Tag: donald trump

More on the Secret Binder That Could Expose Officials in Russia Collusion Hoax

I reported earlier about the bombshell report that blew apart the “official” account of the start of the Russia collusion hoax and explained that it was started by the Obama CIA. 

The report – written by Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag – details how the Obama administration CIA allegedly and improperly called on foreign allies from the “Five Eyes Nations” (the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) to surveil 26 Trump aides as “targets for collection and misinformation.” The journalists got this information from sources close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI) investigation.

That’s big news. Shellenberger told Fox News that it was both illegal and election interference. 

Some of the information on this is in a binder, Shellenberger said. There has been a rumor about the binder and speculation that Mar-a-Lago was raided because of information that former President Donald Trump may have had on Crossfire Hurricane. 

Shellenberger is now talking about his and fellow journalist’s new report that gives more information about the secret binder. 

Keep reading

Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump ‘Almost Certainly’ Won In 2020

A new study examining the likely impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots had in the 2020 election concludes that the outcome would “almost certainly” have been different without the massive expansion of voting by mail.

The Heartland Institute study tried to gauge the probable impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots cast for both then-candidate Joe Biden and his opponent, President Donald Trump, would have had on the overall 2020 election results.

The study was based on data obtained from a Heartland/Rasmussen survey in December that revealed that roughly one in five mail-in voters admitted to potentially fraudulent actions in the presidential election.

After the researchers carried out additional analyses of the data, they concluded that mail-in ballot fraud “significantly” impacted the 2020 presidential election.

They also found that, absent the huge expansion of mail-in ballots during the pandemic, which was often done without legislative approval, President Trump would most likely have won.

“Had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in-person rather than by mail, Donald Trump would have almost certainly been re-elected,” the report’s authors wrote.

Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history.

‘Biggest Story of the Year’

The new study examined raw data from the December survey carried out jointly between Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, which tried to assess the level of fraudulent voting that took place in 2020.

The December survey, which President Trump called “the biggest story of the year,” suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they’re no longer permanent residents.

Keep reading

Donald Trump named in latest Epstein documents: Sarah Ransome said he had sex with ‘many girls’ in email where she also claimed pedophile had tapes of the ex-president, Richard Branson, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton

Donald Trump is accused of having sex with multiple Epstein victims in the latest tranche of bombshell documents to have been released by the court. 

In the latest dump of papers are emails sent by Epstein victim Sarah Ransome to DailyMail.com columnist Maureen Callahan in 2016. At the time, Callahan worked for The New York Post and was reporting on Epstein. 

Ransome claimed in those emails that Trump had sex with ‘many girls’, including a friend of hers who is not named, who she says also slept with Bill Clinton and Virgin billionaire Richard Branson. 

It is claimed that Epstein filmed each of these sexual encounters – and that the woman involved also obtained copies of the tapes. 

No such footage has ever been publicly uncovered. The FBI is now under pressure to release hundreds of items of evidence that was photographed during a raid on Epstein’s mansion in 2019 but that was never seized. 

‘She confided in me about her casual ‘friendship’ with Donald,’ Ransome said of the unnamed friend, whose age is not revealed.

Ransome claimed to have been sent footage by her friend that showed her having sex with Clinton, Trump and Richard Branson, but said she could not share the videos without her friend’s consent. 

Nothing came of their exchange – Ransome retracted all of her claims after multiple emails, telling Callahan ‘no good’ would come from sharing her allegations publicly. 

‘I want to walk away from this…I shouldn’t have contacted you and I’m sorry I wasted your time. It’s not worth coming forward and I will never be heard anyhow and only bad things will happen as a consequence of me going public. 

‘This will just create pain for my family and I and they have already helped me pick up the pieces once before. I can’t ask them to do that again.’ 

They were included in a filing that was unsealed today in which Alan Dershowitz, Trump’s former lawyer, argued why his name and the names of other prominent figures needed to remain anonymous. 

Other files contain previously unseen photos of scantily-clad women on the island.  

