Trump's world....

[concha]

[DBP66]

Trump threatens CNN with lawsuit over ‘defamatory’ reporting

 

Brett Samuels

Wed, July 27, 2022 at 3:17 PM

 

 

Former President Trump on Wednesday said he planned to file a lawsuit against CNN, alleging the network has repeatedly defamed him dating back to his 2016 campaign for the presidency.

“I have notified CNN of my intent to file a lawsuit over their repeated defamatory statements against me,” Trump said in a statement. “I will also be commencing actions against other media outlets who have defamed me and defrauded the public regarding the overwhelming evidence of fraud throughout the 2020 Election. I will never stop fighting for the truth and for the future of our Country!”..........the words of a mad man!...🙄

The 282-page letter from Trump’s attorneys to CNN executives, dated July 21, calls for the network to retract or correct numerous on-air statements and published articles about Trump that the lawyers allege are false and defamatory.

The letter goes on to cite dozens of examples, many of which relate to the network’s coverage of Trump’s repeated claims that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. CNN coverage frequently referred to those claims as “lies,” “false narratives” and “baseless theories,” among other terms.

 

The lawsuit alleges those descriptions are “false and defamatory,” in part because Trump genuinely believes his claims that the election was stolen.

“Without regard for President Trump’s genuine belief in his statements, CNN has published numerous articles characterizing him as a ‘liar’ and the purveyor of the ‘Big Lie,'” the letter to CNN states.

But perhaps in a preview of how Trump’s lawsuit is likely to be received, dozens of lawsuits filed after the 2020 alleging there was widespread fraud that tipped the scales in favor of Joe Biden were summarily dismissed because of a lack of evidence, in some cases by judges appointed by Trump.

Trump has spent the 18 months since leaving office continuing to claim the 2020 election was stolen or rigged against him, including as recently as Tuesday during a speech in Washington, D.C. Multiple audits and recounts have validated Biden’s victory, and many former Trump administration officials have said there was not enough fraud to change the outcome.

Many of the articles cited in the lawsuit are opinion or analysis pieces about Trump’s rhetoric after the 2020 election, in some cases tying that rhetoric to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Others are news articles documenting the frequency of his inaccurate statements about election fraud.

The lawsuit also references commentary on CNN after the 2016 election by various Democrats who asserted Russian interference played a role in getting Trump elected. The intelligence community has established Russia interfered in that election.

Trump has a habit of threatening to sue those who speak critically of him, though he has rarely followed through in recent years.

He previously threatened to sue the women accusing him of sexual misconduct ahead of the 2016 election; he threatened to sue The New York Times over critical coverage; and he suggested he may sue Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) over comments before he was first impeached.

Trump has also previously argued the United States should change its libel laws to make it easier to sue the media and authors over their work.

Many other news outlets have routinely referred to Trump’s claims about the 2020 election as “baseless” or “lies,” but the former president has long feuded with CNN and its employees.

The network recently hired Chris Licht to replace Jeff Zucker as CEO. Licht reportedly told network anchors in a meeting last month that they should rein in the use of the phrase “the big lie” when referring to Trump’s election claims, worrying it was too partisan.

[concha]

IT’S OFFICIAL: Second Quarter GDP Comes In at Minus 0.9 Percent — US OFFICIALLY ENTERS BIDEN RECESSION 

[DBP66]

16 minutes ago, concha said:

IT’S OFFICIAL: Second Quarter GDP Comes In at Minus 0.9 Percent — US OFFICIALLY ENTERS BIDEN RECESSION 

that's good news in your world Don??....and we all know how much the pandemic and war has played into "Biden's" recession champ...🤡

[concha]

[DBP66]

U.S. gets warrant to search phone of Trump's election attorney John Eastman

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. House holds public hearing on Jan. 6, 2021, assault on Capitol

 

Kanishka Singh

Wed, July 27, 2022 at 6:21 PM

 

 

By Kanishka Singh

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday it got a warrant to search the phone of former President Donald Trump's election attorney, John Eastman, who spoke at a rally before the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Federal agents in June seized Eastman's phone based on a warrant authorizing them to take the device. They needed a second warrant to search the phone's contents.

In a filing with U.S. District Court in New Mexico, Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom said the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 12 issued a search warrant authorizing review of the phone's contents and manual screen capture

He said federal agents in northern Virginia had the phone and screenshots of some of its contents.

Eastman has been under intense scrutiny in the probes into the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters after the former president falsely claimed that he had won the 2020 election. Eastman spoke at the rally where Trump gave a fiery speech alleging election fraud and urging supporters to march on the Capitol.

Eastman also wrote a memo outlining how, in his view, then-Vice President Mike Pence could thwart formal congressional certification of Trump's re-election loss. Pence ultimately declined to follow Eastman's advice.

Wednesday's filing was made in New Mexico because Eastman had previously filed a suit there asking a judge to order the Justice Department to return the phone, destroy records and block investigators from accessing the phone.

The judge denied that request but ordered the government to update the court by Wednesday on the location of the phone and status of a second search warrant.

A representative for Eastman was not immediately available for comment.

[DBP66]

RNC warning to Trump: If you run for president, we stop paying your legal bills, says official

JONATHAN KARL and SOO RIN KIM

Wed, July 27, 2022 at 2:45 PM

 

 

Republican leaders who worry that Donald Trump could hurt their midterm chances by announcing a presidential run too soon are hoping he'll be dissuaded from doing so by the prospect of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal payments, according to an RNC official.

Since October 2021, the Republican National Committee has paid nearly $2 million to law firms representing Trump as part of his defense against personal litigation and government investigations.

But an RNC official told ABC News that as soon as Trump would announce he is running for president, the payments would stop because the party has a "neutrality policy" that prohibits it from taking sides in the presidential primary.

