Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
A series of polls released this week show Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s quixotic candidacy might attract more Republican-leaning voters in 2024 than Democrats. That may have been what prompted former President Donald Trump to release a three-post screed attacking him.
On Friday night, the 45th president of the United States set his sights on RFK Jr., insisting to his millions of followers that the independent presidential candidate is actually a "Radical Left Liberal" who was secretly working to help President Joe Biden's reelection campaign. He even attempted to assign Kennedy one of his patented nicknames: "Junior,'" notably with an unexplained apostrophe that he repeated throughout all three posts.
"A Vote for Junior' would essentially be a WASTED PROTEST VOTE, that could swing either way, but would only swing against the Democrats if Republicans knew the true story about him," Trump wrote.
"I lived with RFK Jr. in New York and watched him convince Governor Cuomo to make Environmental moves that were outright NASTY," he continued. "I’d even take Biden over Junior’, because our Country would last a year or two longer prior to collapse - But it would be dead either way."
"His Views on Vaccines are FAKE, as is everything else about his Candidacy," he added. "Let the Democrats have RFK Jr. They deserve him!"
The ex-president's rage toward RFK Jr. may be due to a new Quinnipiac poll that suggests his candidacy is more attractive to prospective Trump voters than Biden voters. That poll shows that while Trump is still slightly ahead of Biden in swing states, the two are in a dead heat nationally. And when RFK Jr. is thrown into the mix, Trump's vote share diminishes.
According to Axios, while Biden and Trump are tied in a head-to-head matchup with Kennedy on the ballot, Trump's share of votes is significantly larger when RFK Jr. isn't an option. This means that the independent's 2024 campaign could siphon off enough votes from Trump to push Biden over the edge in a close contest.
"That dynamic is consistent with two other polls — a Marist survey on Monday and a NBC News one on Sunday — that show Biden's margin increasing when RFK and other third party candidates are included," Axios reporter Hans Nichols wrote.
RFK Jr.'s appeal to Trump's base may be due to the conspiratorial tone of his campaign. Kennedy became well-known in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic as a vaccine skeptic. In the past, Kennedy has said he is personally "pro-vaccine" and that he's had all of his children vaccinated, but he sang a different tune on a 2021 podcast. CNN reported that in an episode of the "Health Freedom for Humanity" podcast, RFK Jr. encouraged parents to tell strangers to not vaccinate their kids.
"For many, many years, I think parents were so gaslighted, and they were scapegoated, and they were vilified and marginalized, so that even parents of kids who were very, very badly injured, knew what happened to their kid, but they were just reluctant to talk about it," he said. "And I think now those days are over."
Kennedy has also repeated Republican talking points about gun violence. In 2023, he told NewsNation that he viewed the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as reason to believe that gun control was a moot point, and added "I'm not going to take people's guns away."
"Anybody who tells you that they’re going to be able to reduce gun violence through gun control at this point I don’t think is being realistic," Kennedy said.
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
Start your day with National Memo Newsletter
Know first.
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Rupert Murdoch
With a net worth of nearly $20 billion, far-right media mogul Rupert Murdoch has deep enough pockets to settle with virtually any litigant — except one. And a failure to settle in this particular case could result in the 93-year-old being forced to testify under oath.
The Daily Beast recently reported that Prince Harry — also known as the Duke of Sussex — is still proceeding with his lawsuit against Murdoch over his alleged knowledge of a hacking and cover-up scandal involving News Group Newspapers (NGN), which is Murdoch's family of UK-based tabloids. Harry has so far refused to settle with Murdoch, meaning the suit could lead to a potentially humiliating public trial for Murdoch should plaintiffs prove he knew about illegal hacking practices.
"If true, these allegations would establish very serious, deliberate wrongdoing at NGN, conducted on an institutional basis on a large scale," presiding judge Mr. Justice Fancourt (the stylized title of English High Court judge Sir Timothy Fancourt) said. He added that proceedings could "establish a concerted effort to conceal wrongdoing."
