One of the defenses Donald Trump's attorneys have offered in the U.S. Supreme Courtappeal of a Colorado decision could "topple" the authority of state courts, according to a legal expert.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that the former president should be ineligible from holding office under the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause, and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin said one of Trump's arguments could undermine the entire system of appeals.
"I think the outcome is going to be that the court does not disqualify Donald Trump from being on presidential primary ballots," Rubin told "Morning Joe." "How it gets there, of course, is another story. One of the things that I expect that we'll hear at oral argument, and one of the things that puts a chill into me personally as a lawyer, is something that Donald Trump's team put on the very last pages of their brief. It's been long presumed that when a state supreme court makes a factual finding, the United States Supreme Court is supposed to defer to that. It really can't mess with the factual findings of a state supreme court."
"However, Jonathan Mitchell, Donald Trump's lawyer here, essentially says, there is no reason for the court to give any deference to that, and they should disturb the factual findings and revisit the question of whether Trump participated in an insurrection at all," Rubin added. "In this case, that would have big consequences, but overall, in terms of Supreme Court jurisprudence, it would have huge consequences. If a state supreme court is no longer the final arbiter of its own facts and law, you can see how that would topple basically the system of state to federal appeals as we currently understand it."
An alarming footnote from a court-appointed financial monitor watching over Donald Trump's finances that a $48 million loan has suddenly vanished should result in the former president being called in to explain away the possibility that he may have committed another act of financial fraud.
During an appearance on "Morning Joe," MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin claimed that, short of a legitimate accounting of the loan that had been listed in the former president's financials, there may be cause for more criminal charges.
Speaking with the co-hosts she explained that "retired Judge Barbara Jones is the monitor in the case, and we're not sure if it is impacting Judge [Arthur] Engoron's decision and timing. It's a letter that points to improprieties in Trump's financial statements."
"One of the things that it points to, and maybe the thing that's most troubling about it, is for years it's been understood that one of the business entities in the Trump Organization loaned former president Trump personally $48 million," she elaborated. "According to Judge Jones in a footnote in this letter, she could never find, no matter how many times she asked, documentation of that loan and was later told, essentially, that the loan didn't exist."
"The Trump organization lawyers, they refute that," she added. "They say the loan did exist and what we did was give Judge Jones an intra-company memo telling her that debt had been extinguished. But I've looked at that memo from December 2023: it is a memo to the file, so nobody even had the guts to sign it essentially. It just says that the debt has been extinguished. There is still, to this day, no documentation that the loan existed."
"And you might be thinking to yourself, what's the big deal about that?" she proposed. ''The big deal is if that loan did not exist and it was, instead a gift, there would be massive tax consequences to that as well as some improprieties in the financial reporting that went to Trump's financial institutions and insurance companies. In essence, a continuation of that same fraud that's been going on for years and has been showing up in his financial disclosure."
"As a candidate, you'll remember that, as president, for example, Donald Trump filed these presidential disclosures where we could see all of his finances," the legal analyst added. "He is required to do that as a candidate as well, and the loan showed up in his most recent disclosure as of April 2023. As, you know, they'd say on 'I Love Lucy,' someone has some explaining to do."
WASHINGTON — After protecting – and studying – lawmakers at the U.S. Capitol for the past 15 years, Harry Dunn turned his service revolver over to the Capitol Police at the end of 2023.
He then entered the 2024 race to represent residents of Maryland’s 3rd congressional district, which curls through the suburbs south and west of Baltimore, as a Democrat.
Dunn found his life upended during the 2021 Capitol insurrection as he protected then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staffers from militia group the Oath Keepers and other violent attackers.
In the three years since the Capitol attack, Dunn has made it his mission to raise the alarm about what he sees as the greatest threat to American democracy: former President Donald Trump.
He offered gripping testimony about the day to the U.S. House’s select January 6 committee.
“I was distressed, I was angry, and I was scared," Dunn testified to the select committee in 2022. "During the event, it was just about surviving."
