Republican Rep. Jim Jordan reacts to Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 counts by inviting prosecutors to questions on Capitol Hill.
In two letters posted Friday on from the federal government on June 13.
This resolution is not a subpoena and has no legal weight or liability for Bragg or Colangelo to attend. So why factor those cards? Jordan probably hopes Bragg and Colangelo show up so he and his fellow Republicans can run against Trump. Or, in the more likely occasion that the two men do not show up, he can claim that they are hiding because the Trump prosecution was obviously politicized. In any case, this resolution itself obviously has political and not legal purposes, which is not unexpected for Jordan, who studied law and did not even pass the bar exam.
The Ohio congressman tried unsuccessfully to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Joe Biden, but star witness Alexander Smirnov was charged with lying to the FBI and running for Russian intelligence. Jordan has insisted that it was worth continuing with the impeachment trial later, even though he was unable to tell the news of Smirnov. His fellow Republican Ken Buck criticized Jordan for knowing that Smirnov was not a credible witness before his indictment, but Jordan was unfazed and sought new evidence to use against Biden. This led to a rebuke from the Justice Department about what Jordan claims Democrats are doing lately: provoking politicized conflict.
If Jordan expects anything from Trump in return for this token effort, it’s unlikely to be cash, since Trump doesn’t need to give up the money raised since his conviction. (Trump has also lost a lot of money since Thursday night. )He is in favour of a comfortable ministerial post.
Rudolph Giuliani, Trump’s former lawyer, may soon be barred from practicing law for anyone.
The former New York City mayor is at risk of disbarment after the D. C. Board on Professional Responsibility told him he lost his law license due to his involvement in lawsuits alleging election fraud in 2020.
“We conclude that disqualification is the only sanction that will affect the public, the courts, and the integrity of the legal profession, and will deter other attorneys from launching similarly baseless lawsuits in an effort to unload such a broad but completely unwarranted remedy,” he said. Read the Board Council’s advice.
In the remainder of its 62-page ruling, the board pointed to the militarization of Giuliani’s law license and criticized his efforts to overturn election effects in Pennsylvania in particular. The ruling follows the suspension of Giuliani’s law license just three years ago due to his over Trump’s efforts to claim he didn’t actually lose in 2020. Now, the final ruling to permanently disqualify Giuliani is referred to the Washington D. C. Court of Appeals.
Most likely, Giuliani will soon join a list of other prominent Trump 2020 lawyers who have been disbarred, adding Jenna Ellis. It’s possible that John Eastman will soon sign up for them as well.
It hasn’t been a smart year for Giuliani, even if he deeply denies it, not to mention his equanimity in the 2020 election. It filed for bankruptcy last year, but continues to spend lavishly and forget about its many creditors. He is desperately looking to make money, even going so far as to sell his own coffee logo. He can’t locate a new accountant after the previous one left him, and one of his former friends, Lev Parnas, revealed how Giuliani tried to manufacture a Biden-Ukraine scandal, which Giuliani still hasn’t surrendered to.
On top of that, Giuliani has to deal with other fallout from his 2020 election efforts. After being indicted in Arizona for his election machinations there, he doubled down on his accusations of fraud and had a pitiful defense for his actions: highlighting every state. in which he questioned the results of the election. He even mocked Arizona’s attorney general by requesting a subpoena, only to receive delivery near his Florida residence. And Trump still hasn’t paid him for all this legal work.
It’s easy to see why Giuliani is being disqualified, as he doesn’t seem to know when to stop, no matter what trouble he’s in. But hey, it’s something that’s not unusual with his most famous client.
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to the state’s abortion laws, overturning a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed Texas women to access abortions granted within the confines of the state’s ban.
The Zurawski v. Texas case began with five women and eventually represented 20 women and two doctors. This is the most significant challenge to the constitutionality of the myriad abortion restrictions implemented in the state since Roe v. Wade in 2022.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the legislative lawsuit last year, argued that while state legislation technically leaves room for emergency abortion, it’s also so confusing that it makes it difficult for virtually all doctors to actually consider the procedure as an option. Other people may simply have abortions to confuse pregnancies, as long as their doctor feels “with intelligent faith” that it was medically necessary.
But parties conflicting over the legislation have argued that “good faith” is too subjective to determine access to health care, and could potentially disclose doctors to lawmakers presented through anyone who didn’t perform the procedure. However, the court did not locate this complication.