Beast correspondent Clive Irving reported last year on the depth of the cover-up at former NGN publication News of the World, which Harry's lawyers uncovered during the discovery process. The Duke of Sussex's attorneys found that "[NGN] executives had wiped a trail of emails, destroyed hard drives and removed many boxes full of documents" relating to the hacking scandal.
The same lawyers representing Prince Harry in the suit also represented actor Hugh Grant, who, unlike Harry, settled out of court for what he referred to as an "enormous sum" with NGN. He emphasized that he "would love to see all the allegations they deny tested in court." However, he added that "the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides."
"Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive," Grant said. "So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10 million in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence."
Harry's refusal to settle with Murdoch's tabloid empire could be a deliberate attempt to force the media mogul to testify, as the British royal has previously agreed to settle other lawsuits with publications involved in the hacking scandal. The Associated Press (AP) reported in February that Prince Harry settled with Mirror Group Newspapers over its own hacking practices.
"Phone hacking by British newspapers dates back more than two decades to a time when scoop-hungry journalists regularly phoned the numbers of royals, celebrities, politicians and sports stars and, when prompted to leave a message, punched in default passcodes to eavesdrop on voicemails," the AP explained. "The practice erupted into a full-blown scandal in 2011 when Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World was revealed to have intercepted messages of a murdered girl, relatives of dead soldiers and victims of a bombing. Murdoch closed the paper, and a former News of the World editor was jailed."
Prince Harry's lawsuit may not be the only one that results in a public trial with Murdoch on the witness stand. Earlier this year, a judge allowed voting software company Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News to proceed, which is now in the discovery process. While Fox News was able to settle with Dominion Voting Systems last year for $787 million, Smartmatic attorney Erik Connolly said in 2023 he is "looking to take this case through trial" and that his clients want "the vindication of a jury verdict in their favor."
"We will be ready to defend this case surrounding extremely newsworthy events when it goes to trial, likely in 2025," a Fox News spokesperson said last year.
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
President Joe Biden
The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines on Thursday to restore net neutrality. The move fulfills a promise made by President Joe Biden in 2021 and effectively restores regulations put in place during the Obama administration.
“In our post-pandemic world, we know that broadband is a necessity, not a luxury,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel wrote.
Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) must give the same level of access to all data and websites. However, service providers are against net neutrality because they want the ability to charge for a higher tier of access or provide more bandwidth to sources they own. Without net neutrality, they were also allowed to block access to sites or to slow their data rates.
Under Donald Trump, net neutrality rules were rapidly dismantled, with Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai celebrating the destruction. Pai was previously an attorney at Verizon and called concern over how ISPs would treat consumers’ “hysteria.” Pai resigned when Biden took office, but the damage he did remained until this week.
The initial adoption of net neutrality took over a decade after it was first proposed in 2002 and considered by the FCC in 2005. Along with other progressive sites, Daily Kos has been involved in the fight for net neutrality from the beginning and celebrated its implementation under President Barack Obama.
Concerns over how ISPs could use their control over the internet are well-founded, and the end of net neutrality under Trump affected service for many Americans, even if they didn’t realize it.
Without net neutrality,USA Today reports, ISPs can charge streaming providers a fee for high-quality access, even when that access comes through an app. That fee ends up being paid by consumers, though it may not be visible on their bills.
The lack of net neutrality doesn’t just impact data sources, but also the end users. Mallory Knodel of the Center for Democracy and Technology described what she called the “dirt road effect” where low-income subscribers to ISPs can find that their data traffic has been “deprioritized” leading to an internet that is slower and less reliable.
AsWired notes, net neutrality is returning to an internet that has seen major changes. Broadband access is now much more common and more vital than when Trump and Pai pulled the plug in 2017.
The importance of high-speed internet was underscored during the pandemic when millions of schoolchildren found their classrooms moved online. And it’s equally vital to the growing numbers of workers who perform some or all of their tasks from home.
The more people who depend on fast and reliable internet, the more important net neutrality becomes.
It’s unclear if this ruling is here to stay. Without solid legislation, the next Republican administration could simply tip the power back to service providers. Pai may now be working for a Washington, D.C., law firm, but he took time this week to call restoring net neutrality “a complete waste of time.” And he’d probably be happy to trot back to the FCC offices long enough to stamp it out again.