In January, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said, "The party has to stay neutral."

"I'm not telling anybody to run or not to run in 2024," she added. However she has since reaffirmed that Trump "still leads the party."

RNC officials would not comment on the record for this story. Representatives for Trump also declined to comment.

This isn't the first time that legal bills have been seen as possible leverage over Trump.

According to the book "Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show," by ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, in the final days of Trump's presidency, Trump told McDaniel he was leaving the GOP and creating his own political party — only to back down after McDaniel made it clear to Trump that the party would stop paying his legal bills for his post-election challenges and take other steps that would cost him financially.

 

PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump speaks at a 'Save America' rally in support of Arizona GOP candidates on July 22, 2022, in Prescott Valley, Ariz. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Both Trump and McDaniel have denied the story.

According to the RNC's most recent financial disclosure to the Federal Elections Commission, from October 2021 through June of this year, the RNC paid at least $1.73 million to three law firms representing Trump, including firms that are defending him in investigations into his personal family business in New York. Last month alone, the RNC paid $50,000 to a law firm representing Trump in June.

The latest tally tops the $1.6 million maximum figure that the Republican Party's executive committee reportedly voted to cover for Trump's personal legal bills during an RNC meeting last year, a figure that The Washington Post, which first reported on the agreement in December, wrote could increase further with the party executive committee's approval.

The RNC reported payments to law firms representing Trump as recently as mid-June, indicating the party leadership's unfettered support for the former president and heightening critics' concerns about the party's neutrality ahead of the 2024 presidential primary season.

MORE: Trump told RNC chair he was leaving GOP to create new party, says new book

"I don't think there's been any effort" by the RNC to remain neutral, longtime Republican donor and Canary LLC CEO Dan Eberhart told ABC News. "This is a symbiotic relationship."

"The RNC needs Trump or Trump surrogates or Trump's likeness to raise money, and Trump wants them to continue paying his bills and be as pro-Trump as possible," Eberhart said. "So neither is in a hurry to cut the umbilical cord."

The RNC has continued to fundraise off of Trump's name in its emails to supporters, touting a so-called "Trump Life Membership," boosting his social media platform, and, most recently, promoting Trump's first visit to Washington, D.C., since January of last year. Other potential 2024 presidential candidates and key party figures like former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have not received the same spotlight as Trump, experts say.

Eberhart said the current relationship between Trump and the RNC is putting other potential 2024 presidential candidates at an "absolute disadvantage."

"Other Republican candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president have good reason to worry that the party apparatus is rigged against them in its unwavering support for Trump," echoed Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the progressive government-watchdog group Public Citizen.

 

PHOTO: Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel gives remarks to a packed room at the opening of the RNC's new Hispanic Community Center in Suwanee, Ga., on June 29, 2022. (Ben Gray/AP)

"By paying Trump's extensive legal bills, the RNC is indirectly helping finance the Trump campaign," Holman said. "And given the history of the RNC zealously defending Trump, other Republican candidates should expect that they are not just running against Trump, they are also running against the Republican Party."

Eberhart said "it's an open secret" within the Republican Party that "nobody wants Trump to announce his candidacy until after the midterms."

"Everyone thinks it'll scramble the midterms and we could potentially destroy the advantage we have" if Trump would announce too early, Eberhart said. "It makes Trump more relevant and gives the Dems potentially a way to reset the race."

RNC spokesperson Emma Vaughn, who declined to comment on the RNC's recent legal payments to firms representing Trump, had previously told ABC News that "as a leader of our party, defending President Trump and his record of achievement is critical to the GOP."

"It is entirely appropriate for the RNC to continue assisting in fighting back against the Democrats' never-ending witch hunt and attacks on him," Vaughn told ABC News in January, in response to questions about the party's earlier legal payments for Trump.

MORE: Trump PAC paid nearly half a million to law firms representing allies subpoenaed by Jan. 6 committee

The Republican Party committee has described the legal payments for Trump as support for the former president against political attacks against him. But at least two of the three firms that have been paid on behalf of Trump are involved in legal work on behalf of the former president regarding investigations against his personal businesses by the New York attorney general and Manhattan district attorney.

Although both officials are Democrats, they have both said their probes are not politically motivated.

In all, the $1.7 million paid in total to the three firms includes more than $862,000 paid to NechelesLaw LLP, $516,000 paid to Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, and $350,000 paid to van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin, the RNC's disclosure filings show. The most recent payments are $50,440 to Fischetti & Malgieri LLP in mid-June and $186,182 to NechelesLaw LLP in May.

 

PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump delivers speaks at the America First Agenda Summit hosted by America First Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., on July 26, 2022. (Kyle Mazza/TheNEWS2 via ZUMA Press Wire)

Neither NechelesLaw LLP, Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, or van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin responded to ABC News' requests for comment.

The RNC is reportedly not covering Trump's legal bills related to the House special committee's investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. But as previously reported by ABC News, Trump's leadership PAC, Save America, and his presidential committee-turned-PAC Make America Great Again PAC have been footing legal bills for witnesses involved in legal battles related to the events of Jan. 6, which has raised concerns about witness coercion from Jan. 6 committee members and legal experts.

Holman, the watchdog group lobbyist, said regulations that would govern legal expense funds for executive branch officials and candidates have been proposed to the Office of Government Ethics. Among the proposals are regulations that would enforce contribution limits, prohibit certain funding sources, and require the full disclosure of where money comes from and how it is spent.

"Until OGE finalizes these rules, however, Trump and the RNC legally can do almost whatever they want to pay for Trump's legal woes and largely evade meaningful disclosure of the sources and expenditures of these funds," Holman said.

