The balance of power in the Virginia State Senate comes down to a campaign this November where a member of his own party is waging a war against the Republican Party's candidate.

Matt Strickland lost the June primary race by 14 points, but that doesn't count him out. He wants to run a write-in campaign for November," explained Virginia Scope.

"The seat is competitive and has big implications for control of the state Senate and whether or not Gov. Glenn Youngkin can fully implement his agenda," the report said.

Strickland argues that the GOP establishment has been fighting him for far too long and he is refusing to be quiet about it anymore.

“Folks have started a write-in campaign for me for state senate and delegate. I can’t take credit for the idea, but I support it,” he tweeted Monday. “The Republican Establishment accepts millions of dollars in donations from corrupt corporations just as my opponent Tara Durant did. Pfizer and Dominion Energy just to name a couple.”

The small Facebook group "The Write Matt In Initiative" appeared over the summer. It has fewer than 150 people in it, but it's a movement that could ultimately help the Democrat in the race win by splitting the GOP into establishment vs. MAGA. The group is no longer available online, the report explained.

Strickland said that the "establishment Republicans" told him after he lost he must support the GOP nominee.

“We always blindly support the Republican nominee, and they always screw us over,” Strickland said. “I will no longer blindly vote Republican. I’ll never vote for a Democrat, but I will most definitely write in a true candidate for The People [from] now on.”

Strickland isn't a fan of Gov. Glenn Youngkin either, calling the far-right lawmaker a RINO, or Republican In Name Only. It's a commonly used insult used by former President Donald Trump.

“I’m fighting the war on two different fronts: fighting Democrats and fighting these establishment Republicans in Name Only,” he said to conservative talk radio host John Fredericks in May.

Strickland isn't just the MAGA candidate, he said on Tuesday that he firmly believes that the 2020 election was "rigged. If we had free & fair elections Trump would be President right now.”

Democratic opponent Joel Griffin thinks it could be beneficial to have Strickland in the race.

State Delegate Tara “Durant barely broke 50% in Spotsylvania in her primary and a Strickland write-in campaign will be more than enough to doom her in a Biden +5, Spanberger +2 seat,” Griffin campaign manager Jeremy Levinson, told Virginia Scoop. “Joel Griffin looks forward to defending a woman’s right to choose once elected as the next state senator from the 27th state Senate district.”

Read the full report here.

There were a number of occasions in which Donald Trump's lawyers clashed with U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan during the Monday hearing about the trial date. Last night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow did a dramatic reading of some of the court disagreements.

In one case, Trump lawyer John Lauro was scolded by the judge for refusing to tell her some other options for court dates prior to 2026. Over and over she asked for other dates, but Lauro refused to give any. So, she set the date for March 4, 2024.

The judge went on to say that she would not take his politics into account, just as she wouldn't take the games of an athlete into account when scheduling trial dates.

"Setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on the defendant's personal and professional obligations. Mr Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule," Chutkan said at Monday's hearing.

Chutkan also revealed in court that she has been in contact with the judge in New York about scheduling trials. It isn't unusual, but it's the first time Americans found out about it.

The schedule has already been posted online and the first motions in the case are due by Oct. 9.

Watch Rachel Maddow's reading at the link here.

A press release from Donald Trump that he published on the social media accounts of his aides is being used to charge him with solicitation of fraud.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell sorted through the recently released indictment live on air Monday evening and found the document among the exhibits.

On Sept. 17, 2021, Trump wrote a letter to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, with language cited in the indictment. It was on social media by his press spokesperson.

"Dear Secretary Raffensperger," the letter read. "A large scale of voter fraud continues to be reported in Georgia."

Trump goes on to say "I would respectfully request you announce the true winner."

Willis lists that as "solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer."

Another sentence in the letter says, "As stated to you previously, the number of false and or irregular votes is far greater than needed to change the Georgia election result."

That falls under the charge of false statements and writings.

The letter is still live online from Trump's press aide.

You can read it below or at the link here.

Andrew Weissmann, a former senior prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller, predicts an early "clash" between Donald Trump and his judge if he's indicted in Georgia on election interference charges.

A grand jury in Fulton County is meeting on Monday and Tuesday, and indictments are expected to be handed down imminently. As reporters wait, the former president spent much of Monday ranting on his personal social media site, attacking witnesses and District Attorney Fani Willis.

This won't fly with whichever judge gets assigned the case, Weissmann suggested.

Admitting it "may sound a little out of left field," Weissmann explained that bail for Trump might be a problem.

"Now we have seen the former president get bail in Manhattan, in Florida, and in D.C.," he explained. "We have also seen the former president continue to make statements that, at least arguably, are obstruction of justice or intimidating witnesses. Why is that important? Because in Georgia, the statute that may apply here depending on what is charged is one where the presumption is one that the defendant has the burden of rebutting."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Simplified, it means that the defendant, Trump, must demonstrate "that he will not commit crimes and is not a risk of flight."

