Before Sgt. Kevin McGee and the Virginia police department he belonged to charged a Black state senator, local civil rights leaders and city public defenders with conspiring to "injure" Confederate statues, he was being investigated by his own department for an email he sent to city officials where he slammed those he later charged, HuffPost reports.
McGee was also a prominent opponent of former Portsmouth Police Chief Tonya Chapman, according to sources speaking to HuffPost. "Chapman, Virginia’s first Black female police chief, was forced out last year, which she said was a result of her confronting 'racial tensions' from within the majority Black city’s mostly white police force and facing down a police union she said didn’t like her because she wasn’t a white man," the report stated.
The current Portsmouth police chief Angela Greene, who is also a Black woman, bypassed the city's elected Black prosecutor and charged local NAACP leaders and Portsmouth public defenders with a little known "injury" law that previously contained language sympathetic to Confederate supporters.
Sen. Lucas, like many others who were charged, weren't on the scene when protesters damaged four Confederate statues in June. One of the statues fell, severely injuring a protester. Lucas accused Greene of handling the incident poorly and called on her to resign, but McGee disagreed. In his letter, he said police falling back and allowing the incident to take place was because the statues were “a lost cause” and officers intervening would have only made the incident worse.
“Occasionally you have to let a house burn in order to save the ones on either side or because collapse is imminent,” he wrote.
“Chief Greene deserves nothing less than the highest praise and she should be given the resources to continue to rebuild this Police Department,” McGee continued. “If Senator Lucas wants to place blame on anyone for this incident, she should start by looking in the mirror.”
Two months later, McGee obtained the "unusual" felony charges against Lucas and 13 others.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trumprefused to promise to accept the results of the election. Likewise, in 2020, his continued assault on the reliability and legitimacy of mail-in voting has laid the groundwork for challenging a loss on the basis of voter fraud. He has also refused to promise to observe the 2020 results.
This has led some to worry that a contested election would severely undermine faith in American democracy.
Yet the United States has a long history of such contested elections. With one exception, they have not badly damaged the American political system.
That contested 1860 election – which sparked the Civil War – happened in a unique context. As a political scientist who studies elections, I believe that, should President Trump – or less likely, Joe Biden – contest the results of the November election, American democracy will survive.
Most contested presidential elections have not posed threats to the legitimacy of government.
Legitimacy, or the collective acknowledgment that government has a right to rule, is essential to a democracy. In a legitimate system, unpopular policies are largely accepted because citizens believe that government has the right to make them. For example, a citizen may despise taxes but still admit that they are lawful. Illegitimate systems, which are not supported by citizens, can collapse or descend into revolution.
In democracies, elections generate legitimacy because citizens contribute to the selection of leadership.
In the past, contested elections have not badly damaged the fabric of democracy because the rules for handling such disputes exist and have been followed. While politicians and citizens alike have howled about the unfairness of loss, they accepted these losses.
Contested elections and continuity
In 1800, both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of votes in the Electoral College. Because no candidate won a clear majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives followed the Constitution and convened a special session to resolve the impasse by a vote. It took 36 ballots to give Jefferson the victory, which was widely accepted.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote against John Quincy Adams and two other candidates, but failed to win the necessary majority in the Electoral College. The House, again following the procedure set in the Constitution, selected Adams as the winner over Jackson.
The 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.
The contest between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon in 1960 was rife with allegations of voter fraud, and Nixon supporters pressed for aggressive recounts in many states. In the end, Nixon begrudgingly accepted the decision rather than drag the country through civil discord during the intense U.S.-Soviet tensions of the Cold War.
Finally, in 2000, GOP candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore tangled over disputed ballots in Florida. The Supreme Court terminated a recount effort and Gore publicly conceded, recognizing the legitimacy of Bush’s victory by saying, “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”
In each case, the losing side was unhappy with the result of the election. But in each case, the loser accepted the legally derived result, and the American democratic political system persisted.
After Abraham Lincoln defeated three other candidates, Southern states simply refused to accept the results. They viewed the selection of a president who would not protect slavery as illegitimate and ignored the election’s results.
It was only through the profoundly bloody Civil War that the United States remained intact. The dispute over the legitimacy of this election, based in fundamental differences between the North and South, cost 600,000 American lives.
The contested 1860 presidential election led to the Civil War, where 600,000 died, including these Confederate soldiers at in Gettysburg’s ‘the devil’s den,’ June or July 1863.