“A doctor who tells a patient, ‘Your life is threatened by a complication that occurred during your pregnancy and you may simply die, or there is a serious threat that you will suffer significant physical disability unless an abortion is performed,’ and at the same time stating ‘but the law does not allow me to perform an abortion in those circumstances’ is simply wrong in this legal assessment,” Justice Jane Bland wrote in the court’s opinion.
The resolution leaves only two options for others who need abortions within the state: leave or threaten death.
“Unfortunately, what we do know is that there are anti-abortion advocates who will question [a doctor’s] decision,” Molly Duane, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Texas Tribune. This will really work in practice. . . The fact that in practice there are no genuine exceptions will remain the norm. “
The brief makes no mention of the more than 20 women represented in the lawsuit who suffered separately from Texas’ near-strict abortion restrictions. Lauren Miller, a Dallas mother who was forced to leave the state after learning that one of her dual fetuses was suffering from a complication that threatened her health and that of her other child, told the Tribune that the resolution seemed like a “punch. “
“I read the sentence. I felt like I had missed something. So I reread it without delay and knew what was missing from those pages. We weren’t there. We didn’t exist,” Miller told the publication.
One member of the court, Justice Brett Busby, left enough wiggle room in his concurring opinion for a broader challenge to the law. But demanding legal situations take time, and in the meantime, more patients may be forced to wait until their symptoms subside. -threatening before doctors can offer them an abortion.
Texas has recently upped the heat of its anti-abortion policy, placing the factor in the middle of Lone Star State politics. Over the weekend, a political platform proposed through the GOP caucus in San Antonio included calls for legislation that would become fetal. ideology of personality in law, a measure that would well categorize anyone who has an abortion at any time as a murderer.
House Speaker and fascist elf Mike Johnson called out to Fox and Friends on Friday his preference for the Supreme Court to “step in” and overturn Thursday’s felon convictions through a Manhattan jury opposed to Trump.
During the segment Johnson posted on his official YouTube channel, Johnson hinted that he had spoken with Supreme Court justices who for once are “deeply involved” in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. “I think the judges of the court . . . I know many of them personally are deeply involved in this, as are we. So I think they’re going to set the record straight.
Johnson, whether out of wishful thinking or showing his hand, has gone from what he thinks and expects the Supreme Court to do to necessarily speak on behalf of the Court’s conservative bloc, promising viewers: “This will be overturned, guys, I don’t doubt that. It’s just going to take time to do it.
Trump is contemplating a handsome sentence, after making false statements about the length of the trial. Under New York’s criminal law, he has 30 days to appeal, which would come just weeks before his July 11 sentencing hearing. This appeal would begin before the New York Court of Appeals. If that state court rejects his appeal, Trump can ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the case. Given the court’s conservative majority, with its 3 justices appointed directly through Trump, they will most likely hear the case. and potentially overturn the conviction. The duration of this procedure can range from a few months to several years.
At a press conference on Friday, Donald Trump rambled and extolled his disgust at being found guilty of 34 counts in his secret trial.
Standing in front of a row of flags at Trump Tower in New York, Trump took aim at Michael Cohen, Judge Juan Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Democrats and all but said they had caused harm, thus violating his gag order. process. But his biggest target might have been the English language.
At times, his words were difficult to follow, as the first convicted criminal former president walked away with sentences with no transparent ending.
Trump wants a teleprompter. It’s not coherent. I challenge you to take a look at it to understand esto. pic. twitter. com/nlRqYVuC7t
In a bizarre phrase, he demonstrated a deep false impression of the word “literally” by claiming that the witnesses “on our side” had been “literally crucified through this guy who looks like an angel, but is a devil,” referring to Mercantil.
Trump: Our witnesses were literally crucified through this guy who looks like an angel, but he’s a diablo. pic. twitter. com/lR8r9FrBPC
This could well be another sign of cognitive decline on the part of the Republican presidential candidate, exacerbated by perhaps the worst news he’s ever received. Last week, at a rally in the Bronx, he bragged about being able to wear pants, and two weeks ago, he gave the impression of freezing while speaking at the NRA’s annual convention. His speech Friday included an attack on immigrants who speak incomprehensible languages, a nod to similar comments he made at the U. S. southern border in February.
If Trump hadn’t also explained why he didn’t testify at that trial, those who followed his comments would have understood why.