He also became a New York Times bestselling author with his book “Standing my Ground.”
In this Raw Story exclusive, Dunn discusses more than his newfound ambitions as a politician – “Don't think of me as one! I’m a public servant.” He also pulls the veil back on how his fellow officers reacted to his accidental activism and what he views as the hypocrisy of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
“I refuse – win or lose this election – to let the story of January 6 and the narrative go in any other direction than the truth. Hell, that's been my mission since I started speaking out three years ago,” Dunn told Raw Story.
The distinguished former Capitol Police officer also discussed his personal interactions with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and other lawmakers – “a lot of the people that are holding those seats shouldn't be there” – including House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who has supported imprisoned Jan. 6 attackers and seems to be auditioning to get the vice-presidential nod from Trump.
Raw Story’s conversation with Dunn is lightly edited for length and clarity:
Raw Story: “So now you are running…”
Harry Dunn: “I know. What the hell am I thinking, right?”
RS: “Exactly! You’ve looked at all these politicians from the other side and, to now to be running — how's that change feel?”
HD: “Maybe ‘inspire’ is the right word. I've been up close and personal with them every day of my life for the last 15-plus years, and I feel like I see what they're doing and I'd say, ‘I could do it a little better’ – or not necessarily better but different or more effective. I've watched them. I've heard the things that they said, specifically the MAGA faction of the Republican Party that has kind of downplayed everything since January 6. Now, obviously, Jan. 6 was the catalyst that brought me to this point, but I have a lot of opinions about a lot of things.”
RS: “Even before we jump into January 6, just seeing lawmakers every day, you kind of get a takeaway, like, ‘oh, wait, they're just humans.’”
HD: “I love that part of it, man. Because that's what public servants, to me, are supposed to be: just people – average people that aren't on a pedestal. But my job is to give a voice to the members of the community that I represent, and that's what your job is as an elected official. Your job is to represent those people, and you should be an everyday American because that's what the government should be made up of.”
RS: “Now to get to January 6, especially this year with the anniversary, it just had a different feeling at the Capitol, almost like it never happened.”
HD: “Because that's what Donald Trump wanted. Everything that Donald Trump has said — slowly but surely it starts trickling down into Congress. Everything that Donald Trump has said they are saying – ‘they’ meaning the subordinates of him in Congress parroting his talking points – and that's not how Congress is supposed to work.”
RS: “You'd expect it more – I'd expect it more from someone like MTG – but how is it watching…”
HD: “Do I expect more? At the Capitol, we would see these individuals every day so maybe we expect more from the position that they hold but not necessarily the person. Like, I don't expect more from Donald Trump, I expect more from the presidency. And that's how I was able to do my job. I was able to separate that, the institution of Congress – I marvel at it; I respect it – but a lot of the people that are holding those seats shouldn't be there.”
RS: “I've been with MTG to the D.C. jail for her to advocate for J6 prisoners, and it's been a part of her rhetoric. But now to hear Elise Stefanik – who’s been in Republican leadership – say, ‘January 6 hostages,’ that's new.”
HD: “So what is Elise Stefanik right now? She’s vying for a VP nod, right? So it's anything to stay in Trump's graces. We've seen it all the way from the beginning of January 6 with Kevin McCarthy when later that night he went on the floor and condemned Donald Trump. Few days later, he’s down at Mar-a-Lago changing his tune, right? [Sen.] Lindsey Graham, same thing with him. Elise Stefanik. The list goes on and on and on. He has that much of a hold over the people that it's dangerous and very counterproductive in Congress.”
RS: “We see Trump’s stranglehold on the Republican Party, how would it be serving with those folks?”
HD: “The same way it was for me protecting them. This isn't just something that I'll have to get used to being able to see them and say ‘hi’ to them every day. I did that January 7th – the day we went back after the attack at the Capitol, because I revere the institution. I hold it in high regard. I think the world of it, and I expect great things to come from Congress. The fact that we haven't been able to doesn't mean that we shouldn't still strive to get greatness out of it.”