[concha]

[concha]

[DBP66]

 

Controversial Saudi Golf Tournament Morphs Into Mini Trump Campaign Event

Mary Papenfuss

Sun, July 31, 2022 at 1:22 AM

 

 

Tickets for the controversial Saudi-sponsored tournament at Donald Trump’s New Jersey golf course were reportedly going for as little as $1, and crowds were scant — but Trump and his fans tried their best to transform the tourney into a mini campaign event on Saturday.

Spectators sporting shirts bearing pro-Trump slogans in the grandstand behind the first tee erupted into chants of “Four more years!” when the former president emerged in a red “Make America Great Again” cap for the second day of the foreign-funded tournament at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster.

Later, Trump was seen raising a fist at the 16th tee watching the action alongside Christian nationalist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who came to the event to applaud the Saudi tournament — and MAGA fanatics.

Trump fan Dave Teed, a local firefighter who came to the event, told Golfweek that he “can deal with” the Saudi Arabia “thing,” but it it was “China or something like that, no way. I wouldn’t be here.”

As for the actual tournament, the Washington Post scoffed that it had had thin crowds, big talk and loud music blasting from speakers across the course, “even as players lined up tricky putts.”

Trump has giddily hailed the new LIV tournament, financed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, to compete with America’s own PGA tournament. The “America First” former president has called the Saudi tourney a “gold rush” that golfers should take advantage of.

But critics have bashed the LIV tournaments as “sport washing” by a brutal regime seeking to cleanse its reputation after the dismemberment-murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and its links to the 9/11 terror attacks.

Families of the victims of 9/11 and survivors had called on Trump to refuse to hold the tournament.

In an angry gathering in downtown Bedminister on Friday, Juliette Scauso, whose firefighter dad Dennis Scauso died in the 9/11 attacks, addressed Trump, asking: “How much money does it take to turn your back on your country, on the American people?”

In response to criticism, Trump on Thursday ripped the “maniacs who did that horrible thing” of the 9/11 terror attacks— but insisted that “nobody’s gotten to the bottom of 9/11.”

He also insisted to the Wall Street Journal earlier in the week that the backlash over the brutal killing of Khashoggi had “died down.” American intelligence determined that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, chairman of the fund financing the tournament, ordered the dissident’s 2018 murder.

Though the Saudi government has denied any responsibility for the 9/11 terror attacks, 15 of the 19 al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the attacks were from Saudi Arabia. After an extensive investigation, the FBI also detailed several contacts and phone calls between Saudi officials and the terrorists.

The 9/11 Families United group said said in a statement at the time that the report implicated “numerous Saudi government officials in a coordinated effort to mobilize an essential support network for the first arriving 9/11 hijackers.”

Trump himself in 2016 repeatedly pointed to the Saudis as likely culprits in 9/11.

[DBP66]

New: Trump’s Lawyers Are Preparing Legal Defenses Against Criminal Charges

 

 

Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley

Sun, July 31, 2022 at 8:03 PM

 

 

 

Donald Trump - Credit: Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Donald Trump’s lawyers are preemptively preparing a legal defense against criminal charges from the Justice Department, as the former president’s lawyers are increasingly anxious that their client will be prosecuted for his role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Members of the ex-president’s legal team have already begun brainstorming strategy and potential defenses, according to three people familiar with the matter and written communications reviewed by Rolling Stone. Trump himself has been briefed on potential legal defenses on at least two occasions this summer, two of the sources say.

That effort intensified after former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s June testimony before the House committee investigating Jan. 6.

“Members of the Trump legal team are quietly preparing, in the event charges are brought,” says one person familiar with the situation. “It would be career malpractice not to. Do the [former] president’s attorneys believe everything Cassidy said? No … Do they think the Department of Justice would be wise to charge him? No. But we’ve gotten to a point where if you don’t think criminal charges are at least somewhat likely, you are not serving the [former] president’s best interests.”

The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Official Trump spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

In their preparations, Trump’s team has discussed strategies that involve shifting blame from Trump to his advisors for the efforts to overturn the election, per the three sources, reflecting a broader push to find a fall fall-guy — or fall-guys. “Trump got some terrible advice from attorneys who, some people would argue, should have or must have known better,” says one of the sources with knowledge of recent discussions in Trumpland. “An ‘advice of counsel’ defense would be a big one.”

Other potential strategies include defenses based on the First Amendment and the right to petition the government over a political grievance. Such arguments are viewed internally as potential defenses against charges related to the “fake elector” scheme.

Federal prosecutors have questioned aides to former Vice President Mike Pence about Trump’s involvement in his campaign’s effort to put forth slates of those fake electors, the Washington Post reported last week. After Trump lost the election in November, his campaign and supporters recruited the fake electors to proclaim Trump to be the recipient of their state’s electoral college votes. The effort aimed to provide an air of legal legitimacy to Trump’s election fraud conspiracy theories, as well as to pressure officials in battleground states to declare him the winner. The effort failed, but it has since attracted the attention of prosecutors, not just at the Justice Department, but in the swing states where Republicans assembled slates of phony electors.

If the Justice Department does come with charges, Trump’s current team has acknowledged they would have to bring on more legal firepower to handle the historic legal defense. “You’d need to have a real heavyweight at the top [of the legal team] for something like that, but right now nobody knows who that would be,” one Trump adviser says.

Some of Trump’s higher ranking legal and political counselors doubt Attorney General Merrick Garland would be willing to go through with charges. Biden’s pick for Attorney General has been long regarded as a consummate institutionalist, wary of the unintended consequences or precedents that could come from criminally charging a former president.

“I do think criminal prosecutions are possible. Whether they are advisable is a more difficult consideration for the country,” Ty Cobb, a former top lawyer in Trump’s White House, told Rolling Stone in June. “Possible for Trump and [Mark] Meadows certainly. And for the others, including lawyers, who engaged fraudulently in formal proceedings or investigations.”