But for now, Trump is out, Pai is sidelined, and net neutrality is restored. That’s all worth celebrating.
Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.
Sen. Jon Tester
Republicans can win back control of the U.S. Senate by flipping two Democratic seats. But that may prove difficult if the GOP continues to get out-worked by the Democratic Party's fundraising machine.
A Friday report by Bloomberg's Bill Allison revealed that despite having the support of conservative billionaires like investor Ken Griffin and the Charles Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity infrastructure, the GOP is still unable to catch up with Democrats in the 2024 money race. As of March 31, Ballotpedia's tally of party committee fundraising shows that Democrats and their affiliated House and Senate campaign arms have raised a total of $462.2 million in the 2024 campaign cycle, with $157.3 million in cash on hand. Republicans and their congressional fundraising operations, on the other hand, have raised $375 million with $114 million on hand.
"The money woes are a headwind for Senate Republicans, who seek to win a majority to pursue legislation to bolster US-Mexico border security and renew expiring tax cuts," Allison wrote. "It’s also a warning sign for presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, who needs to win many of the same states hosting crucial Senate races."
Currently, the math favors Republican Senate candidates far more than Democrats, with the GOP only having to defend 11 seats compared to Democrats' 23. The most competitive Republican contests are in reliably red states, where Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) are seeking their second and third six-year terms, respectively.
Democrats, however, are in a far more precarious position, with several senators in highly competitive races hoping to win another term in states where Trump won easily in both 2016 and 2020. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is not seeking another term, and Republicans are expected to easily win that seat given that the Mountain State went for Trump by double-digit margins in the last two elections.
This means that the GOP — which currently has 49 U.S. senators — could win back the majority by taking just one of the close contests in either Arizona, Montana, or Ohio. After Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) announced she would not be running for reelection, the Grand Canyon State's Senate race will be between Republican election denier Kari Lake or Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is seeking a fourth term in November, and is the lone Democrat representing a statewide seat in the Big Sky State, which Trump also won handily in both 2016 and 2020.
Ohio's U.S. Senate race may be the most expensive, given the Buckeye State's wealth of Electoral College votes (17 in 2024), longtime incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-OH) bid to keep his seat for a fourth term and the surprising result last year to permanently enshrine abortion rights in a now-comfortably red state that Trump won in both of his past campaigns. Ohio Republicans nominated Bernie Moreno in last month's primary, who has indicated support for a national abortion ban after 15 weeks of gestation.
Allison reported that the GOP has attempted to shore up its fundraising gap with Democrats by recruiting wealthy candidates who are able to invest large sums of their own personal wealth into their own campaigns. But GOP candidates are even trailing in those races with the exception of businessman Eric Hovde in Wisconsin, who slightly outperformed Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) in first quarter fundraising by loaning his campaign $8 million.
Businessman Tim Sheehy, who is running against Tester in Montana, is one example of that strategy in practice. The former Navy SEAL who launched his own aerial firefighting business has raised $8.3 million so far in the 2024 cycle, and has $1.9 million in cash on hand according to data compiled by Opensecrets. However, Tester is running up the score with more than $32 million raised and $12.6 million in cash on hand.
Trump's own legal woes could also be holding back the GOP from investing more in down-ballot races like the Arizona, Montana and Ohio Senate races. After his daughter-in-law Lara Trump was elected as co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Trump campaign and the RNC entered into an agreement in which Trump's affiliated PACs — which help pay his legal expenses — get a cut of funds raised by the RNC before they actually go into the RNC's own accounts. The former president not only has two massive civil judgements adding up to a hefty nine-figure sum to contend with, but he is also having to pay to defend himself from 88 felony counts in three separate jurisdictions this year.
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
Melania Trump at the White House
Friday marked former First Lady Melania Trump's 54th birthday, which was made more awkward by the fact that she spent it without her husband — who was in court defending himself from allegations that he covered up payments to women to keep quiet about extramarital affairs with him.