Donald Trump says he wanted to testify at his secret trial, but was afraid of being convicted of new crimes. Trump’s remarks came Friday during a winding and incoherent tirade to reporters at Trump Tower, a day after he was convicted of 34 crimes by a Manhattan jury.
“I would have testified. I wanted to testify,” he said a day after the conclusion of his first trial as a felon.
“The trial allowed them to take a look at everything that involved me, not this case, everything that involved me, which is a novelty. In other words, they can just take a look at everything I did [and ask], “Is he a bad boy here?Was he a bad boy there? He continued, seeming to mean that if the prosecution had delved into his past, he would have uncovered more crimes.
“But you would have said something weird, like ‘It was a beautiful sunny day’ and it was raining,” Trump continued, offering a false example of perjury, before allegedly combining words to communicate about the pro-Trump rally in front of the Manhattan criminal courthouse.
Trump: I would have testified. I wanted to testify. The theory is that you never testify. As soon as you testify, no one, even if it were George Washington, testifies. They will reproach you for everything you have said falsely and sue you for perjurio. pic. twitter. com/U97CBlNTqE
Trump opened his presentation by stating that Trump’s defense witnesses were “literally crucified” through Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whom Trump described as hunting “so kind and gentle” and “looks like an angel, but he’s a devil” earlier. Let’s move on to his multi-purpose racist discourse on immigrants.
During the trial, Trump falsely claimed that he was barred from testifying because of a gag order restricting his public statements after inciting harassment against Judge Juan Merchan and Merchan’s daughter. Trump’s allies objected to his testimony, expressing considerations about his tendency to ramble.
The day after Donald Trump became the first former president convicted of a crime, he rushed to Trump Tower to hold a press conference proclaiming his innocence, but in doing so also violated his gag order.
In a 30-minute speech on Friday, Trump and his former fixer Michael Cohen became sticky and unreliable.
“Again, I did write and pay a lawyer, and by the way, he is a highly qualified lawyer. Now I can’t use his call because of the silence,” Trump said. “But, you know, he’s a sleazy man. “
“Everybody knows that,” he continued. It took me a while to notice, but it was effective. Worked.
Trump on Cohen: He’s a highly qualified lawyer. I am not allowed to use your call because of the silence. But you know it’s a sórdida. pic. twitter. com/yldKNkFirK
Trump’s gag order, which has not yet been lifted, prohibits him from publicly attacking court staff, witnesses or jurors involved in the case. And it has already suffered the consequences of past transgressions. Earlier this month, Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Trump pay $10,000 (the maximum $1,000 fine consistent with a violation) for continually violating the order.
But this resolution carries an additional risk that is still relevant. Since the court also can’t craft an “appropriate” monetary penalty for a deep-pocketed defendant like Trump, Merchan wrote that, in order to “protect the dignity of formula justice and enforce its mandates,” the court “must ask itself whether, in some cases, the prison sentence would possibly be a mandatory penalty. “
Trump is expected to be sentenced on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention. And it’s possible that his words will haunt him again at this hearing: In criminal cases, judges take into account the point of regret (or lack thereof). ) of the defendant in deciding the penalty.
Meanwhile, Cohen responded Friday in real time, posting on X that “Trump’s press conference is not yet a wild avalanche of mangled brain dung,” while ticking off his former boss’s nickname: “#VonShitzInPantz. “
Senator Joe Manchin leaves the Democratic Party and registers as an independent.
Politico reports that West Virginia and the thorn in the side of liberal priorities made the decision to leave, bringing resources closer to Manchin. Soon after, on Friday morning, Manchin showed the resolution.
Manchin had announced in the past that he would not run for re-election to his Senate seat. His partisan association replacement now means he can run as an independent in the Senate, or even for governor of West Virginia, where he would face Republicans. his rival Jim Justice has yet to announce his goal to do so. For the time being, this resolution makes him the fourth independent in the Democratic caucus.
It was Manchin’s latest move in a long shooting career against the Democratic Party. At one point, he was a key component of the Democratic majority in the Senate, which he used to his advantage. He has consistently sided with Republicans on very important issues. such as student loan relief and climate change. He worked to contain the Senate filibuster, despite Democratic objections, with the help of fellow Democrat (and now independent) Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. He refused President Biden’s Build Back Better bill, which resulted in a watered-down Inflation Reduction Act. He even eliminated the expanded tax credit for children.