Criminal charges against a former president would mark the first time in American history that a former president has been prosecuted for crimes committed in office. A Nixon-era Justice Department memo, reiterated during the Clinton presidency, stated that presidents should not be charged while in office. But how the prosecution of a former president could take place legally remains unclear, given the lack of precedent, and would invite constitutional challenges ending up to the Supreme Court.

Trump also seems keenly aware of the blowback that could result from a federal indictment — and is telling supporters it could be politically advantageous. Early this year, the former president told fans at a Texas rally that if prosecutors go after him, “we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had…in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere.”

Trump has that rally repeated versions of that line to confidants and longtime pals, including at casual gatherings this summer, a person with direct knowledge of the matter says. “He says,” the source recalls, “it would make the crowd size at [Jan. 6] look small by comparison.”

[concha]

Pelosi Cancels Taiwan Trip Over Fears of China's Newly Developed Vodka-Seeking Missile

WORLD · Aug 1, 2022 · BabylonBee.com

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been forced to cancel her planned flight to Taiwan after China announced they have developed deadly surface-to-air vodka-seeking missiles.

"Your politician lady will never get past the awesome might of our XA-12 People's Liberation Army Martini Maimers!" said CCP General Xu Xian Xong. "We dare you to try! Hahahahaha!"

 

"We were going to continue the trip as planned until China's very serious threat," said a State Department official. "Speaker Pelosi's blood vodka levels are higher than any known American, making it impossible to evade a deadly missile barrage. Plus, she is extremely flammable. It wouldn't be a pretty sight."

Pelosi's team is considering several safer options for her trip, including using Zoom, investing millions in CCP-owned companies in exchange for safe passage, and having her fly below SAM radar on her broomstick.

"I will nobbeee intimidated by Chinese threats," slurred Pelosi while chugging Tito's directly from the bottle. "Muh fooshuuuuuu blarmgiddle. Good morning, Sunday morning."

At publishing time, the CCP also warned Hunter Biden about trying to get past their array of crack-seekers.

 

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, concha said:

Pelosi Cancels Taiwan Trip Over Fears of China's Newly Developed Vodka-Seeking Missile

WORLD · Aug 1, 2022 · BabylonBee.com

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been forced to cancel her planned flight to Taiwan after China announced they have developed deadly surface-to-air vodka-seeking missiles.

"Your politician lady will never get past the awesome might of our XA-12 People's Liberation Army Martini Maimers!" said CCP General Xu Xian Xong. "We dare you to try! Hahahahaha!"

 

"We were going to continue the trip as planned until China's very serious threat," said a State Department official. "Speaker Pelosi's blood vodka levels are higher than any known American, making it impossible to evade a deadly missile barrage. Plus, she is extremely flammable. It wouldn't be a pretty sight."

Pelosi's team is considering several safer options for her trip, including using Zoom, investing millions in CCP-owned companies in exchange for safe passage, and having her fly below SAM radar on her broomstick.

"I will nobbeee intimidated by Chinese threats," slurred Pelosi while chugging Tito's directly from the bottle. "Muh fooshuuuuuu blarmgiddle. Good morning, Sunday morning."

At publishing time, the CCP also warned Hunter Biden about trying to get past their array of crack-seekers.

 

cute Don...I'm guessing you're a McCarthy fan boy....you know...the guy with no backbone who worships Donny...🤡

[DBP66]

This guy is the new face of the Republican party....🤡

 

Hawley vows to vote ‘no’ on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO

 

Ellen Mitchell

Mon, August 1, 2022 at 12:35 PM

 

 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday said he would vote against Finland’s and Sweden’s bids to join NATO, a move that would go against most of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

In an op-ed published by The National Interest, Hawley says the United States shouldn’t expand its security commitments in Europe due to a more pressing threat from China.

“Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs,” Hawley wrote.

“But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.”

 

Finland and Sweden in May announced their intentions to join NATO following Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The governments of 19 NATO countries have since ratified the two Nordic nations joining the alliance. Eleven, including the United States, have yet to do so. All 30 member states must approve the additions.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants senators to vote on enlarging the alliance before the lawmakers leave Washington, D.C., for a monthlong break set to start Aug. 8.

Finland’s and Sweden’s requests have received widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans. But Hawley — who was one of the 11 conservatives who opposed the $40 billion Ukraine aid package Congress passed in May — insists the United States isn’t prepared to go against both Moscow and Beijing.

“As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia,” Hawley wrote.

Citing distractions from “nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe,” Hawley says the U.S. is not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific should it happen.

“In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.”

While Hawley says the U.S. government shouldn’t abandon NATO, he suggests European allies could take on more responsibility in defending Europe by investing more in their own militaries.

Hawley’s stance goes against that of the majority of his fellow Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who last week said the United States “would be fortunate to have two new treaty allies as impressive and capable as Finland and Sweden.”

Eighteen House Republicans last month voted against a symbolic resolution to support Finland and Sweden joining NATO.

[DBP66]

This guy has more class and more integrity than Trump or his clowns will ever have...

Trump Comes For Arizona Rep. Rusty Bowers With Feeble Name Insult

 

Trump Comes For Arizona Rep. Rusty Bowers With Feeble Name Insult

 

Mary Papenfuss

Tue, August 2, 2022 at 12:54 AM

 

 

Former President Donald Trump came for Arizona’s GOP House speaker, Rusty Bowers, with a mean-spirited attack Monday, but he used a lame name insult that was more laughable than searing.

Trump said Bowers was “rusty” (get it?) and “weak” and “wrong on everything” in a dig on Truth Social.

Trump then explained: “He is Rusty, just like steel gets rusty and weak.”

 

(Photo: Screen Shot/Truth Social/Donald Trump)

(Photo: Screen Shot/Truth Social/Donald Trump)

He was firing back after Bowers blasted Trump in an ABC News interview Sunday, saying he would never again vote for him and that Trump has “no idea what courage is.”