Virginia Giuffre, who sued Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation and claims she had sex with Prince Andrew, said the names should be made public. 

Keep reading

Trump’s Promise to ‘Indemnify’ Cops ‘Against Any and All Liability’ Is Absurd for 2 Reasons

Notwithstanding his dalliance with criminal justice reform and his castigation of law enforcement officials he says have abused their powers to target him, Donald Trump has always been inclined to “back the blue” against critics of police policies and practices. That instinct goes back decades, and it has served him well in his current incarnation as a populist politician catering to the anxieties and resentments of Americans who worry that policing has been undermined and compromised by the demands of left-wing agitators. But the latest manifestation of this theme—Trump’s campaign promise to “indemnify” police officers who supposedly are paralyzed by fear of civil liability for doing their jobs—is so detached from reality that it belongs in the same category as his insistence that he actually won reelection in 2020.

“We will restore law and order in our communities,” Trump said during a campaign rally in New Hampshire last Saturday. “I am also going to indemnify our police officers. This is a big thing, and it’s a brand new thing, and I think it’s so important. I’m going to indemnify, through the federal government, all police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong actions against crime.”

The problem, Trump claimed at a rally in Iowa a few days earlier, is that police are “afraid to do anything. They’re forced to avoid any conflict. They are forced to let a lot of bad people do what they want to do, because they’re under threat of losing their pension, losing their house, losing their families.” To address that problem, he said, “we are going to indemnify them against any and all liability.”

Although Trump seems to think indemnification of police officers who are sued for alleged misconduct is “a brand new thing,” it has been long been routine practice. In a 2014 study of civil rights cases that covered “forty-four of the largest law enforcement agencies across the country,” UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that “police officers are virtually always indemnified.” That means they are not personally responsible for settlement payments or jury-awarded damages arising from allegations of police abuse. From 2006 to 2011, Schwartz reported in the New York University Law Review, “governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement.”

Keep reading

Trump Demands Action After 20 Percent of Mail-in Voters Admit to Fraud in 2020 Election Survey

Former President Donald Trump issued an urgent call for action to his fellow Republicans over what he called “the biggest story of the year,” namely a survey showing that 20 percent of mail-in voters admitted to committing at least one kind of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

The Heartland/Rasmussen poll, released on Dec. 12, suggests concerning levels of voter fraud in the 2020 election, bolstering President Trump’s longstanding claim that he was cheated out of a victory amid an explosion in mail-in ballots combined with state-level moves by the courts that made it easier to cheat.

The new survey shows 17 percent of mail-in voters admitting to voting in a state where they are no longer permanent residents; 21 percent filling out ballots for others; 17 percent signing ballots for family members without consent, and 8 percent reporting offers of “pay” or “reward” for their vote.

What’s more, 10 percent of all respondents to the survey (carried on a representative sample of 1,085 likely voters) said they know a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who admitted to casting a mail-in ballot fraudulently.

Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, which is the highest percentage in U.S. history.

“Taken together, the results of these survey questions appear to show that voter fraud was widespread in the 2020 election, especially among those who cast mail-in ballots,” the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, said in a statement.

Keep reading

Rep. Eric Swalwell Testifies in Case to Keep Trump Off the Ballot

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) testified on Oct. 30 in a trial in Colorado in a case that seeks to keep former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

Mr. Swalwell testified via video conference, describing the events of Jan. 6, 2021, from his perspective. He was in the Capitol when the Electoral College votes were being certified and had “gaveled” the Congress in that day, leading the pledge of allegiance.

“We connected the president’s tweets to our own safety in the chambers,” he said, “and the integrity of the proceedings taking place.”

Attorneys showed him a post on Twitter, now known as X, in which President Trump wrote that Vice President Mike Pence didn’t have the “courage” to give states “a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.”

“USA demands the truth!” the president wrote.

“We interpreted it as a target had been painted on the Capitol,” Mr. Swalwell said.