RS: “Have you been surprised watching the rhetoric of MTG and that faction trickle into the leadership?”
HD: “I'm disappointed. I'm not surprised, because Donald Trump has this stranglehold over these individuals. It's very important to acknowledge, though, what Congress is supposed to do. I believe in it, and maybe that's crazy on me for believing in something that hasn't functioned well for a long time.”
RS: “How important is this election just for the legacy of January 6, because it feels very tied to Donald Trump and his future?”
HD: “It's very important, not necessarily for the legacy of it, so to speak. I refuse – win or lose this election – to let the story of January 6 and the narrative go in any other direction than the truth. Hell, that's been my mission since I started speaking out three years ago. But I think what this election will show is how important the threats to free and fair elections are and holding on to our democracy is to people. Donald Trump said it himself that [he] wants to be a dictator on day one. He said that. So I think what the election will show is how many people think that what we have now is worth preserving and worth fighting for it.”
RS: “When you were on the force, what was the reaction from Capitol Police brass – but then your fellow officers – to you speaking out?”
HD: “That was tough to navigate, because Capitol Police officers aren't allowed to give press conferences or speak to the media. So when I spoke, I was speaking as a citizen. I wasn't representing Capitol Police. So it was difficult to navigate, because those things are tied together – the Capitol Police and January 6 – so I was in a tough bind. I never went rogue or anything like that. I was respectful to the department. I said, ‘Listen, this is what I want to do. I'm not here to bash the department. I'm here to get the people responsible and hold them accountable.’ Period. There were a couple head bumps about me speaking out. I respect the Capitol Police leadership, and they were great. And obviously, when you talk about frontline — my co-workers — a lot of them were indifferent. A lot supported me, and said, ‘keep going.’ And there were a few that hated it – you know, ‘I'm making it about me’ – which kind of sucks, but it’s expected. If you look, the FOP [Fraternal Order of Police], the last few times Donald Trump ran, they endorsed him, so there's a lot of police officers that support Donald Trump, even after January 6. So I expected all types of mixed reactions. But I know what I'm doing, I'm standing up for what I believe in.”
RS: “What do you make of seeing law enforcement come around Trump or, more so, seeing Republicans still try to wear the mantle of law enforcement when they threw y'all literally under the bus?”
HD: “Does that make me dislike Donald Trump more or does that make me have to face the sad reality of what our country is? I don't think that necessarily makes me hate Donald Trump even more, I think it makes me have an awakening to, ‘hey, this faction exists, and it's not a small faction – it's a large population of people.’ We have to figure out how to navigate that, because they're here and clearly aren't going anywhere.”
RS: “When it comes to the lead up of January 6, have your questions been answered? For one, on congressional leaders – Pelosi and [Sen. Mitch] McConnell — for the pre-planning. But then also the agencies. Are you sure we can’t have a repeat?”
HD: “I don't believe in any conspiracy that McConnell or Pelosi wanted to see the Capitol attacked. I don't believe that at all. I believe in incompetence, versus it was a setup or some s— like that. Somebody dropped the ball, and they need to be held accountable. I don't know where that is, but somebody did. But I don't believe it was the leadership. I think they trusted people that they put in positions to answer for those things, and those people need to be held accountable.”
RS: “Seeing groups like Moms for Liberty take root on the right, are you worried about — maybe January 6 not repeating itself in a physical assault but them kind of taking root at the local level and trying to really take control of the reins of democracy at voting stations, etc.?”
HD: “We have to realize this faction – this chokehold that Donald Trump has – it's not just limited to members of Congress. It's triggered all the way down to local school board elections, like Moms for Liberty. And that's why it's so important to have truth tellers, individuals that really understand what is at stake right now. Obviously, we all want, in the long run, the same things, but I don't think that a lot of people realize the dire situation and how urgently we need to fight for it right now. Because it is a clear and present threat right now and we have to take it seriously. I left my job early. Meaning, I was there 15-plus years, four years short of being able to collect a full pension, because it's that important to me. It can't wait.”