In Georgia, is has to be demonstrated that, "The defendant poses no risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice." Georgia's laws are different from the federal laws as well as New York's and Florida's, which is why things could be unusual this time around, Weissmann explained.

Donald Trump has consistently shown that he will attack witnesses, lawyers, investigators and judges, while also threatening "retribution," regardless of the instructions from the court. So, his lawyers will argue that he will stop, but there is considerable evidence to the contrary, even after similar warnings from judges. That could give the judge license not to grant Trump bail.

"To me, that is going to be for a judge who is going to treat Donald Trump or anyone else like any other defendant, that could be a problem," Weissmann said. "Because just today, we saw a continuation of attacks on the D.C. federal judge on Truth Social saying that Jeff Duncan, the former [Georgia] lieutenant governor, should not comply with the grand jury subpoena in Georgia. You can't tell a witness not to comply with a grand jury subpoena unless there is some legal ability to do that. But that is not what the former president did. So, it will be interesting to see how the judge deals with bail as we go forward."

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace stepped in to ask if he believes there will be a "clash as early as right away?"

"Yes, absolutely," he agreed. "Now, I know a lot of people, including myself, were thinking, how could somebody who is running for president be thrown in jail pending trial? But remember, you could run for president without intimidating witnesses. So, if you make the choice to intimidate witnesses — I know this is incredible that we're having this conversation."

See the full discussion in the video below or at the link here.

Former impeachment lawyer Norm Eisen explained that the evidence in the 2020 election case connects activities all the way to the former president.

CNN broke the news Saturday that prosecutors have access to the text messages and emails exchanged among Donald Trump's campaign legal team about the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.

According to Eisen, "The CNN story is very important because it connects the dots. We now have evidence that goes from Coffee County, to Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, and as CNN reports, right into the Oval Office because this was discussed on Dec. 18th in one of the very notorious meetings in the Oval Office, whether it's possible to get access to these Georgia voting systems and others around the country. It matters, of course, because it is one of the most serious crimes that we have in the 21st century is unauthorized access, hacking of computer systems."

He explained that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has a three-legged indictment available to her: "The first is the famous fake electoral certificates. The second is pressure on Georgia election officials, that's the famous call, 'just find 11,780 votes,' to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. And the third is the alleged intrusion on these computer systems in Coffee County, Georgia."

Eisen went on to say that the new reporting revealed, "just how long, how strong that third leg of the stool is."

Trump has already responded to the news by alleging that election fraud happened at the hands of Atlanta voters. He claimed there was proof if the grand jury wanted it.

Eisen went on to say that the new reporting revealed, "just how long, how strong that third leg of the stool is."

Trump has already responded to the news by alleging that election fraud happened at the hands of Atlanta voters. He claimed there was proof if the grand jury wanted it.

See his full commentary in the video below or at the link here.

Emails and texts link Coffee County Republicans 'right into the Oval Office': impeachment lawyerwww.youtube.com

Former senior prosecutor for Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, said on Monday he believes there's "a distinct possibility" that Donald Trump's legal team has met with the Department of Justice to appeal against their client's possible indictment, and that charges involving Jack Smith's Jan. 6 investigation could be unsealed imminently.

"Seems like a distinct possibility that we will learn today that the Trump defense team has presented appeal to DOJ re the Jan. 6 charges; and then upon the rejection of that appeal, Jack Smith will seek the indictment tomorrow or Thursday at the latest in DC," Weissmann tweeted Monday afternoon.

The comment came after Trump sent a fundraising email to supporters saying, "Any day now, the Biden Department of Justice may INDICT and ARREST me once again ... There’s a very good chance that I will learn about the fate of my FREEDOM from a LEAK by the press… "

Weissmann takes Trump at his word.

For the past week, Weissmann has questioned the "target letter" that Trump said he got last week that set a deadline for grand jury testimony by Trump or his representatives to appeal any of their arguments.

"DOJ would want to set a drop-dead time by which it would proceed. Monday before Tuesday charges," said Weissmann.

See the conversation about it here.

Former President Donald Trump continued his assault on special counsel Jack Smith and other prosecutors that work for the Department of Justice Monday – and his Truth Social attacks have reached such a degree that former Robert Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann thinks that the Washington, D.C. courts will act if Trump is indicted.

"Let's remember that he is out on bail in not one, but two criminal cases," Weissmann said about Trump. "One in Manhattan. One before Aileen Cannon, as you noted. And it's also important to note that if he's indicted in D.C., D.C. has, as part of its standing order, free press, fair trial rules that limit what a defendant can say that could taint a jury."

Like in other trials, Trump has doled out accusations and encouraged supporters who issue their own attacks and threats. In his posts over Sunday night and into Monday, Trump threatened Smith and the DOJ, calling it "very dangerous" to send him to jail.