Keep reading

ACLU: Trump’s gag order in federal case is unconstitutional

For four years during former President Donald Trump’s presidency, the American Civil Liberties Union was one of his biggest courtroom adversaries. Now, the group is taking his side in a high-profile fight over what Trump can say as a criminal defendant.

The ACLU on Wednesday stepped into the battle over Trump’s federal gag order, arguing that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan violated Trump’s First Amendment rights as well as the public’s right to hear him when she issued the order earlier this month. Chutkan is presiding over the criminal case special counsel Jack Smith is pursuing against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

“The obvious and unprecedented public interest in this prosecution, as well as the widespread political speech that it has generated and will continue to generate, only underscores the need to apply the most stringent First Amendment standard to a restraint on Defendant’s speech rights,” ACLU attorneys wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The group urged Chutkan to reevaluate her order, calling it both vague and overbroad, with aspects of its meaning “unknown and perhaps unknowable.” One particular uncertainty the ACLU seized on was the meaning of Chutkan’s prohibition on statements that “target” Smith, his prosecutors, court personnel, defense attorneys or witnesses.

Keep reading

President Trump Freed Drug Offenders. Candidate Trump Wants To Kill Them.

Donald Trump can’t seem to decide whether he wants to execute drug dealers or free them from prison. The former president’s debate with himself reflects a broader clash between Republicans who think harsher criminal penalties are always better and Republicans who understand that justice requires proportionality.

Trump has long admired brutal drug warriors like Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines. Consistent with that affinity, he has repeatedly floated the idea of imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers.

Trump returned to that theme in November 2022, when he officially launched his 2024 presidential campaign. “We’re going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts,” he said.

Trump reiterated that position during a June 2023 interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, saying, “That’s the only way you’re going to stop it.” But as Baier pointed out, a policy of executing “everyone who sells drugs” is inconsistent with Trump’s record as president, which included sentencing reforms and acts of clemency aimed at reducing drug penalties that Trump described as “very unfair.”

Keep reading

Conservatives are increasingly knives out for the nation’s top cyber agency

An agency set up under Donald Trump to protect elections and key U.S. infrastructure from foreign hackers is now fighting off increasingly intense threats from hard-right Republicans who argue it’s gone too far and are looking for ways to rein it in.

These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices and infringes upon free speech rights — an allegation the agency vehemently denies and the Biden administration is contesting in court. The accusations started in the wake of the 2020 election and are ramping up ahead of 2024, with lawmakers now calling for crippling cuts at the agency.

“CISA has blatantly violated the First Amendment and colluded with Big Tech to censor the speech of ordinary Americans,” Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which oversees CISA, said in a statement to POLITICO.

Keep reading

Former Trump Drug Czar Says Top Federal Officials Stopped FDA From Scheduling Kratom Amid Concern About Agency’s ‘Bias’

As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Trump administration prepared to propose federal restrictions on kratom, a number of top officials intervened, criticizing the agency’s “bias” and stopping it “on the spot” from moving ahead with scheduling, a former White House drug czar said in a new interview.

“They did not give—did not have—the entire facts. They didn’t have the science,” said Jim Carroll, who served as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, or drug czar, under President Donald Trump from 2018 to 2021. “FDA did not paint the entire picture. Maybe they didn’t have the entire picture, but everyone else did.”

Carroll, who now works as a private lawyer and consultant, made the comments during a discussion with Mac Haddow, senior fellow at the American Kratom Association (AKA), during the National Conference of State Legislatures summit in Indianapolis earlier this month.

The former White House official said that as the Trump administration was considering whether to schedule kratom under the Controlled Substances Act, around 2018, FDA gave a presentation to his office that misstated the drug’s risk profile and potential benefits.

The agency was “talking about kratom being an opioid. We know that’s wrong, it’s flat-out wrong,” Carroll said. “They said that it’s highly addictive. Johns Hopkins [and] other medical, independent researchers have said it’s no more addictive than a cup of coffee in the morning, which I had before this interview.”

Keep reading