RS: “How's that been going? Because it's hard for me to think of you as a politician, but, I guess, technically on paper, you are.”
HD: “Don't think of me as one! I’m a public servant. You saw me at the Capitol every day. You saw me interacting with people, ‘how can I help you?’ My job was to help people, and that's what I did. I've been doing that for the last 15 years of my adult life, and that won't change.”
RS: “But now you gotta dial for dollars and stuff like that. How's the campaigning?”
HD: “That sucks. I hate asking people for stuff. It’s difficult, but it's necessary. It's not like I'm raising money and putting it in my pocket. It’s for messaging, and I want to reach as many people as I can. Obviously, to win the election, but, the bigger picture, to educate and inform people of what is at stake right now.”
RS: “I'm from Chicago, which is very much like Baltimore, you got these old political machines. How's it been navigating Maryland Democratic politics?”
HD: “It's a lot to learn, but I've cared about politics, so it's not like, ‘who is the lieutenant governor?’ I'm engaged. Before I'm a candidate, before I'm a police officer, I'm a proud citizen of Maryland – and I have been my whole life – who wants to see the people and the state thrive. So running for office or not, that is always how I felt. But being a player now, so to speak, I don't want to lose the essence of who I am, which is a public servant.”
RS: “You obviously get a lot of focus from January 6, but what are the other things you're running on that you think – especially coming from law enforcement – that you can really bring to the table?”
HD: “Since you said it, let’s talk about that, law enforcement and police reform. There's been a long time where Cory Booker and Tim Scott, two black senators, were working together to create a bill to address police reform of criminal justice reform. They were unable to come to an agreement through a consensus, so the talks stalled and now it's just tabled. But the change can't wait … I've been very vocal about mental health. I think we need to reallocate funding to fight the war on mental health right now and the stigma that is associated with it. We all are struggling in some capacity every single day, and we need to make accessibility to mental health way more accessible … Lower health care costs. Obviously, I agree with the majority of the Democratic principles: the woman's right to choose, common sense gun reform. That's the stuff that I agree on, and those issues fall under the umbrella of democracy to me, because, you know, if Trump is elected back into the White House, do those issues even matter? They’ll be gone just like that.”
RS: “You have a presence, and it's usually a smiley, happy presence at the Capitol, but knowing that you were one of our boys in blue but then if you're wearing a suit and wearing that congressional pin, what signal would that send to the MTGs, the Matt Gaetzes, the Boeberts, the people trying to whitewash January 6th?”
HD: “That I can't be dismissed. It's easy to dismiss me when I was an officer, right? As just some ‘angry liberal plant,’ right? It's easy to dismiss me as that. But actually, I'm your colleague, now, I'm your equal. You can't dismiss me. You have to listen. I can bring an issue to the table and force it to be addressed.”
RS: “What would the lawmakers tell you like, personally off the record, post January 6?”
HD: “Well, the ones that I got to talk to, the ones who would dare talk to me about it – and that’s how bad it was – a lot of those members aren't in Congress anymore. That’s just a symptom of being a truth teller in a Donald Trump Congress, so to speak. It sucks. It’s unfortunate. But you mentioned MTG, I mean, she was a very friendly person. When I saw her on the Hill, she would always wave. She would always say hello. I don't know if she knew who I was, but she would always say hello. So I don't have anything bad to say about her about that.”
RS: “You get that southern nice but then it seems like some of those policies are very harmful but then they're cloaked in this smile. Like, does that worry you?”
HD: “I think it's disingenuous – smiling without even having your pulse on what's going on.”
Donald Trump has another big week coming up in courtrooms around the country, and was up past midnight venting his frustration.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday to determine whether the former president should be disqualified from the 2024 ballot under the Constitution's insurrection clause, and he's still awaiting an appeals court decision on his immunity claims in the federal election subversion case and a judge's decision on penalties in the New York fraud case.