Stephanie Grisham, who was chief of staff to the former president's wife during her time in the White House's East Wing, said during a Friday interview on CNN that Melania's absence from the trial proceedings is likely not a coincidence.
"I'm sure she's not happy about it," Grisham said. "It's not fun to hear these details."
Grisham told CNN that because the details Pecker revealed on the stand were not previously known to the public, they were also not previously known to Melania Trump. She added that the video Trump posted to social media celebrating his wife's birthday and showing footage of her at the White House was a purely performative gesture that Melania likely saw right through.
"I rolled my eyes when he did that. It was so beyond inappropriate," Grisham said.
"[Melania] and I talked before about how they actually weren't really birthday people, that that wasn't actually a big deal to either of them... and so that was a performance for voters. That was not to her. Same with this video. That is a performance to try and get voters," she continued.
"It didn't surprise me at all. I'm sure she rolled her eyes too, because it was just so typical, selfish Donald Trump," she added.
The first week of former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial featured the testimony of David Pecker, who was the CEO of American Media Inc. — the parent company of the National Enquirer tabloid newspaper — at the time of the 2016 presidential election. Pecker testified on the stand that while Trump had previously been concerned about how his wife would react to negative stories about him in the press, his main concern after he launched his campaign was about how negative coverage would impact his presidential ambitions.
Pecker's main point of contact was Michael Cohen, who was Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's central argument in his 34-count felony indictment of the ex-president is that Cohen facilitated payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal — both of whom claimed to have had affairs with Trump — in order to buy their silence so voters wouldn't have the chance to be influenced by their stories. Those payments were then allegedly labeled as legal fees, though Cohen maintains there was no legal retainer involved in those payments. Trump continues to deny Daniels' and McDougal's allegations.
During one exchange, Pecker said on the stand that he had conversations with former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and White House Communications Director Hope Hicks — who is expected to testify during Trump's trial — about possibly extending McDougal's contract to keep her silent.
"Both of them said that they thought it was a good idea," Pecker said on Thursday.
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
Students protesting Israel's war in Gaza at Columbia University
Historical analogies rarely carry much weight, especially in a time when so much about politics has changed so rapidly. To compare what is happening in 2024 to events that occurred over half a century earlier hardly seems useful.
It mostly isn't. And yet the election of 1968, whose outcome proved disastrous for America and the world, looms over the coming months like a foreboding specter.
Despite all the obvious differences in personalities, issues, technologies and ideologies, there is a haunting parallel between then and now in the increasingly fraught debate among Democrats and progressives over a divisive war — and the alienation of younger and minority voters from the party they would otherwise support.
By the spring of 1968, the movement against the Vietnam War had sparked a sense of furious frustration among young Americans who saw it causing tens of thousands of pointless deaths with no justification or end in sight. Massive antiwar protests swept across the nation's universities and colleges, sometimes resulting in conflict with authorities. Dissent within his own party had inspired not one but two insurgent candidacies against President Lyndon B. Johnson, who declared in late March that he wouldn't seek a second term.
The assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy snuffed hopes for a fresh Democratic ticket. The nomination fell to Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, Johnson's personally anointed successor, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. While the antiwar movement was generally peaceful and orderly, the student left had spawned a revolutionary wing whose leaders aimed for confrontation in the streets. The Windy City's conservative mayor, Richard J. Daley, was only too eager to answer them with billy clubs and tear gas.
Chaos and violence outside the convention, instigated by a rampaging police force, deepened the party's split and left millions of young voters vowing to support a third-party candidate or simply abstain.
Flash forward to the lawns and quadrangles of American academia today, where laudable protest over Israel's long, bloody incursion into Gaza is giving rise to a movement against the very existence of the Jewish state, marred by an undertone of antisemitism as well as anti-American ferocity. Leaders of this movement are poised to bring a rerun of 1968 to the streets of Chicago, which will again host the DNC this summer. They're vowing to shun President Joe Biden as retribution for his support of Israel in its war against the Hamas terrorists, who brutally murdered more than a thousand innocents last October 7.