What is the difference between the political collapse of 1860 and the continuity of other contested elections? In all cases, citizens were politically divided and elections were hotly contested.
While the America of today is certainly divided, the distribution of political beliefs is far more dispersed and complex than the ideological cohesion of the Confederacy.
History suggests, then, that even if Trump or Biden contest the election, the results would not be catastrophic.
The Constitution is clear on what would happen: First, the president cannot simply declare an election invalid. Second, voting irregularities could be investigated by the states, who are responsible for managing the integrity of their electoral processes. This seems unlikely to change any reported results, as voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.
The next step could be an appeal to the Supreme Court or suits against the states. To overturn any state’s initial selection, evidence of a miscount or voter fraud would have to be strongly established.
If these attempts to contest the election fail, on Inauguration Day, the elected president would lawfully assume the office. Any remaining ongoing contestation would be moot after this point, as the president would have full legal authority to exercise the powers of his office, and could not be removed short of impeachment.
While the result of the 2020 election is sure to make many citizens unhappy, I believe rule of law will endure. The powerful historical, social, and geographic forces that produced the total failure of 1860 simply are not present.
Correction: This story has been corrected to give the proper date for the contested election between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. It was in 1800.
Supporters of President Donald Trump gathered in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Tuesday, where speakers demanded "justice" for accused murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.
Just hours ahead of Trump's visit to the city, protesters both for and against the president faced off near the Kenosha County Courthouse.
According to investigative reporter Kristen Barbaresi, one man with a bullhorn shouted in defense of Rittenhouse.
“Justice for Kyle Rittenhouse!" the man could be heard yelling. "He’s an American hero!”
Other Trump supporters sang "God Bless America."
"Stand up Americans!" a woman wearing a Trump T-shirt shouted. "Before you lose it. Stand up for America now! America now! America now!"
At another point, Black Lives Matter protesters could be seen walking through the crowd of Trump supporters with their fists raised.
"All lives matter!" the Trump supporters chanted back.
Meanwhile, the family of Jacob Blake also held a rally at the site where he was gunned down by police.
A 2008 case involving a loan shark and longtime business partner of Steve Bannon's, Andrew Badolato, may impact the fraud case against the former White House adviser. Bannon and Badolato worked together on a penny stock deal as well as political "documentaries."
The ironic twist was explored by Bloomberg News Tuesday, describing the efforts Badolato made to help the FBI record calls in a case involving organized crime. Badolato helped with another case in which he gave information that helped send an associate to prison for securities fraud.
A 2018 profile by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune revealed that Badolato taped his phone conversations with Bannon and other far-right leaders.
"Now the Sarasota, Florida, businessman is at the center of a third criminal case -- this time as a defendant," reported Bloomberg. "Federal prosecutors have accused him of conspiring with Bannon and two others to siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars from a campaign to raise funds for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico."
Badolato pleaded not guilty in court Monday before being released on bail, while "disabled military veteran Brian Kolfage, who founded the campaign, Colorado businessman Timothy Shea and Bannon have also denied wrongdoing."
Bloomberg News cited former prosecutors that Badolato’s work with federal investigators increase the chances that he would turn on Bannon.
“The two of them knowing each other well is an important piece for a cooperator,” said former federal prosecutor Harry Sandick. “You want someone who can say, ‘I’ve known this person for years, and this is what we did together.’”
Badolato would be looking for leniency if he agrees to a deal with prosecutors.
Bannon was arrested for his GoFundMe enterprise "We Build the Wall," which sought to crowd-fund the building of the U.S./Mexico border wall. They only were able to build a small portion of the wall that is now on the brink of collapse.
"Giving coal companies a free pass to dump more toxic heavy metals like mercury and arsenic into our waters is a travesty."
In what critics called yet "another toxic giveaway" to corporate polluters, the Trump administration late Monday afternoon announced final revisions to Obama-era regulations designed protect lakes, rivers, and streams near coal-fired power plants by imposing strict treatment requirements for wastewater containing toxic pollutants.
"This shameless handout will allow greater amounts of these dangerous pollutants to be spewed directly into our waterways."
—Brett Hartl, CBD
The new Environmental Protection Agency guidelines relax a 2015 rule's treatment standards for wastewater from coal plants that contains pollutants like arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium. The Trump policy gives energy companies more time to comply with the loosened requirements and exempts plants that will shut down or transition to natural gas by 2028.