"Remember, all of those trials, and all of that litigation you constantly read and hear about, federal, state, & local – criminal & civil – is brought to you by Crooked Joe Biden, and his thugs at the DOJ, in order to interfere with the presidential election of 2024," Trump posted in all capital letters on Truth Social.
"This has never happened so blatantly in the USA before, only in third world countries," Trump added. "Watch for it, the radical left Democrats new way of cheating. They are destroying our country – but we will win & make America great again!!!"
About an hour before that 12:36 a.m. rant, Trump also posted about a Bud Light ad featuring a transgender social media celebrity ("The Bud Light ad will go down as the WORST AD in history. In a matter of minutes, 30 Billion Dollars worth of Market Cap simply disappeared from the face of the earth. Will they ever get it back? Who knows, but what a mess!!!") and then about 20 minutes later he promoted a new book by a Fox Business Network host ("Wonderful Charles Payne has just written another great book, 'Unbreakable Investor.' This will be his best yet. An important read, get your copy now!!!").
Former staffers who worked for Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) are going public with more complaints about their time working for her, with one calling her "delusional," and another claiming she is considered a "joke" around Congress.
According to a report from the Daily Beast's Reese Gorman, with the exception of her former chief of staff who was fired in December, her entire D.C. staff has quit and now she is scrambling to find people to work in the "toxic" atmosphere that surrounds her.
As the report notes, since Nov. 1, 2023, her office has undergone 100 percent turnover, with ex-staffers calling her abusive, controlling and publicity-hungry.
According to one ex-staffer, Mace is "delusional," adding, "She says nothing publicly without her consultants or senior staffers telling her to, but takes credit for everything. She’s a walking teleprompter.”
Another added that the South Carolina Republican “has no idea what it actually means to be a member of Congress and is too scared and self-conscious to deal with other people, so she accomplished nothing. All this is why pretty much every staffer and fellow member on the Hill thinks she’s a joke. Also a big reason why she’s only able to hire former George Santos staffers right now.”
As for her controlling ways, former aides complain that they had to respond to her demands within eight minutes or face her rage, calling it the 8-minute time limit "rule" within the office.
The Daily Beast's Gorman reports, "Another senior staffer recalled how Mace called them close to midnight on Christmas Eve and demanded to know why she wasn’t getting on TV more during the holiday week."
According to George Washington University Professor Casey Burgat, a legislative affairs expert, the total turnover of Mace's staff is a sign of absolute chaos.
“It's a ridiculously high number, just out of the ordinary,” explained Burgat. “I would be shocked if you found any other Representative or senator with even close to that high of a turnover in such a short amount of time.”
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, who also served as one of the impeachment lawyers for House Democrats and White House ethics czar, told the network Sunday that he firmly believes Donald Trump will be sent to prison.
Eisen called the recent decision from Judge Tanya Chutkin to abandon her March 4 trial date pending the appeal from the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals a "small win" for Trump. The ex-president has worked to delay as many of his trials as possible. The D.C. appeal will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court after the appeals court rules on it.
What Eisen found to be the most shocking is the argument made in court by Trump's lawyers that with his "presidential immunity," Trump could send S.E.A.L. Team 6 out to assassinate anyone he wants without any repercussions.
Eisen said that the appeals court is likely to reject that idea and hopes it comes soon, but it has been nearly four weeks since the ruling could be handed down. He doesn't believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold that idea either.
"That case is going to get back on track," he promised.
That case also doesn't get Trump out of "election interference hot water either," he continued, noting that at its source, the New York case from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is an election interference case. In that one, there are 34 felony counts against Trump.
Due to the delay now with the federal cases, it gives Bragg a window to "slide in," he explained. "Most likely over the summer."
He thinks it will be finished before the election and the 2020 election case will begin before the November election. The rule is that 60 days from an election, an investigation can't unfold. However, Eisen said, the trial can move forward since the investigation is over.
"Most likely that one will conclude before the November election," he said of the 2020 election interference case.
Republicans have spent the better part of the past year arguing that the efforts by President Joe Biden have made the economy worse. In fact, by every measure, things have significantly increased.