Although I was too young to vote in 1968, I still recall my own passionate revulsion against the Vietnam War and how bitterly I argued with my father — an Army veteran who also opposed the war — over his determination to vote for Humphrey. The consequence of any alternative, he warned, would be the election of Richard M. Nixon, a perfidious character who could never be trusted with the presidency.
He was right and I was wrong, as history revealed all too starkly. Nixon lied about a phony "peace plan," won the election and rapidly escalated and expanded the war to a degree that could rightly be deemed genocidal. To win a second term, he embarked on a crime spree the nation had never seen in the White House — at least until the advent of former President Donald Trump. Nobody thinks Humphrey would have perpetrated those atrocities and felonies.
Whether or not one agrees with Biden on Israel versus Palestine — and I don't — he has done nothing that remotely approaches the criminal destruction of the U.S. war against Vietnam. Indeed, he has sought to mitigate the reckless and murderous approach of the Israeli government while recognizing its right to defend itself. Refusing to vote for him as "a message" is an act of purist vanity that could lead to consequences as dire as the Nixon victory. Rather than the "lesser of two evils," Biden is a good president coping with a world of difficult and sometimes terrible choices.
The alternative is Trump, a dictator in waiting who has already mounted a coup and openly aspires to locking up his adversaries. He is an exponent of extremism on every front, including the Middle East, where he can be expected to endorse the most vicious repression of Palestinians and may well lead us into war against Iran — a catastrophic error that Biden has successfully resisted. He is reasonably suspected of betraying the nation to hostile authoritarian powers. On every other issue, from abortion rights to climate change, his retrograde views are repugnant to young voters.
A democratic election is not an opportunity to display moral hygiene or an audition to join a cool club. This year, as always, voting will be an exercise of choices that are never perfect — but may just allow us to escape doom.
To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Donald Trump and Richard Nixon were mutually admiring.
One of the nasty truths about our two nastiest presidents is that getting close to them would likely end you up in jail. Both presidents were Republicans. Both were preternaturally corrupt. And both demanded the kind of loyalty from their subordinates that required you, when asked, to commit crimes in furtherance of the ambitions of the boss.
If you worked in the West Wing for Richard Nixon, you got Watergate on you like grease from French fries. Forty officials who served in the Nixon administration were either indicted or jailed. Sixty-nine people in all were charged with crimes, when you included the Watergate burglars and ancillary campaign workers like Donald Segretti. Of those, 48 were found guilty, including former Attorney General John Mitchell, and top presidential aides H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman, Charles Colson, and White House lawyer John Dean. Nixon lawyer Herbert Kalmbach also went to jail for his boss, as did one of Nixon’s former cabinet secretaries, Maurice Stans, who served as Commerce Secretary before he resigned to help Kalmbach move funny money around in the Nixon reelection campaign.
Now history, specifically Republican history, is repeating itself with Donald Trump. The Republican party is up to 58 indictments associated with Trump’s attempted coup following his loss of the 2020 election. Eighteen people were indicted this week in Arizona for their roles in attempting to overturn the election results in that state. Those charged include four of Trump’s attorneys: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Christina Bobb, and Jenna Ellis; Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows; and Trump campaign aides Boris Epshteyn and Mike Roman. Also indicted were the 11 Republican party members who signed the fake elector forms that were engineered from the Oval Office by Kenneth Chesebro and Donald Trump. Chesebro, who was also indicted in Georgia on similar charges and pleaded guilty, is suspected of cooperating in the Arizona indictments.
In Michigan, 16 Republicans were indicted last July for their roles in the fake elector scheme. One has pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against the others. The 16 were charged with forgery, conspiracy to commit forgery, election law forgery and conspiracy to commit election law forgery. They face as many as 14 years in prison for the charge of “meeting covertly in the basement of the Michigan Republican Party headquarters on December 14th, and signed their names to multiple certificates stating they were the ‘duly elected and qualified electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America for the State of Michigan.’” None were certified or duly elected electors in the state of Michigan.
On Wednesday, it was revealed that Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan fake elector scheme, as are Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and Jenna Ellis.