"The measure targets pollution unleashed when power companies clean up coal-fired plants, including sulfur dioxide captured by emissions-control equipment inside smokestacks," Bloomberg Greenexplained. "Plant operators also often rely on water to flush toxic coal ash from the bottom of furnaces. For more than a decade, environmentalists have warned the practice imperils American waterways."
The EPA announcement outraged environmental and public health advocates such as Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), who declared that "giving coal companies a free pass to dump more toxic heavy metals like mercury and arsenic into our waters is a travesty."
"This shameless handout will allow greater amounts of these dangerous pollutants to be spewed directly into our waterways," he warned, "threatening public health and pushing hundreds of aquatic endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon, and hellbender salamanders, closer to extinction."
While some critics had challenged the Obama policy as inadequate, environmentalists put the EPA's weakening of it into the context of the Trump administration's broader deregulatory agenda. During the president's first term, he and federal agencies have gutted or scrapped scores of environmental and climate regulations that were opposed by polluting industries.
"The Trump administration is once again jeopardizing people's health to give coal power industry lobbyists what they want," Earthjustice attorney Thom Cmar said of the wastewater guidelines, vowing his group will take on the new policy in court. "The Trump administration's rollback will be responsible for hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants contaminating sources of drinking water, lakes, rivers and streams every year."
Mary Anne Hitt, national director of campaigns at Sierra Club, specifically called out the president and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist.
"Even during a pandemic, a recession, several climate change fueled hurricanes, and national protests against their policies, Donald Trump and Andrew Wheeler are showing their true colors: putting power plant industry profits before the public's health," Hitt said. "The Trump EPA's final rule is based on bogus science and a flagrantly partisan process—Wheeler allowed no in-person hearings and minimal opportunities for affected communities to weigh in."
"Wheeler's new rule pushes back compliance dates for their newly approved weakened standards, and carves out giant-sized loopholes for certain coal plant polluters," she added. "It's nothing more than another attempt at a lifeline to an industry responsible for billions of pounds of pollution that contaminate our water year after year."
Wheeler claimed that the guidelines show Trump's "commitment to advancing American energy independence and protecting the environment." He added that "newer, more affordable pollution control technologies and flexibility on the regulation's phase-in will reduce pollution and save jobs at the same time."
Betsy Southerland, who served as director of science and technology at the EPA's Office of Water under the Obama administration, pushed back against Wheeler's remarks in a comment to The Hill, criticizing the assumption that coal facilities will voluntarily adopt stricter standards.
"They only listen to industry," she said. "They never listen to public health specialists or environmentalists, so it must be that these people told them they didn't want it required, so that doesn't bode well for them just voluntarily deciding to do it on their own, but it allows the EPA... to argue that their less stringent treatment option has a bigger reduction of [toxins] than the Obama rule."
Southerland toldThe Guardian that the EPA assumes about a third of coal plants will use treatment technologies that are more effective than what's required.
"It's clear from this rule that a relatively inexpensive treatment technology is available—the one that they made voluntary—that would eliminate the toxic contamination of drinking water supplies and is very affordable. And yet they did not require it," she said. "People should be very concerned."
"During a pandemic, this should ring some alarm bells."
As millions across the nation lose their employer-tied healthcare coverage amid the Covid-19 pandemic and economic crash, a Gallup poll released Tuesday shows Americans are increasingly concerned a major health event could lead to bankruptcy.
According to the survey of 1,007 people conducted July 1-24, 50% of respondents are concerned or extremely concerned about such a possibility—a five-point increase from the 45% measured last year.
The concern was expressed nearly equally among women (51%) and men (49%). Concern among men jumped 7 percentage points compared to the January-February 2019 survey, while concern among women increased four points.
Among non-whites, concern about a health event-driven bankruptcy spiked 12%, surging from 52% to 64% in the new poll.
A similar uptick was seen in adults aged 29 and younger, increasing from 43% to 55%. For those aged 30-49, concern went up 9 points, going from 46% to 55%.
Gallup's poll also revealed that 15% of adults said someone in their household currently is saddled with medical debt they don't expect to pay off in the next 12 months. And the burden is overwhelmingly likely to be felt by those in lower income brackets. Twenty-eight percent of those in households making less than $40,000 annually said they had that long term medical debt compared to just 6% of those making more than $100,000.
If faced with a $500 medical bill, 26% of those surveyed said they would need to borrow money to pay it. Such a scenario, Gallup noted, "is likely to feed into a cycle of accumulating medical debt that cannot be readily repaid."