Bowers, a lifelong Republican and onetime steadfast Trump supporter, powerfully testified in June against the former president in televised hearings before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

 

Bowers recounted how Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told him to toss out electoral votes for Joe Biden, who had won the presidential election in the state, because “200,000 illegal immigrants” and more than 5,000 “dead people” had voted in Arizona’s 2020 election. But despite his repeated requests, Bowers said Giuliani never provided him with a single name of a fraudulent voter.

There was no evidence “that would say to me, ‘You have a doubt. Deny your oath.’ I will not do that,” said Bowers, who said the Constitution is “divinely inspired.” He told the House panel: “I do not want to be a winner by cheating.”

Trump in his post on Monday slammed Bowers’ “counting” as “pathetic.” Bowers doesn’t count the votes in his state.

When pressed by a reporter after the Jan. 6 hearing testimony, Bowers reluctantly said he would still vote for Trump if he were the GOP presidential nominee.

But that’s changed now.

“I’ll never vote for him, but I won’t have to,” Bowers said. “Because I think America’s tired and there’s some absolutely forceful, qualified, morally defensible and upright people, and that’s what I want.”

He called Trump a “demagogue” who maintains loyalty through “thuggery and intimidation.”

“I have thought, at times, someone born how he was, raised how he was — he has no idea what a hard life is,” Bowers said. “And what people have to go through ... in the real world. He has no idea what courage is.”

After his testimony, Bowers was censured by his own party. He faces a tough primary challenge by Trump-backed former state Sen. David Farnsworth in his bid to join the state Senate after hitting his term limit in the state House.

“If I pull this off, it’s going to be a miracle,” Bowers told NBC News last month.

[DBP66]

Trump had the chance to kill al-Qaeda's leader but didn't because he didn't recognize the name, report says

Sophia Ankel

Tue, August 2, 2022 at 8:32 AM

 

 

 

Then-President Donald Trump and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the White House.Alex Wong/Getty Images

• The al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed by a US drone strike, Biden announced Monday.

• Then-President Trump had the option to kill al-Zawahiri, but chose not to, NBC reported in 2020.

• Trump wanted to kill Osama bin Laden's son instead because it was the only name he knew, NBC said.

Former President Donald Trump had the chance to kill the leader of al-Qaeda but didn't because he didn't recognize the terrorist leader's name, NBC News reported in 2020.

Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed in a US drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Saturday, President Joe Biden announced on Monday.

His death, which has been hailed by many world leaders, is the biggest blow to al-Qaeda since its founder, Osama bin Laden, was killed by US Navy SEALs in 2011.

But plans for al-Zawahiri's execution could have been carried out far earlier, according to an NBC News report published in February 2020.

Intelligence officials briefed Trump many times about senior terrorist figures the CIA wanted to track down and kill, specifically mentioning al-Zawahiri, NBC News reported.

But two people familiar with the briefings told NBC News that Trump chose not to pursue al-Zawahiri because he didn't recognize his name, and instead suggested targeting bin Laden's son, Hamza bin Laden.

"He would say, 'I've never heard of any of these people. What about Hamza bin Laden?'" one unnamed former official told NBC News.

A Pentagon official also told the news outlet: "That was the only name he knew."

The Department of Defense and a spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.

Even though Bin Laden's son was widely seen as an emerging figure in the terrorist group, he was not believed to be planning any attacks at the time, NBC News reported.

Trump confirmed in 2019 that the younger bin Laden had been killed in a US counterterrorism operation earlier on in his presidency.

"Despite intelligence assessments showing the greater dangers posed by Zawahiri ... and the unlikelihood Hamza was in the immediate line of succession, the president thought differently," the former CIA official Douglas London wrote in Just Security in 2020.

He added that Trump's "obsession" with bin Laden's son "is one example of the president's preference for a 'celebrity' targeted killing versus prioritizing options that could prove better for US security."

In his address announcing al-Zawahiri's death, Biden said that after "relentlessly seeking Zawahiri for years under Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump, our intelligence community located Zawahiri earlier this year."

"This mission was carefully planned, rigorously minimized the risk of harm to other civilians, and one week ago, after being advised that the conditions were optimal, I gave the final approval to go get him, and the mission was a success."

Al-Zawahiri helped Osama bin Laden plot the September 11, 2001, attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

[DBP66]

A federal judge dismissed Trump's request to toss out 3 Capitol Police officer lawsuits against him

Sonam Sheth,C. Ryan Barber

Tue, August 2, 2022 at 11:43 AM

 

 

 

Former President Donald Trump.Getty

• A federal judge rejected Trump's assertion that he is absolutely immune from civil litigation related to the Capitol riot.

• The same judge previously dismissed a nearly identical claim of immunity Trump made to fend off other civil lawsuits.

• Judge Amit Mehta wrote that Trump's actions on Jan. 6 concerned "his efforts to remain in office for a second term."

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump's request to toss three civil lawsuits in which Capitol police officers allege that the former president bears responsibility for injuries law enforcement suffered during the January 6, 2021, attack.

In seeking the dismissal, Trump's lawyers said that he was absolutely immune from civil litigation related to the Capitol riot because he was acting within the "outer perimeter" of his presidential duties.

But US District Judge Amit Mehta refused to dismiss the lawsuits on those grounds, noting that he had previously rejected a nearly identical assertion of absolute immunity that Trump raised in response to other civil lawsuits filed by House Democrats and two Capitol police officers.

Mehta, an Obama appointee, wrote that "the court already rejected President Trump's assertion of immunity" in Blassingame v. Trump, in which US Capitol Police officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby sued Trump for damages related to injuries they suffered during the riot.

