, which Boebert denies, went viral.

“Great Cosplay restaurant - Rep Boebert pretends to be decent human,” one review reads. “Enjoy ur elected officials Colorado.”

Boebert denied punching her ex in a statement to the Denver Post, saying, “I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no one was arrested.”

Her ex-husband told the Colorado newspaper he does not want to press charges as, “Her and I were working through a difficult conversation.”

Miner’s Claim, located in Silt, sits in the congressional district Boebert announced last month she’ll abandon in the 2024 election, opting to run instead in the more conservative District 4.

ALSO READ: I’m an octogenarian suffering in the job market. I feel your pain, Joe Biden.

The eatery did not respond to a request for comment from Newsweek, which was first to report the reviews.

Diners over the weekend championed the eatery’s “atmosphere” where patrons could expect servers to “roll with the punches.”

“Come by if you want to see your pathetic excuse of a congressional representative get into a public fight with her husband,” reads one review.

“Come for the exquisite fine dining and drink specials, but stay for the Congressional Fight Club,” reads another. “There is a 9/10 chance you will be interviewed by CNN or TMZ about what you saw.”

The Missouri school board that tried to pull Black history courses was defeated this week by diversity advocates who say the battle has only just begun, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Friday.

After the Francis Howell School District board's move to drop Black History and Black Literature courses caused a national uproar, members agreed to reinstitute classes upon approval, according to the report.

The new curriculum must be "largely politically neutral," board President Adam Bertrand and Superintendent Kenneth Roumpos said, a statement that caused alarm among those who fought the initial action.

"Black History and Black Literature cannot be taught from a ‘politically-neutral’ perspective," replied Heather Fleming, founder of the Missouri Equity Education Partnership, in a Facebook post. "Our entire experience in America has been impacted by socio-political movements."

Writes reporter Blythe Bernhard, "Advocates for diversity in education said they will not back down."

Also read: 'Sit this one out': Maine Sen. Susan Collins hit by blowback over her Trump ballot outrage

The uproar arrived after the board voted to rescind the district’s 2020 anti-racism resolution that was adopted in 2020. The St. Louis Post Dispatch notes more than 3,350 people signed a student-led petition to reinstate the courses.

Donald Trump spent Christmas Eve ranting on his personal social media site, but his engagement seemed low as normal people spent the evening with family, friends or caroling in church.

Instead, Trump posted one rambling rant, spraying conspiracy theories like Aqua Net across his hair. "Crooked Joe Biden," "Crazy Nancy Pelosi," "Derranged Jack Smith," and demanding the House Select Committee that investigated the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack be prosecuted for "destroying and deleting all of their evidence."

Trump has already been told by a judge once that there was no destroying or deleting of evidence. Still, he continues.

READ MORE: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

It's unclear if it was due to the slow "re-truth" rate or lack of "likes," but about 10 minutes later, Trump posted another rant, this time in all capital letters. This time he attacked the House Select Committee saying the same thing about them deleting evidence.

Thirty minutes after the first post, and about 15 minutes after the first all-caps rant, Trump posted another all-caps status attacking Biden and Smith again using the same language about Smith being "deranged." He repeated his signature language about being a victim and being persecuted.

He ultimately ends the internet screaming with: "IT’S CALLED ELECTION INTERFERENCE. MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

The strategy worked, his supporters devoured the all-caps rant over his longer rambling diatribe with nearly twice the "re-truths."

He reposted an outdated poll and seems to have backed away from the internet after that.

The post came after Trump delivered his 2023 Christmas message that God will help him win in 2024.

Last week, the Supreme Court turned down special counsel Jack Smith's plea to rush Donald Trump's appeal straight to the High Court so that it can be resolved quickly.

According to columnist Ron Brownstein, the Supreme Court isn't stupid, they know exactly what Trump is trying to do, they simply have to choose whether or not to be complicit.

Political analyst Julian Zelizer began the conversation by saying that Trump's goal isn't to win but to delay. If he can delay past the 2024 election, then he can demand that his attorney general stop his prosecutions in 2025.