The findings come as the coronavirus crisis continues to spotlight the inequities of the U.S. healthcare system. A national analysis out last month from the Economic Policy Institute, for example, estimated that roughly 12 million people have lost access to employer-sponsored healthcare coverage since February.
Those losses have bolstered Medicare for All advocates' demands for a single-payer healthcare system and cancellation of medical debt.
Among those who've called for such a transformation is healthcare activist Ady Barkan. In remarks delivered at the Democratic National Convention last month, Barkan said, "We live in the richest country in history, and yet we do not guarantee this most basic human right."
"Everyone living in America should get the healthcare they need," he said, "regardless of their employment status or ability to pay."
A customer knocked merchandise onto the floor after a Texas convenience store clerk called him a racial slur.
The Black man stopped at Circle K in Cypress after midnight for tobacco products, but the older white woman working at the store refused to sell them because he had an out-of-state ID card, reported TMZ.
The woman then demands the customer take off his mask, and she hurled a racial slur when he refused.
The man then starts yelling at the clerk and threatens to "pop" her because she'd called him the slur, and then he knocks items from display shelves onto the floor as they continue to argue.
The clerk orders the Black man out of the store, and calls him a "f*cking n*gger" before he leaves without further incident.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday attempted to explain his conspiracy theory that an "entire" airplane was "filled" rioters and looters.
After first making the assertion on Fox News, Trump doubled down on the claim while traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin.
According to Trump, he received a "first-hand" account about the incident from a person who he did not want to name.
"I can probably refer you to the person," he told reporters. "And they could do it. I'd like to ask that person if it was OK. But a person was on a plane, said that there was about six people like that person more or less and what happened is the entire plane filled up with the looters, the anarchists, the rioters, people that obviously were looking for trouble."
"And the person felt very uncomfortable in the plane," Trump added. "This would be a person you know so I will see whether or not I can get that person and I'll let them know and I'll see whether or not I can get that person to speak to you."
According to the president, "This was a first-hand account of a plane going from Washington to wherever. And I'll see if I can get that information for you. Maybe they will speak to you, maybe they won't."
New revelations about President Donald Trump's secret trip to Walter Reed Medical Center last year are coming to light, after the White House at the time tried to claim what appeared to be an emergency visit was merely Trump getting ahead of his annual physical, by months. A new book by the New York Times' Michael Schmidt reveals that White House officials were so worried Vice President Mike Pence was summoned and placed on standby should the President have become incapacitated due to being anesthetized.
Trump is clearly agitated over the renewed coverage, and insisting his trip to the hospital was not because he "suffered a series of mini-strokes" – while neglecting to say what the trip was for.
And as usual, he tries to blame his weaknesses on Joe Biden.
Strangely, no news reports about Schmidt's book mention a series of mini-strokes. The most recent news report about Trump and mini strokes came one month ago, in The Inquisitor, citing this tweet from author and anti-Trump activist Don Winslow.
It would seem perhaps Trump has cause for concern.
Democrats say the letter violates the law against using government resources to campaign. It’s just the latest example of President Trump using his office to boost his reelection hopes.
Millions of Americans who are struggling to put food on the table may discover a new item in government-funded relief packages of fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy and meat: a letter signed by President Donald Trump.
The message, printed on White House letterhead in both English and Spanish, touts the administration’s response to the coronavirus, including aid provided through the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, a U.S. Department of Agriculture initiative to buy fresh food and ship it to needy families.
The letter is reminiscent of Trump’s effort to put his signature on stimulus checks and send a signed letter to millions of recipients. It’s the latest example of the president blurring his official duties with his reelection campaign, most prominently by hosting Trump’s acceptance speech for the Republican nomination last week on the White House lawn.
Democratic lawmakers have gone so far as to say the USDA letter violates the federal Hatch Act. The law prohibits government officials from using their positions or taxpayer resources to engage in electioneering. Though the president himself is exempt, the ban applies to White House staff and agencies such as the USDA.
“Using a federal relief program to distribute a self-promoting letter from the President to American families just three months before the presidential election is inappropriate and a violation of federal law,” argued 49 House Democrats led by Marcia Fudge of Ohio in an August 14 letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, requesting information about the purpose and process behind Trump’s letter. “A public health crisis is not an opportunity for the administration to promote its own political interests. Likewise, a federal food assistance program should not be used as a tool for the President to exploit taxpayer dollars for his re-election campaign.”