Last August, 19 people were charged in Georgia in a RICO indictment alleging they conspired in an elaborate scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state. Those charged include Trump, Giuliani, Meadows, Ellis, Chesebro, Sidney “The Kraken” Powell, former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, the aforementioned Michael Roman, and David Shafer, Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Several have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with prosecutors, including Powell, Chesebro, and Ellis.
Six Republican fake electors were charged last December with felony forgery and “uttering a forged instrument” in Nevada. The felonies could result in prison terms from one to five years.
Ten top Republicans in Wisconsin may face indictment in the fake elector scheme in that state. Attorney General Josh Kaul will not “confirm or deny” there is an investigation of the fake electors in Wisconsin, but rumors are running rampant that Wisconsin may join the four other battleground states that have charged people in the wide-ranging scheme that was engineered out of the Oval Office by Donald Trump.
So that’s 58 members of the Republican Party who are facing felony indictments for their loyalty to Donald Trump. Experts in election law say it is unlikely that fake Republican electors from Pennsylvania and New Mexico will be indicted because the elector documents they signed were crafted to be used only if they ended up being recognized as “duly elected and qualified as electors” in their states. Because their loyalty to Trump was technically conditional, they will probably avoid being charged and facing prison like their Republican brethren in other states.
Poison. Nixon was poison to the people who worked for him and were loyal to him, and so was Trump, and so is Trump today. The chief financial officer of his company, the Trump Organization, is currently serving time on Rikers Island in New York for falsifying documents and lying for Trump.
We haven’t even counted the more than one thousand Trump loyalists who have been arrested and charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol that Trump fomented on Jan. 6. Several hundred of the insurrectionists have been convicted and are serving time in jail.
Trump has promised to pardon the January 6 “hostages,” as he calls them, but that can only happen if he is elected in November. It’s up to us to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.
Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.
Former President Donald Trump
Donald Trump’s MAGA media propagandists are so deep in the tank for the former president that they’ve been praising him for repeatedly falling asleep during his New York City hush money trial.
Since April 15, Trump has regularly been in a Manhattan courtroom, where he faces charges of falsifying business records in order to conceal payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors say these payments were intended to keep Daniels’ claims that she had an affair with Trump from becoming public during the 2016 presidential election.
Trump, age 77, often mocks President Joe Biden as “Sleepy Joe,” suggesting that Biden is too old and frail to fulfill his duties. But reporters in the courtroom have repeatedly observed Trump appearing to fall asleep during the trial — most recently on Monday morning before opening statements began.
That evening on Fox News’ Special Report, chief political anchor Bret Baier suggested that news outlets are providing too much coverage of the first-ever criminal trial for a former president, and criticized them in particular for covering the spectacle of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s inability to stay awake in the courtroom.
“You know, we cover it every day,” Baier said of the trial, “and we will — all the details of each day in court — but there are some places that are obviously covering it ad nauseum and have gone through every single detail, including four times that he might have fallen asleep, everything that happens inside the courtroom.”
Meanwhile, Baier’s colleagues and their ilk spent last week attempting to turn Trump’s proclivity for nodding off in public into a virtue — apparently unphased by their years of denigrating Biden as an addled old man whose energetic speeches can only be the result of performance-enhancing drugs.
“I mentioned that Maggie Haberman posted this update from the courtroom, ‘It appears that Trump might be sleeping’ — this was on day one,” Republican political operative and Fox host Sean Hannity said on his April 18 radio show. “By the way, I think I’d fall asleep if I was there,” he added.
And Hannity wasn’t the only Trump flunky to attest that they, too, would sleep through a trial just like their beloved former president.
“I'd be falling asleep at that trial too,” Hannity’s colleague Laura Ingraham said on her April 15 Fox show.
“That’s exactly how all of us would act in, like, the ‘Intro to Gender Studies’ class at the University of Missouri,” Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said on his radio show.
Others praised Trump for falling asleep in court and urged him to be even more disrespectful during his trial.
“Did Donald Trump nod off for a moment? Good for him. These things are boring,” Newsmax host Greg Kelly offered on April 16.
