'I want her back': Lauren Boebert's ex-husband reveals what sparked restaurant fight

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert’s ex-husband may have accused the MAGA Republican of punching him in the face, but that doesn't mean he's not in love with her, he says.

"I was telling her I want her back," Jayson Boebert said of the epic argument.

Boebert spoke to alternative Colorado news outlet Westword Tuesday, days after an argument with his ex-wife at a Colorado restaurant made national news.

While the congresswoman's ex accused her of violence, as first reported by a super PAC hoping to oust his former wife, Lauren Boebert said through an aide that he made an “aggressive move” and she put her hand in his face.

In his interview with Westword, Jayson didn’t pull back his claim but expressed deep regret over his subsequent response.

"I wish this all hadn't happened,” Jayson said of the encounter in Silt. "I should have handled it more responsibly.”

Specifically, Jayson wishes he hadn’t called the cops, who’ve confirmed to multiple news outlets they’re investigating a domestic violence report made from the eatery Saturday night.

ALSO READ: Stiffed: How Trump's campaign visits cost local police departments

“She's a great person.” Jayson told Westword. “I know it's just been a lot of bad things happening to her.”

This isn’t the first scandal to rock Lauren Boebert — who divorced her husband last year — ahead of a congressional race. She opted last month to abandon her current seat in Colorado's District 3, and compete in the more conservative District 4.

Last year, Lauren Boebert was thrown out of “Beetlejuice” the musical over complaints she’d been vaping and groping her male companion during the show.

But Jayson’s admiration spurred him to arrive at the restaurant Miner’s Claim Saturday with hopes of a reconciliation, he said during his interview.

“A man needs respect and a woman needs love,” Jayson told Westword. “That's kind of how it's written in the Bible.”

Read the full interview here.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

"Oh, Canada!"

"Oh, God!"

He really is doing it; it looks like he is actually doing it. President Donald Trump has now managed to infuriate our neighbors in the Great White North to a degree once thought impossible, bringing a modern "Western War" with Canada into play. Not one with guns; wars against nations that could actually hit us are too expensive. No, he's about to start a "21st Century War against decent nations," one in which missiles packed with money lob back and forth.

Oh, and that kind of war is not exactly "cheap," either. This is the kind of war for which you pay directly out of your wallet, not nebulous taxation.

And if you thought Trump bit off more than he could chew in trying to strongarm Iran, "Stupid Trump War II - Operation 'Snow Blind'" will introduce you to an entirely new reality. Moreover, Americans are going to blame Trump entirely for this one, no regular Middle East thing about it. You think gas prices are already high? Well, lols to you. Americans will be shocked to learn that Canada sends three times more oil to us than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia and Gulf states.

This one we cannot even blame on Epstein!

Not that it really matters (Just a figure of speech; it matters A LOT), but aren't we supposed to LIKE Canadians? Congress needs to involve itself, fast, or this situation will spiral out of control. Fortunately, on that end of things, when it comes to trade (aka "money"), Congress has, in fact, stopped him before. But no one is stupid enough to count on that or them again.

Unfortunately, Congress would have to do what they're worst at: move fast and unified. Because, to a degree we don't yet appreciate, this is a "war" in which the United States might win every "battle"; our economy is just too huge to not inflict more damage on Canada than vice versa short term, and yet we could and likely would still lose the war.

Unlike Americans, Canadians are deeply offended: "Elbows Up" (An aggressive hockey term), and thus far more willing to endure more economic pain than Americans scratching their heads, saying, "Tell me again what this was supposed to accomplish, other than much higher gas prices, cars costing $4,000 more, fertilizer WAY up, making everything more expensive? And aren't we supposed to LIKE Canadians? (Get used to hearing that a lot)."

This is made worse by the fact that Canada's Prime Minister happens to be possibly the world's most respected former Central Banker. We've got, well, a guy scamming crypto, selling Trump watches and Bibles, building ballrooms, and renaming lakes, all because he wasn't as good looking or loved like Trudeau, and isn't half as smart as Carney.

It might be worthwhile looking at how we got in this mess.

Because Trump; that's why. No one can articulate any better reason. His gnashing of teeth about Canada robbing us in trade might sound slightly more legitimate if he wasn't the one who implemented most of our agreements!! But only "sound" more so. Canada has not been robbing us blind, nor riding our goodwill to giggles.