So what is the explanation for this resolution now?Manchin once toyed with a one-third presidential bid before resigning. Will Manchin remain in politics after all, in the Senate or in the governor’s office?his opinion, the most productive resolution for him.
Donald Trump and his followers are wasting a lot on the crypto market following his guilty verdict, despite boasting a few days earlier that he has faith in crypto.
When news of the verdict broke on Thursday, the TRUMP token fell 35%, while a memecoin of President Joe Biden called “Jeo Boden” rose 20%.
Trump may have lost cash last night as well. According to blockchain knowledge tracked through Arkham Intelligence, the former president is believed to own assets worth around $10 million, with significant amounts of MAGA tokens, Ethereum (ETH), and MAGA VP tokens.
In addition to those memetokens, Trump has introduced 3 NFT collections since December 2022, adding the “Mugshot Edition NFT. “But when the secret test began in late April, trading volumes for the first edition of the Trump Digital Trading Card fell 99% in 30 days.
Trump has bet heavily on crypto gains. Earlier this month, he spent one of his rare days off courting NFT buyers at a dinner at Mar-a-lago. Soon after, he vowed to “build a crypto army. “And on Thursday, just hours before the verdict, Bloomberg reported that Trump is discussing crypto policy with Elon Musk.
Although Musk has denied speaking in particular about cryptocurrency, it appears that Trump’s crusade is an advisory role for Elon if he wins a second term.
Meanwhile, Trump and his allies are losing money in major markets, with shares of Truth Social falling as much as 15% on Thursday.
Despite Trump’s countless financial failures, crypto investors at blockchain-powered gambling site Polymarket are still counting on Trump’s victory over Biden, estimating his chances of winning at 54%, even after his conviction. Operators are also betting $900,000 that Trump will be internally viewed a mobile prison through November, with some saying he has a 17% chance of being incarcerated.
In the end, let’s hope that the blocks and chains that Trump will worry about next year will be on a mobile block.
Rep. Lauren Boebert’s attempts to showcase her track record in Congress would have arguably accidentally damaged her reelection campaign.
Defending himself against complaints Thursday night in a Republican debate for Colorado District Four candidates, Boebert tried to draw attention to his work in the House but ended up having to admit his minimal accomplishments.
“To Mrs. Boebert, how many expenses did you sponsor in the first place. . . in the U. S. Congress and that they were in fact signed through the President of the United States? Asked state Rep. Richard Holtorf, noting that “anyone can put their claim a bill after it’s passed” and a co-sponsor.
Boebert attempted to dodge the question, accusing the local conservative and leading competitor of having a “poor Liberty score,” a measure of a conservative’s policy positions.
“Do you need to answer the inquiry or do you need to communicate with us about Liberty scores?””You can answer the query, ma’am, okay. I made a very specific query, please answer it.
“In fact, I will. One of my favorite expenses that has been signed into law is my Pueblo Jobs Act, which is creating at least 1,000 jobs in Pueblo, Colorado,” Boebert said, without revealing that it was the only bill she sponsored first and have been signed into law.
“But there are also a lot of other laws that I’ve passed in the House . . . continued, before being interrupted by Holtorf, who clarified that “it doesn’t matter if they pass in the House. If the president points it out, Madam, then it will be adopted.
But the debate moderators gave Boebert one more chance to figure out his congressional scorecard after his time expired.
“So, my Pueblo Jobs Act. . . As it began, the moderator insisted on a number.
“That’s one,” Boebert faintly.
Republican parties at odds over Rep. Lauren Boebert have criticized her as unhelpful and uninformed. After much prodding, Boebert declared how many of his own expenses (main sponsor) had law: one. pic. twitter. com/2bn1YGn8n1
Boebert’s time in Congress, instead of being spent running for his constituents, was peppered and seasoned with scandals. In September, the armed Republican was caught vaping, recording, singing a song out loud and petting his date at a Beetlejuice function in Denver. which led to her and her date being kicked out of the theater for “causing a mess. “And in February, the Colorado representative’s son was arrested in the city of Rifle for a series of robberies.
Boebert also used his national platform to label Rep. Ilhan Omar a “terrorist,” joined fellow conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in booing President Joe Biden in his 2022 State of the Union address, and faced calls for his resignation after tweeting Nancy Pelosi’s location, as a former speaker of the House of Representatives, she escaped the rioters rate on Jan. 6.