“Trump appearing to sleep and be bored is exactly the response this Kafkaesque persecution deserves,” Fox host Greg Gutfeld said on the April 16 edition of The Five. “He is America, who, unlike this frothing infantile media, doesn't see this as some mutant form of entertainment and justice.”
“Trump should go to trial, bring a big book, big fat John Grisham novel, just sit there and read,” Gutfeld added. “Just sit there and read. That's the only response this manufactured mayhem deserves — is just contempt.”
Co-host Jesse Watters replied that he was going to send Trump’s team a copy of his new book so Trump “can open it up inside the courtroom.”
On Sunday’s MediaBuzz, Fox contributor Tomi Lahren praised Trump’s “excellent job” and claimed that journalists are “trying to distract from Joe Biden” by pointing out that Trump keeps falling asleep.
“I don't think anybody's buying it,” she said. “Good job media, but I don't think that it's resonating when you've got the current guy, President Joe Biden, in the office, who quite literally falls asleep.”
Less than 24 hours later, Trump apparently once again dozed off in court.
Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.
- Trump Infuriated By Reports He Fell Asleep In Court ›
- In New York Criminal Trial, Trump Attacks Judge Merchan -- And His Daughter ›
- Stephen Miller's Latest Loony Claims Of Trump's Immunity From Prosecution ›
Sen. Mitt Romney
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) hasn't shied away from criticizing former President Donald Trump in the past. But on Tuesday he gave his frank and candid take on the allegations surrounding the ex-president's ongoing criminal trial.
Trump's attorneys have spent the first portion of the Manhattan trial making their case that the former president is a "family man" who has been unfairly painted in the media as immoral. While speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, the Utah senator — a fifth-generation practicing Mormon — offered his opinion on that characterization of Trump to CNN congressional correspondent Kristin Wilson.
"I think everybody has made their own assessment of President Trump's character, and so far as I know you don't pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you," Romney said.
Romney — who was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 — appeared to be referencing the hush money payment Trump allegedly made to buy the silence of adult film star and producer Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. Daniels maintains that she and the reality TV star had an affair in 2006, just weeks after Trump's wife, Melania, gave birth to their son, Barron. The former president continues to deny the allegations.
Tuesday's trial proceedings featured the testimony of David Pecker, the former CEO of American Media Inc. — the company that publishes the National Enquirer tabloid newspaper. Daniels' story was part of the so-called "catch and kill" scheme in which Pecker would purchase the rights to certain stories in order to bury them and limit public knowledge. Pecker told prosecutors that he agreed during a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower to be the "eyes and ears" of Trump's 2016 campaign.
One such "catch-and-kill" scheme involved the story of former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who said she had an ongoing relationship with Trump while he was married. When Trump reportedly asked Pecker his thoughts on whether they should pay McDougal, Pecker responded with, "we should take this story off the market.
"And I said, 'it's my understanding that she doesn't want her story published. I think the story should be purchased and I believe that you should buy it,'" Pecker said on the witness stand.
According to the 34-count indictment unveiled by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg last year, Trump's personal lawyer and "fixer" Michael Cohen made the $130,000 payment to Daniels at the behest of Trump, who then reimbursed Cohen and labeled it as a legal retainer. Cohen has said repeatedly that there was no such retainer, and that the $130,000 was explicitly done to prevent Daniels from going public with her story.
Cohen will be one of the prosecution's key witnesses, and will be expected to guide the jury through the hush money payment process. In 2018, he was handed a three-year federal prison sentence for his role in the scheme, among other crimes.
Jurors were excused at approximately 2 PM ET on Tuesday, and the trial will be paused on Wednesday in observance of the Jewish Passover holiday. Proceedings are expected to resume on Thursday morning, with the defense expected to cross-examine Pecker on the stand.
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
- How Biden Can Drive Trump Even Further Around The Bend ›
- Trump Complains As His 'Few Dozen' Supporters Rally In New York ›
- In New York Criminal Trial, Trump Attacks Judge Merchan -- And His Daughter ›
- Star Witness Cohen Predicts 'Surprises' In Trump Hush Money Trial ›
- Melania Irked By Hush-Money Trial and Trump's Birthday 'Celebration' - National Memo ›
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke with alleged conman and former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon on his “War Room” show Monday. The interview was what anthropologists might call … bananas.