Second, how bad will it get? Real bad... In the long run, in a way we cannot fix, a multi-generational problem. In any war, each side looks to allies for help, and just like in Iran, Trump won't find a single sympathetic ear. But point your finger in literally any direction, and you'll hit a country that will help Canada.

Europe? Check. Doing it already. Mexico, Check. You better believe they are terrified they're next, so yes- along with most of South America. Check. South Korea, Japan, Australia? Check, check, and damn it, this makes no sense at all! And that is how a nation with fewer people than California can eventually crush the United States, representing all the world's anger at Trump- and there's a lot to go around, all of it now crashing down on Americans.

It is not like Canada kept it secret. PM Carney became the de facto leader of the free world in Davos, when, without mentioning Trump's name or expressly pointing to the United States, said that "the middle countries" (Meaning all but the U.S. and China) must band together if they want to keep their autonomy against bullies. He proposed treaties, not just across the Atlantic, but right around the Pacific Rim, rolling all the "good countries" right up and over the United States. Carney got a standing ovation befitting Neil Young. (Great export.)

Third, just because Americans will win the major battles doesn't mean Canada won't inflict a ton of damage on the people who used to be most inclined to support Trump. It is helpful to look up the definition of "potash" and what it does (At least for moronic writers), because Canada supplies so much to the U.S. Potash means "s--- that makes up fertilizer," which is just a reckless whammy against farmers already suffering under huge diesel hikes and high fertilizer due to the Middle Eastern War.

Our car industry is so intertwined with Canada it cannot be separated; parts and plans flow straight from Detroit, up Windsor, close to Toronto — new cars just got $4,000 more expensive.

The fact that these countries liked each other conferred sooo many benefits that are not worth giving up even if Canada was taking us to the shed on trade, which they were not.

As this column has repeated, almost weekly, like the beat of a Sarah MaGlachlan song (A priceless Canadian export), everything Donald Trump has ever gotten away with happened during a stable economy and, as you'll note, as the economy has taken a turn for the worse, so have Trump's numbers - close to Hooverville, if you recall. Now throw in prices Canadians are more than willing to pay as a middle finger to the yanks, "Elbows Up," all happening while Americans boil themselves over $5.50 a gallon or ground beef at $9.00 a pound. We will rightly demand answers.

The ultimate vanity project may also be the tipping point, the point at which the Western World decides, "We can't rely on these people at all anymore and need major insurance policies against their bullying tactics so long as that block of Right-Wing voters remain," and even in anticipation of such an international effort (which would require two to five years to really get going), stock markets across the world, more interested in the here and now than long term agreements, could go from "jittery" to "swimming straight out to sea, no life preserver needed/wanted."

Now let's talk Hoover. Trump's staff is already deeply concerned about numbers hitting the high 20s — and that was before he became serious about a true trade war with Canada... with Canada. Yes, he is still president. No, he is nowhere near as powerful when polling below his 29% shortly after Jan. 6. And nothing indicates he can hit the brakes anytime soon.

Don't discount the impact of having the "dumbest guy" in the war thing, ever.

How dumb? How about "Lake America" - typical Trump, that'll show 'em. Except "Ontario" is a Native American, First Nations name, Iroquoian-language, used on both sides of the border. Typical of Trump to utterly discount more brown Americans. Well, that and the "Gulf of America" still doesn't exist if you actually "talk" to anyone. He keeps firing blanks.

But Canadians will at least hear these blanks and won't appreciate the effort. While the US initiates "Operation Snow Blind," Canadians will respond with "Northern Blizzard."

Trump keeps saying that Canadians want to be the 51st state. Meanwhile, Canadians scream back that they're actually willing to fight, and pay higher prices, all to make us "go away." They are furious.

It is possible that as we enter this "war," Canadians might motivate themselves by rewatching the end of Braveheart: "You will never take away our freedom!" Meanwhile, many Americans, resigned to the end of an era, knowing it's too late to ever repair the damages to our empire, might perhaps watch "Leaving Las Vegas," turning to the bottle - maybe Crown Royal, in solidarity with the sane.

Trump? He will watch Star Wars, thinking he's Luke Skywalker, his MAGAs the dependable Ewoks. He lacks the bandwidth to process the whole "Empire" and "Vader" analogy, never mind Jabba. Unable to understand that it took only a small group of likeable rebels to blow up a Death Star.