READ MORE: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

"As long as the case is resolved before the election, that is the key, really," said Brownstein. "Trump's goal is to have it not be resolved. We see in polling that it may sound incredible, given how much information is out there, but there is a significant slice of voters that say that a conviction might matter to them more than an indictment for Trump."

He explained that people like Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court justices "live in the real world. They know Trump is trying to push this out as far as he can, so it does not resolved before the election. And they have a choice to make: whether they want to be complicit in that or not."

He said that Roberts is desperate for a unanimous decision on things like this that speak to the future of the power of the presidency, but it's a long shot. He said that the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision was the beginning of distrust of the High Court in the eyes of the American public.

"I think he would like to avoid that," Brownstein continued. "Maybe the way to do that is in essence join these two rulings. I'd also point out that, you know, the idea that — clearly, the indictments of Trump affect the nomination. Joe Biden's approval rating is under 40 percent, and the two of them are running even. The idea there is no resistance, no cost to Trump for his behavior isn't supported by the facts."

See the video below or at the link here.

Supreme Court knows what Trump is doing, and can choose whether to be complicit: columnist youtu.be

The Supreme Court rejecting Jack Smith's request to expedite former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims is a win for the former president — but he is far from out of the woods yet, argued former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen on a CNN panel Friday.

"There are ... accelerating factors that may come into play," said Eisen. "The Supreme Court, when it gets it, may simply say, as they did in Trump v. Thompson, the big case about whether Congress could investigate Trump and could pierce the executive privilege, cert denied. They did the same thing when the special master was appointed, 11th Circuit overturned that in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. They refused to hear it. That could be an accelerant ... and another thing that could accelerate, the D.C. Circuit has the power to turn the stay of the case down or off."

"Personally, I think Jack Smith was too conservative in not fighting to say, I want to do those things that will keep the case going, like jury selection, I just won't empanel the jury," he continued. "This panel is going to be by reading their opinions, studying their careers. They think this immunity is inimical to American law, it's borderline frivolous."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

But one of the biggest potential issues for Trump, he said, is that he's still facing other state-level cases — and one, Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg's business fraud case, already has a trial date ready to go.

Bragg, said Eisen, "didn't count on all these projections and schedules and orders. He said, I'm a prosecutor, I've got a trial date, March 25th, 2024, and he's reaffirmed that he's ready to go. So we will see a case."

"And that brings in this polling where the American people, in that big New York Times/Siena poll, a 14-point swing in the six swing states if there's a conviction," he added. "So it is going to be a very unpredictable calendar politically and legally in the first six months of 2024."

Watch the video below or at the link.

Norm Eisen says Alvin Bragg is still ready to go www.youtube.com

After a series of losses before Judge Cannon, Special Counsel Jack Smith has secured a partial victory over former president Donald Trump.

Smith, who is prosecuting Trump over the alleged retention of numerous classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago golf resort in Florida, asked the court to begin the process of discussing jury questionnaires and set a timeline by which he would like to do so.

Trump filed a brief challenging that motion, saying the prosecutor's "concern about 'insufficient time to implement' jury selection measures is entirely illusory and based exclusively on the partisan talismanic significance they have assigned to May 20, 2024." Smith replied in turn, calling out what he called the Trump team's "baseless accusations."

Cannon, who has been accused of favoring Trump in her rulings, has granted Smith a partial victory by adopting a tentative schedule.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

"Judge Cannon gives Jack Smith a partial W on prepping a jury questionnaire - ordering up a joint version by Feb. 28 with clear denoting of areas of disagreement. Smith wanted it by Feb. 2," The Messenger editor Darren Samuelsohn wrote Friday.

"On or before February 28, 2024, the parties shall meaningfully confer and file a joint jury questionnaire for the Court's consideration, clearly denoting any areas of agreement and disagreement," the brief ruling states. "The court reserves ruling on the specific process by which questionnaires will be transmitted/completed."

The court added that its ruling "shall not be construed as modifying the instructions and deadlines" already set by Cannon.