MSNBC reported last week that the positive economic turn has forced the GOP to change their language for the 2024 campaign season.
He explained that the voters have largely blamed Biden for inflation caused by the pandemic.
"How that vote — how that concern is going to change now that you have a robust economy," Bussey continued as host Eric Shawn nodded. He cited "3.3 percent GDP growth in the fourth quarter, an incredible gangbusters jobs numbers this past Friday. Inflation has been slashed. That message — you know, you and I follow it because we're in the news business, but it takes several months for the electorate, which is busy with its jobs and other responsibilities, to get the word that the economy is actually quite robust."
Shawn agreed, saying that Democrats argue that the message hasn't gotten across to voters yet. He cited "the success of the economy, the record employment rate, as well as the bills that the president has been able to pass."
Bussey said that there are still many more months for that message to get through and it likely will before the election.
In an interview as late as last month, Donald Trump said he was hoping the economy would crash so that he could use it against Biden in the election. He went on to say he didn't want to be "Herbert Hoover," the president blamed for the 1929 crash that led to the Great Depression. Approximately 11 million jobs were lost under Hoover, while 22 million were lost under Trump during the 2020 pandemic.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ridiculed the Republican Party in a recent interview with Jonathan Capehart over the Taylor Swift conspiracy theories.
GOP hosts and commentators claimed in the past several weeks that pop star Taylor Swift is part of a "deep state" government operation from President Joe Biden to win the 2024 election.
"In response to my culture [war] answer," Capehart said to Newsom, "you gave me the, we have this and they have that. We have this and they have that. One thing you didn't mention was, we have Taylor Swift and they have lost their minds."
The two men laughed.
"We are, as they say over here, living in interesting times," Newsom said. "That said, the Republicans that are looking down and passing Taylor Swift do so at their own peril. What is her sin? What is her sin? She wants more people to vote. She wants more people to register to vote and remind them of the importance of expressing their democratic rights and responsibilities. Wow. And that says everything you need to know about the Republican Party."
He said that the GOP doesn't want the broad American public to vote because the more people who vote the more Republicans lose.
"How sad and pathetic that the Republican Party has become that Taylor Swift, literally, is a threat to them for one reason. She wants folks to turn out and vote," Newsom closed.
House Speaker Mike Johnson spoke to "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker on Sunday, claiming he was being left out of all of the negotiations between the Democrats and Republicans over the border and military funding bills. But one Senator says that's not entirely accurate. As it turns out, Johnson chose to be excluded.
Welker asked if he was offered a "briefing."
"No!" Johnson said. "I've had individual senators call and give me tips and offered things that are going on in the room, but we've not been a part of that negotiation. And I've been absolutely clear from day one — since literally the next day after I was handed the gavel in late October, what the functional equivalence of H.R. 2, what those are and why that was necessary to solve the problem."
CNN's Capitol reporter Manu Raju posted on the social media site "X" that Republican Sen. James Lankford (OK) was "invited to participate in the Senate talks but ultimately declined." According to Johnson, the House already approved its own bill.
"Lankford told me that Johnson was asked 'early on' whether 'you want to be engaged on this,'" recalls Johnson’s response, according to Lankford: 'He said the House has already spoken.'"
The reference was to the second House Resolution that the Republicans sought to pass for the year. Senators on both sides have called that bill a non-starter, Raju explained in his social media post.
Lankford also told Raju that Johnson was "loosely briefed" on the talks despite refusing to participate in the negotiations.
It was revealed in the past few weeks that Donald Trump has asked Republicans not to pass a border or immigration bill because he doesn't want President Joe Biden to have any successful legislation.
The legislation marks the first time in decades that Republicans and Democrats have been willing to come together on such legislation.
Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, spoke to Amelia Adams for the Australian version of "60 Minutes," which was on hand in New Hampshire last weekend to speak to voters in the so-called "MAGA movement."