Greene, who is hopping mad about everything, always, is almost incoherently angry that over the weekend, Congress finally passed long-delayed foreign aid funding for our allies in Ukraine. Greene characterized sending aid to Ukraine as throwing good money after bad.
“It doesn't guarantee a Ukrainian victory because everyone knows they're going to lose eventually. It just is a matter of when," she whined.
Bannon and Greene then spent the rest of the interview accusing House Speaker Mike Johnson and his Republican supporters of not being MAGA enough. Greene seems to talk only with people who agree with her.
I've not seen people this angry since November of 2020. I mean, they are off the charts, off the charts, angry ...They're angry on a whole 'nother level. And here's what really worries me. They're done with the Republican Party. They are absolutely done with Republican leadership. Like Mike Johnson, who totally sold us out to the Democrats, would join the “uniparty” faster than anyone we've ever seen in history, and literally made a night and day change in a matter of months, betrayed everyone, betrayed the entire Republican Party, betrayed Republican voters, betrayed the Republican conference. And voters are so angry this time that I'm really worried. I am really worried. They're so angry. They're not going to give us the majority back in 2025.
Bannon says that there are no longer two major political parties, identifiable as Democrats and Republicans. Instead, it is a war between the “populist nationalists” and “globalist elite.” Greene fears Johnson’s leadership is going to lose the GOP control of Congress.
Those voters are America first, and they are fed up. They're absolutely done. They are hardcore ready to vote for Trump. They're going to jump over every, every hurdle put in front of them to vote for Trump. But they—they are very likely, a lot of them, are going to be skipping the downballot races, which is terrifying.
After fearmongering against her own political party, Greene offered up this bold prediction:
Here's what's happening, Steve. The Republican Party of old is over. It's our job to build the new Republican Party. And that new Republican Party will be MAGA.
Will this fix our government and help improve the lives of Americans? Bannon and Greene don’t seem to be interested in covering that question.
Steve Bannon interviews Marjorie Taylor Greene—it is bananas
Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
I’m absolutely double-positive it won’t surprise you to learn that America’s favorite poster-person for bluster, blowhardiness and bong-bouncy-bunk went on Fox News on Sunday and made a threat. Amazingly, she didn’t threaten to expose alleged corruption by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by quoting a Russian think-tank bot-factory known as Strategic Culture Foundation, as she did last November. Rather, the Congressperson from North Georgia made her eleventy-zillionth threat to oust the Speaker of the House from her own party, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), using the Motion to Vacate she filed last month. She told Fox viewers she wanted to return to her House district to “listen to voters” before acting, however.
MTM is upset with Speaker Johnson because he engineered the passage of a $91 billion supplemental aid package that included $61 billion in aid to Ukraine by teaming up with Democrats to get it passed, thus violating the Republican Party’s Thirteenth Commandment, don’t do anything Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin don’t tell you to do. The Mouth from the South has been all talk and no action when it comes to the Motion to Vacate she filed in late March.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), the Congressman from the Bamboo Fiber Ballot state, joined Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in sponsoring The Mouth’s motion to rid the Republican conference of its Speaker. Some Republican allies of Speaker Johnson have offered to put forth a change in the rule that allows a single member to force a vote to vacate the speakership, but Johnson has brushed off the offer, seeming to challenge the Mouth to go ahead with her threat. She hasn’t taken him up on it, however.
With three Republican sponsors, the Motion to Vacate the Speakership will pass if every Democrat votes to join them, giving Republicans the rare opportunity to throw the House of Representatives into chaos for the third time in two years.
House Democratic leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is unlikely to allow that to happen, however, and is reportedly rubbing his hands together with glee as he calculates what price he will exact from puppet Speaker Johnson in the coming weeks and months. With the word “bipartisan” having returned to the Washington D.C. lexicon thanks to Marjorie Taylor Mouth, anything could happen.
Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.
Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.