"The court does so again," Mehta continued. "The court does not needlessly repeat its reasoning here, but simply adopts and incorporates it by reference," specifically that Trump's actions on January 6 "'entirely concern[ed] his efforts to remain in office for a second term' and therefore do not fall within the 'outer perimeter' of a president's official responsibilities."

"Accordingly, President Trump's motions to dismiss are denied," Mehta wrote.

Mehta's ruling came a week after Trump asked a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, to grant him immunity from civil lawsuits alleging that his fiery speech on January 6 incited the mob that stormed the Capitol. In a 48-page filing, Trump's lawyers said Mehta had allowed the civil lawsuits to proceed against the former president out of a distaste for Trump's speech on January 6, in which the then-president encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell."

Trump's lawyers argued that the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary."

[DBP66]

Trump Faces Questions About His Net Worth in Interview He Tried to Avoid

 

 

Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich and William K. Rashbaum

Tue, August 2, 2022 at 2:23 PM

 

 

 

Letitia James, the New York attorney general, in New York on Feb. 17, 2022. (Todd Heisler/The New York Times)

For decades, Donald Trump has boasted with impunity about a subject close to his heart and ego: his net worth.

“I look better if I’m worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion,” he once said when disputing his ranking on the Forbes billionaires list. In a court case, he acknowledged that when it came to describing the value of his brand, “I’m as accurate as I think I can be.” And when he described his self-aggrandizing style in his book, “The Art of the Deal,” he chose a phrase that has followed him ever since: “truthful hyperbole.”’

But now, Trump will face questions under oath about that pattern of embellishment in an investigation that may shape the future of his family real estate business. The former president and his eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, are expected to be questioned later this month by the New York state attorney general’s office, which has been conducting a civil investigation into whether he and his company fraudulently inflated the value of his assets. His son, Donald Trump Jr., was interviewed last week, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

 

The attorney general, Letitia James, has argued in court papers that “fraudulent or misleading” business practices reigned at the Trump Organization for years, and she has said her investigators must question the Trumps to determine who was responsible. Trump fought hard to avoid an interview, but a judge ordered him to face questioning, and investigators will seek to elicit answers that might reveal whether he approved any bogus valuations of his hotels, golf clubs and other assets.

Even a single misstep in the deposition could be costly for Trump, who is also the focus of a separate criminal investigation into the same issues. Although that investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office lost momentum early this year, prosecutors are planning to review Trump’s answers and any incriminating statements or clumsy comments could breathe new life into it.

Trump has derided James’ inquiry as a politically-motivated “witch hunt” and denied all wrongdoing.

The former president, who is no stranger to being deposed, will present unusual challenges and opportunities for James’ lawyers, according to accounts from people who have questioned him under oath in the past and a review of nearly a dozen depositions. He is quick to spar with his inquisitors and often struggles to restrain himself, once telling a lawyer that her questions were “very stupid.”

The deposition comes at a precarious moment for Trump, who is facing increasing legal scrutiny for his effort to overturn the 2020 election. Federal prosecutors investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol are asking witnesses about him, a House committee has uncovered new details about his conduct in the wake of the election and a district attorney in Georgia has convened a grand jury to look into possible election interference by Trump and his allies.

The interviews will mark the final stage of James’ three-year civil inquiry, teeing up one of the most consequential decisions of her tenure: whether to sue Trump and his company. James, facing the likelihood that a lawsuit would bring several more years of legal wrangling without victory assured, could first pursue settlement negotiations with the former president’s lawyers to extract a swifter financial payout.

If James does bring a lawsuit, and Trump loses at trial, a judge could impose steeper financial penalties on the former president and even restrict his business operations in New York, all in the midst of a 2024 presidential campaign that he has long hinted he will join.

James, a Democrat running for reelection, has assumed the role of Trump’s chief antagonist in New York. And in recent months, she has adopted an unusually aggressive legal strategy — including persuading a judge, Arthur F. Engoron, to hold the former president in contempt of court — as she battled to obtain his documents and testimony.

The depositions, while a victory for James, might not deliver a smoking gun. Trump could assert that he delegated the valuation of his assets to employees, and that he was not deeply involved, or he could invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination, declining to answer at least some questions.

But people familiar with Trump’s approach to legal battles expressed doubt that he would keep quiet. Unlike in criminal cases, a jury in civil cases like the one James might bring can draw a negative inference from a defendant’s refusal to answer questions. And if Trump relies on his Fifth Amendment privilege — as his son Eric Trump did hundreds of times in an interview with James’ office two years ago — that could raise questions about what he might be seeking to hide and provide fresh fodder for his political opponents.

Trump himself has ridiculed witnesses for invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, once remarking that “You see the Mob takes the Fifth,” and that, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

James’ inquiry centers on whether Trump’s annual financial statements were a work of fiction — a vehicle for exaggerating the value of his real estate so that he could secure favorable loans and other financial benefits. James, who has said that Trump “got caught” using “funny numbers in his financial documents,” is examining whether Trump and his company used inflated valuations to mislead banks and the IRS.

In challenging James, Trump’s legal team would be likely to argue that he was entitled to some leeway in valuing his real estate, a process that is widely viewed as more art than science. Trump’s financial statements contained disclaimers that the value of his properties had not been audited or authenticated.

Trump’s lawyers might also argue that the banks that received his financial statements were hardly victims; these lenders made millions of dollars from their dealings with Trump, who recently paid off some of his largest loans.

Any lawsuit James might bring could have some holes as well: Trump famously does not use email, so any directions he might have given his employees about drafting the financial statements were probably not in writing.

Trump is no novice when it comes to facing questions under oath, having navigated numerous depositions in private lawsuits throughout his half-century in the public spotlight. When asked in 2012 how many depositions he had participated in, Trump, perhaps hyperbolically, put the number at “over 100.”