While the piece spoke to a Republican county chair in Colorado and Washington insiders, it was Cohen who told the outlet the danger that the world faces with another Trump presidency.
Aghast how a U.S. citizen can be convicted of a crime and still be president, Cohen was forced to explain to Adams and the Australian audience that the U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid someone from serving as president from jail.
"So, therefore, the White House will become whatever federal correctional institution that he is currently remanded to," explained Cohen. "Because our founding fathers never contemplated a scenario — anything even remotely close to something like this."
The shocked reporter wondered what it is that makes Americans look past Trump's flaws. Cohen explained, "He's a cult leader. He does want to make himself into a king."
It isn't the first time Cohen has used the description for Trump. Not long after Cohen was thrown under the bus, he explained to his friend Donny Deutsch that he felt he got caught up. Former FBI Director James Comey described Trump as a crime boss. Former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi said something similar.
"He also possessed a cult-like hold over his supporters, some of them demonstrably unhinged and willing to do anything to please or protect the President," Cohen wrote in his book "Disloyal."
"I knew how committed these fanatics were because I’d been one of them: an acolyte obsessed with Donald J. Trump, a demented follower willing to do anything for him, including, as I vowed once to a reporter, to take a bullet," he explained.
Steven Hassan, the author of “The Cult of Trump,” explained to Sean Illing of Vox that former cultists see the same similarities.
“[What] really made me think of Trump as a cult was the way the groups who supported him were behaving, especially religious groups who believed that God had chosen Trump or was using Trump. There are actual pro-Trump religious groups, like the New Apostolic Reformation, whose leaders were saying, ‘We’re of God. The rest of the world is of Satan, and we need to follow our chosen leaders who are connected to God,'” Hassan said. “There was this blind-faith aspect to the whole thing and an unwillingness to look at any inconvenient facts. That’s all very cult-like.”
Adams recalled being at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as "frightening."
"How can anyone enjoy an attack on the 'People's House?'" Cohen asked. "And the answer is, because they were doing it in his name. They were carrying the Trump 2020 flag, and they were screaming and attacking people in his honor.
He went on to say that it's a little bit of "both" that Trump is nuts or his followers are crazy but drinking the Kool-Aid.
"I think Donald Trump has become the worst version of himself imaginable, and that includes losing it," Cohen explained. "The things that he is saying, the racist, sexist, misogynistic, the xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic rant that this man is spewing on a day-to-day basis — the divisiveness that he's creating in this country is only being parroted by his MAGA supporters. So, can you separate their insanity from Donald Trump's insanity? And the answer is no."
Adams shows a clip of Trump playing to such a crowd last week.
"I'm being indicted for you," Trump tells his audience at a recent New Hampshire rally. "And, never forget, they're trying to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom."
Cohen continued explaining that his biggest fear is that if Trump is reelected in 2024, "the world will absolutely go haywire."
"You'll immediately see China invade Taiwan. You'll see wars everywhere. You'll begin to see the warlords grabbing power and fighting within one another," he said. "Donald Trump has no problem with creating World War III if it's in his name, just like the kings throughout history."
He thinks dictators like Vladimir Putin are popping champagne each time they see Trump on television.
Former "Tea Party" Republican Rep. Denver Riggleman (VA) is telling former Donald Trump staff and appointees who've come out against their ex-boss that it's not enough.
Speaking to MSNBC on Sunday, Riggleman addressed recent comments from former adviser and communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who promoted Joe Biden in a recent interview.
The ex-congressman agreed it's "absolutely" time for those anti-Trump Republicans to speak out publicly.
"When you see Scaramucci, or you see Adam Kinzinger, you see all these individuals say, you know, 'If it's Trump/Biden, I'm voting for Joe Biden,'" he explained. "It's really not much of a choice for anybody if they're worried about law, order, or even sanity, or somebody who buys into conspiracy theories for their own self-aggrandizement or self-identifies as a dictator in talks about retribution."
Over the past several months, many former Trump White House officials such as Mark Esper, John Bolton, Bill Barr, James Mattis, retired Gen. Mark Milley, H.R. McMaster, and others have stepped forward to talk about the danger that Trump poses to the country.