The White House and the USDA didn’t respond to questions from ProPublica. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has shrugged off Hatch Act concerns, telling Politico last week, “Nobody outside of the Beltway really cares.” (Meadows also said the Hatch Act’s scope was limited to pressuring federal employees on how to vote, but that’s only one of several components of the law.)
Some USDA farm boxes include a signed letter from President Donald Trump. (Obtained by ProPublica)
Past administrations have observed the Hatch Act with strict firewalls between campaign and official events and admonitions against officials’ making any statements or taking actions that could appear political. The Trump administration, however, has routinely flouted this law. In addition to using the White House for convention speeches by the president and first lady, Trump and other officials also conducted a naturalization ceremony and a pardon as part of the Republican National Convention, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech from a diplomatic trip to Israel. White House adviser Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act so many times that the independent Office of Special Counsel recommended she be fired. (She wasn’t, and said she’d leave the White House in August for family reasons.)
The letter in the food boxes may not violate the law since it doesn’t explicitly refer to the election, according to the ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It doesn’t make it inherently political just because he is a candidate,” a spokesman for the group, Jordan Libowitz, said in an interview. “It’s just one of the benefits of being an incumbent.”
But coming so close to an election, the implication of the letter was not lost on anyone. Some food banks expressed concern that the letter looked too much like a political endorsement, which tax-exempt nonprofit organizations aren’t allowed to make.
“As a non-profit, we would have to take the letter out of the boxes if they were included because we can’t publicly support political candidates,” Mark Quandt, the executive director of the Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York, said in an email.
Trump’s letter purports to reinforce public health measures against the coronavirus, urging people to follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, the letter’s advice contradicts the CDC’s actual guidelines on face coverings, which Trump has resisted despite expert consensus. The letter says to “consider wearing a face covering when in public,” whereas the CDC says more definitively, “Cover your mouth and nose with a mask when around others.”
The administration promoted the letter’s debut in a White House press release and a tweet from Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser.
However, no food banks surveyed by ProPublica reported actually seeing the letters so far. Some wouldn’t know because they pass the boxes directly to families without opening them, but others do spot checks for quality control and haven’t found any letters. The Greater Cleveland Food Bank said a vendor suggested the letters would start being included in boxes on Sept. 1.
The letters have shown up at some food banks in the Feeding America network, according to Kate Leone, the organization’s chief government relations officer. But they’ve been included inconsistently and without any apparent pattern, she said. “It’s not across the board,” she said.
Lawmakers are asking why some federal contractors in Trump’s food aid program apparently lack qualifications to deliver the goods. Companies hired a consultant to tell positive stories.
Aside from the letter, the food box program has come under fire for relying on questionable vendors and failing to match supplies with needs. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus is investigating the selection and performance of distribution companies that the USDA hired to implement the program, including several that lacked a requisite license to deal in fresh produce.
At least one contract, for $40 million, was canceled; the vendor, Ben Holtz, said he’s still negotiating a settlement with the USDA. Others have been extended or added. Only 70% of vendors fulfilled at least 90% of their orders, Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Greg Ibach testified at a July 21 congressional hearing.
Ibach also acknowledged that the program “underserved” some regions because regional equity wasn’t a factor in the USDA contractor selection.
“Although Congress allocated billions of dollars to distribute food to Americans in need, I am concerned that the Trump Administration’s management of this critical effort has been marred by questionable contracting practices, a lack of accountability, and a failure to deliver food to many communities that need it most,” the coronavirus subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., said in an August 24 letter to Perdue. “Rather than focusing on addressing these problems, the Administration appears to be seeking political benefits from the program, including by inserting a letter signed by President Trump in food boxes.”
On Tuesday morning, CNN medical expert Dr. Sanjay Gupta singled out actions taken by Donald Trump's doctor on the day the president was mysteriously rushed to Walter Reed hospital, and questioned what actually happened that day.
Reacting to an excerpt from Michael Schmidt's book that "in the hours leading up to Trump's trip to the hospital, word went out in the West Wing for the vice president to be on standby to take over the powers of the presidency temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized," Gupta said the latest news about the president's reported unscheduled physical raises a host of new questions.
"I know we're asking you to read tea leaves which is what doctors don't want to do but given the reporting and possibility of anesthesia having to go to Walter Reid, what does this tell you?" host Jim Sciutto asked.