Yet the stakes are higher this time, with Trump facing scrutiny not from private lawyers but government investigators, a relatively rare occurrence for the former president. While Trump responded to questions from the special counsel, Robert Mueller, he did so only in writing.

And unlike Mueller, who did not examine Trump’s personal finances, James’ lawyers have spent three years investigating the minutiae of his company’s operations.

If past depositions are any guide, Trump will be likely to strike a combative tone with James’ lawyers while portraying himself as the unwitting victim of a vindictive legal opponent. He might also lob the occasional insult at his interviewers. (In a 2011 deposition, he called a female lawyer “disgusting” after she requested a break to pump breast milk for her daughter and displayed the pump to illustrate her point.)

That apparent lack of discipline could work to James’ advantage, lawyers who have deposed him said. Trump thinks of himself as his own best advocate and might ignore advice from his attorneys to avoid directly answering questions.

“He’s completely fearless in a deposition,” said Jason A. Forge, who represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Trump’s for-profit education venture, Trump University, and questioned him under oath. “He’s way more engaged than a normal witness, and you can tell he enjoys the challenge and revels in the verbal sparring,” said Forge, who predicted that there was “no way” he’ll refuse to answer questions.

In short, he added, Trump was “the dream deponent.” The lawsuit ended in a settlement.

Trump’s willingness to talk arguably hurt him in a 2007 deposition for a lawsuit that also centered on the value of his assets.

In that case, Trump had sued journalist Timothy L. O’Brien for writing a book that cast doubt on the size of his net worth, but in the deposition, O’Brien’s lawyer coaxed out a series of admissions from Trump, who acknowledged: “Even my own feelings affects my value to myself,” and said that his net worth “can vary actually from day to day,” and that he determined it by gauging “my general attitude at the time.” He then added, “And as I say, it varies.”

“Have you ever exaggerated in statements about your properties?” O’Brien’s lawyer asked him.

“I think everyone does,” Trump replied.

A judge ultimately dismissed Trump’s lawsuit.

The former president will have an added incentive to avoid candidly answering James’ questions: the lingering criminal investigation into the very same conduct. That inquiry faded from view early this year after the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, declined to indict Trump.

Bragg, who could utilize Trump’s statements in the civil deposition as evidence against him in a potential criminal case, has already said that he intends to take careful stock of Trump’s answers.

In the depositions, James’ investigators are likely to home in on Trump’s involvement in his annual financial statements. Trump, who is synonymous with the Trump Organization, had authority over all its operations, and through questioning, investigators will try to deduce a connection between his actions and the “misstatements and omissions” that lawyers for James told a judge that they had found in the documents.

Her lawyers have also identified instances in which his two adult children made use of the documents: Ivanka Trump submitted them to Deutsche Bank, the company’s largest lender, and Donald Trump Jr. issued financial statements related to the assets in his father’s trust. Their depositions will be likely to explore their roles at the company and their knowledge of the financial statements.

James’ investigators also are likely to press Trump about his relationship with his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, which compiled his annual financial statements. In February, James revealed that Mazars had cut ties with Trump.

A lawyer for James, Kevin Wallace, explained at a court hearing this spring why the investigation had taken so long, telling a judge that although the Trump Organization’s assets are as snarled and impenetrable as “a Russian nesting doll,” the attorney general’s office had managed to obtain “a very complete record.”

[DBP66]

Trump’s Allies Warned His Fake Elector Scheme Was Potentially Treasonous. He Tried It Anyway

 

 

Althea Legaspi

Tue, August 2, 2022 at 7:16 PM

 

 

 

US-politics-Trump - Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Two of Donald Trump’s closest allies in Arizona warned him that his “fake electors” scheme to steal the 2020 election could be seen as treasonous, The New York Times reports.

Trump’s team was recruiting Kelli Ward, chairman of the state Republican Party, and Kelly Townsend, an Arizona state senator, when they warned it sounded suspiciously like treason, according to Trump team emails the Times reviewed. Per the Times, the pair were worried that they risked being viewed as treasonous for trying to hand Arizona to Trump, especially as court after court ruled that Biden — by virtue of getting more votes — had won the state.

The concerns came up in a December email from Kenneth Chesebro, a lawyer for Trump’s campaign. “Ward and Townsend are concerned it could appear treasonous for the AZ electors to vote on Monday if there is no pending court proceeding that might, eventually, lead to the electors being ratified as the legitimate ones,” he wrote in December of 2020.

The elector scheme was an effort to subvert the will of the voters. Under the plan, Trump’s team endeavored to introduce “alternative” electors who — backed by Trump’s allies in the state legislature — would pledge Arizona’s electoral college votes to Trump. The plan failed, but it has since attracted the attention of prosecutors probing whether the former president committed criminal activity after losing the election.

As Rolling Stone reported Sunday, Trump’s legal team is preparing plans to defend against Justice Department charges, including by potentially finding people within Trump’s team to blame for the failed attempt at fake electors. But the Times report — along with mountains of evidence introduced by the Jan. 6 committee — make clear that people at multiple levels of Team MAGA were warning about the illegality, and that the warnings went to the top.

That includes Chesebro’s email about the team members warning of potential treason. Among other lawyers, it was sent to Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.

[concha]

 

Trump celebrates 'big night' of endorsement victories

[DBP66]

3 hours ago, concha said:

 

Trump celebrates 'big night' of endorsement victories

so are the Democrats....the more "election deniers" running for office the better!.....🤡

[DBP66]

Meghan McCain: Arizona has gone ‘full blown MAGA’

 

Zach Schonfeld

Wed, August 3, 2022 at 11:12 AM

 

 

Meghan McCain criticized Trump-endorsed candidate Kari Lake’s lead in the Arizona Republican gubernatorial primary on Wednesday, saying the state has gone “full blown MAGA.”