One suspects Canadians will get up from Braveheart, feeling pretty good about themselves. Put on some Sarah MaGlachlan, maybe Neil Young, and somewhat mourn the loss of what was once a good friend, sing along, "I Will Remember You," and "Old Man," then smile and remind themselves, "In so many ways, we're just better," and certainly on this one, they're right.

"Oh, Canada! We are really, really sorry...

"Oh, God; Are they even listening? Those elbows are way up. Hey, come back!"

Jason Miciak is a Rawstory Columnist, former editor of Occupy Democrats, an author, attorney, political consultant, and single girldad - off to college, sniff. Please follow on Bluesky, and he can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com. He is also available for public speaking engagements.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh delivered a much-anticipated policy speech and said almost nothing, which economics columnist Catherine Rampell says was the point.

During a Friday morning speech in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Warsh warned that inflation remained "still worrisome" and landed a single joke aimed at monetary-policy obsessives. The audience could call his remarks "an outline" or "a framework," he said, "but don't call it forward guidance."

Watching Warsh is "like reading a scroll in a different language that you're not familiar with," journalist Sam Stein said in a Friday episode of Receipts Live. Stein argued that a Fed chair's job is "to never make news."

Despite Stein's perspective, Warsh's quip "made it into every write-up of the speech," Rampell said. That was the whole idea for Warsh, who she said turned focus away from a bigger problem.

"I guess he did his job," Rampell said. "He distracted people from the actual potential credibility crisis that our financial policymakers are dealing with."

At Warsh's last press conference, he "made quite a bit of news unintentionally," Rampell said. Warsh floated a change to "the yardstick [the Federal Reserve] uses for measuring inflation," Rampell said, describing the remark as an offhand comment that "freaked out markets" that worried it signaled "a backdoor way to not be as tough on inflation."

At his Friday speech, Warsh "kind of said nothing," but the silence buried a question that actually mattered, Rampell said. She argued that Warsh was dodging a question about how the Fed views Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's bond buybacks, which he did to tame a turbulent bond market. However, the Treasury was "homing in on the Fed's turf" with the move, Rampell said.

"The Fed is supposed to be the one that's setting interest rates, mostly the short-term interest rates," Rampell said. "But they also do things to affect long-term interest rates, like buying and selling long-term bonds. And now Bessent is getting in on that."

The result is a basic and unanswered question of "who's in charge," and Warsh didn't even touch the matter, which left "a lot of unresolved questions," Rampell complained

Receipts Live: Trump Has Absolutely No Idea How Trade with Canada Works by The Bulwark

A recording from The Bulwark's live video

Read on Substack

A federal judge accused the Justice Department of "untenable" stonewalling over how it ended President Donald Trump's IRS suit.

According to a Friday article by Bloomberg, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis said at a hearing that the DOJ failed to properly answer questions about the origins of the deal that gave Trump, his family, and businesses blanket immunity from IRS audits. During the Friday hearing, Davis ordered some preliminary records turned over within a week and set a September 4 hearing to decide whether to compel further disclosures.

"You have failed on both ends of the discovery process," Davis told DOJ senior counsel Andrew Block, according to Bloomberg. "That cannot continue."

A former January 6 prosecutor and a federal workers' union brought the case that Davis was hearing, according to Bloomberg. In addition to targeting Trump's IRS immunity, their lawsuit goes after Trump's plans for a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, which critics worry would pay January 6 rioters and Trump allies. Attorney General Todd Blanche has notably insisted that the anti-weaponization fund is dead but has refused to put it in writing.

The challengers want the names of everyone who created, or even conceived, the settlement terms that led to the creation of Trump's immunity deal with the IRS and the anti-weaponization fund, Bloomberg reported. Davis said the DOJ had to produce those names or explain what privilege shielded them, but the DOJ had done neither, according to Bloomberg.

Block argued that prosecutors replied in "good faith" and said the plaintiffs never narrowed which offices to search. A lawyer for the challengers countered that they wanted decision-makers, not all 190,000 Justice and Treasury employees.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who is overseeing the case, will weigh whether to dismiss the case against the DOJ on September 18. Trump is separately appealing a Florida judge's finding that he brought the original IRS case in "bad faith."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}