"The story doesn't add up," Dr. Gupta bluntly replied. "Still, even after all these months, the story still doesn't add up in part for the reasons that you've mentioned."
"This was a very unusual visit," he continued. "Dr. [Sean] Conley got in the vehicle with the president -- that doesn't happen. Typically the physician, White House physician, is in a separate part of the convoy of the motorcade because they need to take care of the president if something were to happen and then he'd be able to get to that vehicle. All these things just don't add up."
"What was interesting, exactly to your point, is there are lots of capabilities within the White House, and we looked into this, you know," he elaborated. "We talked to previous White House doctors; most things you can take care of in the White House unless it really comes to some sophisticated imaging. Obviously anything, as John [Harwood] mentioned, that would require anesthesia, that's typically either the brain or the heart -- that's typically what it involves. So we asked Dr. Conley about it that and what he subsequently said is that the president did not have any chest pain nor was he evaluated or treated for any urgent or acute issues and did not undergo any specialized cardiac or neurological evaluations."
"So here we are, you know, and medical information is understandably very protected and so we may never know, but I think it's safe to say several months later it still doesn't add up," he stated.
September 1 marks the release of “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady,” a new tell-all book by former Melania Trump ally and staffer Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. One of the things the book addresses is the tension between Melania Trump and White House Senior Adviser Ivanka Trump. According to the Daily Mail’s Cheyenne Roundtree, the first lady “would roll her eyes whenever Ivanka opined about being America’s first female president, mumbling under her breath, ‘No thank you,’ a source connected to the bombshell book about the first lady exclusively told DailyMail.com.”
Melania Trump, Wolkoff says in her book, made disparaging comments about Ivanka Trump and condescendingly referred to President Donald Trump’s oldest daughter as “The Princess.” And Rountree reports that according to Wolkoff, Melania Trump “was behind a petty mission to ensure” that Ivanka Trump “was blocked from her father’s swearing-in ceremony photo” in January 2017.
The Mail’s source said that according to the book, White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner (who is married to Ivanka Trump) would say of his wife, “She’s got what it takes. She’s a born leader. The people love her, look at her” — and “Melania would mumble, ‘No thank you.’”
That source also told the Mail, “Meanwhile, Melania had to deal with Don Jr.’s conviction that he too would follow in his dad’s footsteps in becoming commander in chief. Melania would discretely shake her head in disgust over these two running around the White House saying, ‘Look at me, look at me’ and acting like they were the ones in charge….. While Melania strived for peace and order in her new home, she compared the White House to an out-of-control circus thanks to its self-appointed co-ringleaders Ivanka and Don Jr.’”
According to the Mail’s source, “Melania complained that Ivanka was always competing with her for his attention, as if she knew better and was more capable of being the first lady. Melania spoke out against Ivanka’s incessant need to involve herself in just about everything in the White House, even if it didn’t concern her. She would always find some way to meddle, some way to make her point be heard….. There’s no warmth between those two.”
Not that Melania Trump was without an ego herself. Roundtree writes, “The insider also revealed the book contains details about Melania likening ‘herself to a modern-day Jacqueline Kennedy and said her mission was to restore sophistication and elegance to the White House — that it was lacking a feminine touch.’”
Gunfire broke out while Charles McMillon Jr., his son, and childhood friend Kendrick Clemons were dropping off a U-Haul truck. The next thing they say they saw was an older couple coming toward them, both pointing guns in their direction.
The couple ordered them to not move, but McMillon sped off in his truck in a panic. Speaking to the Tallahassee Democrat, McMillon says he thinks they were being racially profiled because they're Black.
The two shooters, Wallace Fountain, 77, and his wife, Beverly Fountain, 72, own the Tennessee strip mall where the incident took place and were reportedly staking it out inside another U-Haul truck. According to the Tallahassee Democrat, the couple said they were having problems with people stealing gas. But according to McMillon and Clemons, they were profiled by vigilantes and never given a chance to explain why they were there.
“They saw three Black people, unarmed, dropping off a U-Haul,” McMillon said. “They got guns, they started shooting. That’s why it’s racially motivated.”
Beverly Fountain, who was one of the shooters, denies the incident had anything to do with race.
"We weren’t going off on that at all. You’ve got vandalism and theft going on at your property. Trying to protect your property — that’s the only issue," she said.
The Fountains were arrested and charged with three counts of aggravated assault without intent to kill.