As of Wednesday morning, Lake leads Karrin Taylor Robson, who was endorsed by former Vice President Mike Pence and current Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), by about 1.7 percentage points, or about 11,300 raw votes, according to The Associated Press. The AP has not called the race and estimates about 20 percent of the votes have yet to be counted.

“I see my initial predictions were right despite the initial excitement of Robson pulling ahead,” McCain wrote on Twitter.

“Congratulations to my home state for full making the transition to full blown MAGA/conspiracy theory/fraudster,” she added. “The voters have spoken – be careful what you wish for.”

 

The primary has marked the latest proxy battle between former President Trump and establishment Republican figures, with Trump zeroing in on his unfounded claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election while the party’s establishment wing has focused on contrasting with the Democratic Party on issues like inflation.

McCain, the daughter of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is a longtime critic of Trump, who repeatedly disparaged the late senator and 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

Lake, a former television news anchor, has repeatedly pushed Trump’s false election fraud claims. Trump visited Arizona late last month to stump in support of Lake and his endorsed candidate for Senate, Blake Masters.

The AP called the GOP Senate primary race for Masters early on Wednesday morning.

“Congratulations to Blake Masters on a great Arizona win!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

[DBP66]

GOP senators bash Josh Hawley's opposition to adding Finland and Sweden to NATO: 'We beat China by standing with our allies'

 

 

John Haltiwanger

Wed, August 3, 2022 at 12:44 PM

 

 

 

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas looks on as Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri speaks at a hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

• Josh Hawley's opposition to adding Finland and Sweden to NATO is facing criticism from fellow Republicans.

• Hawley argued in an op-ed that enlarging NATO would limit the US's ability to counter China.

• Ted Cruz said Hawley was "mistaken," and Marco Rubio wrote an op-ed directly refuting Hawley's points.

Senator Josh Hawley's opposition to adding Finland and Sweden to NATO amid historic tensions with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine is leading even fellow Republicans to criticize his position.

In a recent op-ed that echoed former President Donald Trump's "America First" approach to foreign policy, Hawley contended that enlarging NATO would spread the US too thin in terms of its security commitments in Europe. The Missouri Republican said that the US should instead prioritize challenging China.

 

"We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia," Hawley wrote. "Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one."

But Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told Politico that Hawley was "mistaken."

"We don't beat China by retreating from the rest of the world. We beat China by standing with our allies against our enemies," Cruz said.

Similarly, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida wrote an op-ed that served as a direct refutation of Hawley's stance on the matter. The op-ed was titled, "A stronger NATO allows America to focus on the threat of Communist China."

"A strong and unified NATO is a powerful asset in the contest with Beijing," Rubio wrote. "When Finland and Sweden join the alliance's ranks and the free peoples of Europe become stronger than ever, more US resources will be available to focus on countering Communist China. If we do not rise to the challenge, it will be too late, and Americans will be held hostage by a totalitarian regime half a world away."

The Senate is poised to vote on a resolution to ratify NATO membership for Finland and Sweden on Wednesday. There is strong support on both sides of the aisle for adding the Nordic countries to the alliance as the West continues to back Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invaders. Finland and Sweden have historically been neutral, or militarily non-aligned countries, and their move to join NATO stands as one of the most significant consequences of Russia's military offensive in Ukraine.

In May, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Finland and Sweden would be "important additions to NATO."

"I think the United States ought to be first in line to ratify the treaty for both these countries to join," he said.

McConnell on Wednesday reiterated his support for enlarging NATO by adding Finland and Sweden, taking a veiled swipe at Hawley in the process. "If any senator is looking for a defensible excuse to vote no, I wish them good luck. This is a slam dunk for national security that deserves unanimous bipartisan support," the Kentucky Republican said.

The schism between Hawley, a potential contender for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, and his fellow Republicans on the matter may be indicative of Trump's ongoing influence in the Republican party.

Trump was extremely critical of NATO during his time in the White House, often going after fellow members on the issue of defense spending and making misleading comments on how the alliance is funded in the process. Hawley also zeroed in on defense spending in his op-ed, writing, "It's time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries."

Rubio countered this point in his op-ed, stating, "Finland and Sweden are strong, stable countries with a long history of security cooperation with NATO allies. They are committed to national defense and would more than live up to their NATO obligations. Finland already spends more than the required 2% of gross domestic product on its military, and Sweden is on a fast track to do the same. Both nations require military service of their citizens."

Hawley has repeatedly been an outlier among Republicans in terms of his stance on how the US should approach Russia's aggression toward Ukraine.

He was among a small group of Republicans who voted against a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine in May, for example, and also sparked controversy in February for suggesting the US should withdraw its support for Ukraine joining NATO. The White House accused Hawley of  "parroting the talking points of Russian propagandist leaders." Russia firmly opposes the addition of Ukraine to NATO and has blamed the alliance, in part, for its unprovoked invasion of the former Soviet republic.

Hawley's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.

[Slotback Right]

16 hours ago, DBP66 said:

so are the Democrats....the more "election deniers" running for office the better!.....🤡

Dem's ads supporting Maga candidates is backfiring on the Dems. Republican turnout in Arizona for statewide offices has been 128,000 to 156,000 higher than the Dems turnout. The guys you figured would be easiest to beat, are going to be the ones who will end up beating you.

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, Slotback Right said:

Dem's ads supporting Maga candidates is backfiring on the Dems. Republican turnout in Arizona for statewide offices has been 128,000 to 156,000 higher than the Dems turnout. The guys you figured would be easiest to beat, are going to be the ones who will end up beating you.

"Maga candidates"?? a.k.a....Kool-Aid drinkers who think Trump won the election...😪