Most recently, Bolton updated his book with a new forward discussion of Trump's ignorance about NATO and other foreign policy issues. Milley has called Trump a "wannabe dictator." Barr said he "shouldn't be anywhere near the Oval Office." None of those Republicans have been willing to say that they will vote for Biden over Trump.
Riggleman wants those folks to make it clear that Biden is the only option.
"This is a person that you don't want anywhere near, I would say the Oval Office again," he continued. "You do have a former president who is running who has a lot of support. This is an individual that is out of touch with reality, or pretends to be out of touch with reality to actually ignite the base, try to make the base violent, or to do things outside of what normal behavior would be."
Based on past experiences with Trump, those who worked with him should be the first to understand.
"There is no question, if you're looking at what the former president has done, the people around him, the quality of people around him, which might be as high as a slug crawling on the ground, I think when you look at the quality of people around and who he picks, who surrounds himself with, I think there's nobody else to vote for than Joe Biden," he closed.
Previously, she wrote that there was an option to shield abortion using the equal protection clause. "But though that case was initially accepted by the Supreme Court, the justices never heard arguments, and they ended up eschewing the equality theory in favor of the freedom theory of abortion rights. Until, of course, they didn’t."
She cited a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling from 1985 that was a 3-2 vote upholding the law and setting a different standard.
"The legal issue, according to a majority of the court, is whether the law discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the state’s equal rights amendment. The court appeared to dance with the idea that the right of an abortion is protected by the state’s equal protection clause, but paused before making that conclusion," Levinson explained.
In this case, the Pennsylvania ruling is based on the state Constitution, not the national one. However, she said, it uses the state's equal rights amendment, which she says is "hinting at an 'equal protection' argument for abortion rights has obvious implications for other states and the federal government."
The state case is on whether the law banning Medicaid funds for abortion was discrimination based on gender. The ruling acknowledges that transgender men can become pregnant and also seek abortions, but most seeking abortions "identify as women."
The court also says that it is discrimination for those who can't afford the procedure vs. those who carry a pregnancy to term and are given money for medical care.
She went on to cite legal analysts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, who attacked Justice Samuel Alito for "cherry-picking" through the Dobbs argument to kill abortion. He relied on legal understanding from an era when marital rape wasn't a crime and women couldn't own property. In fact, the citations came from a time in which women weren't considered full citizens.
Similarly, Levinson cited Professor Reva Siegel, who explained in a law review article, “the Court’s history-and-traditions method provides new justifications for enforcing old forms of status inequality.”
Ultimately, she concluded there are "rays of hope" for those continuing to fight for reproductive freedom. Such reasoning could be a guide for other states, not just the Supreme Court.
U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-O.H.) is turning heads after telling ABC News he would have violated the Constitution on Jan. 6, 2021.
The 2020 election conspiracies persist through the right wing, and Vance told George Stephanopoulos he would not have certified the 2020 election if he was the vice president when Mike Pence was.
"If I had been V.P. I would've told the states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of electors, and I think the US Congress should've fought over it from there," he said.
Respected constitutional legal scholars explain that the vice presidential role is ceremonial, doing nothing more than counting the votes from the Electoral College.
Harvard Law School professor emeritus of constitutional law, Laurence Tribe, told U.S.A. Today that the V.P. "in no way demonstrate[s] that the vice president has more than a largely ceremonial role to play in that capacity.”
Responding to the video uploaded to the social media site "X," users flagged that Vance took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Doing that and then refusing to uphold the Constitution, users said, was an "insurrection."
"J.D. Vance is a traitorous pile of owl droppings," ex-Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob said.
Matthew O'Brien explained Vance's claim "I would’ve told the states to send me multiple slates of electors," isn't legal.
"For clarity: the Vice President has exactly zero authority or right to tell the states that they need to send multiple slates of electors. Zero. To do so is an act of insurrection," he posted.