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen encouraged those on Trump's "list" to take his threats seriously.

Trump declared he was running for president mere days after the 2022 midterm elections. He now says that any indictment against him is "election interference," proclaiming himself as the victim.

The attacks come after Trump went after Smith's wife, who produced a 2020 documentary on former first lady Michelle Obama.

Smith isn't his only target, either. New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis have also been targets of Trump. James revealed she's dealt with death threats as a result of Trump's attacks.

"And, so, the question is whether the two judges that he's in front of right now take action — and they could, but I suspect they won't, unless the government raises it," Weissmann explained. "In D.C., where I think it is anticipated he will be charged, there are standing rules that apply to every single defendant. And so, this kind of conduct, and these statements, would violate those rules. So, I suspect in that upcoming case, he will be given strong admonitions by the court as to what he can and cannot say."

As for the possible indictment, Weissmann isn't sure when it will drop but he's convinced it will happen.

"I think there's no question, given the announcement of the target letter, that we're going to see charges," he told MSNBC. "The big question is to when. I'm still waiting to hear that defense counsel's gone into the Department of Justice to make their last-ditch effort to forestall what I think is the inevitable. It's fairly typical that they're given that opportunity and that they take it."

See his conversation with MSNBC in the video below or at the link here.

Donald Trump Jr. cried to "Flashpoint" host Gene Bailey that he hasn't been on television recently and he seems upset about it.

Bailey asked if the media would ever change to cover things in a pro-right way; he called it "accurately." The younger Trump agreed it was a "pipe dream."

"I just think those, you know, those people, you know, both on the conservative side as well as the leftist side — I mean I haven't been on Fox News in, uh, almost 10 months," he said. “You know, before my father officially entered the race, I was polling at second or third for the Republican nomination in 24.”

“But apparently, I don’t have a pulse on what’s going on anymore because, you know, they're in the can for someone else," he continued. "They wanted someone else to win, that's what that looks like. Its going to be a pipe dream as well, so I imagine they'll come back around."

In the past, Don Jr. has considered running for the U.S. Senate in Wyoming and he's spent a lot of time getting more involved in Montana politics.

See the comments in the video below or at the link here.

Trump Jr haz a sadyoutu.be

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Ron DeSantis' campaign had posted a video involving Nazi imagery, and later deleted it. The video was actually posted by the account of a fan of DeSantis who later removed it.

A Ron DeSantis campaign member was accused of retweeting a video that flashed a number of concerning images. Just a few weeks ago, another video surfaced using photos of shirtless men previously mocked by Secretary Pete Buttigieg. In the latest video, however, a Nazi symbol flashes on the screen with a row of marching soldiers on either side of it and Gov. Ron DeSantis' face fading in.

Podcast host Luke Thompson of "Constitutionally Speaking" spotted the symbol that was shared by an account called Ron DeSantis Fan Cams which has 654 followers.

He explained it contains a sonnenrad. The symbol is an ancient European symbol used by Nazis while idealizing "Aryan/Norse" cultures, explained the Anti-Defamation League.

"In Nazi Germany, the Nazi Party, the SA and the SS all used sonnenrad symbology at times, which has led neo-Nazis and other modern white supremacists to adopt such images," the group explained.

In the fan account's version, the outer part of the circle says "Make America Florida," which has been DeSantis' campaign slogan.

While the video was deleted, Thompson reposted it.

DeSantis has had troubles with Nazis over the past few years that he's been in office. In 2023, he hired a speechwriter with ties to neo-Nazis. After DeSantis waged war with Disney, neo-Nazis began protesting outside the park south of Orlando. The move came after a number of neo-Nazi groups started popping up around the state.

At least one columnist has warned that no one should ever expect DeSantis to denounce neo-Nazis or white supremacists.

Ironically, one neo-Nazi told a reporter that groups use "woke grievances" to recruit angry white men to their cause.

Sunday morning, The New York Times revealed that the first video of the shirtless men was created by a staffer on the team, not a professional campaign ad company.

Speaking to MSNBC on Monday, the former Robert Mueller assistant and former national security official at the Department of Justice predicted that Donald Trump and his lawyers would do whatever they can to exploit every possible window of attack against special counsel Jack Smith and his case.

The conversation with Brandon Van Grack began by discussing part of the predictions for how Trump's first hearing will go. A protective order is being sought to help ensure the classified documents don't end up plastered on the front pages of tabloids. It means that Trump's lawyers must sign off on the protective order for the documents.

"I think it's important to underscore this, which is, this is a standard protective order," he explained. "In fact, I'd invite your listeners to compare this to the protective order that was in the case involving the national guardsman in Massachusetts that posted a bunch of classified information. Some of these passages are identical. In fact, the real only difference that I can see is that this protective order shows that some of the classified information, in this case, is also subject to the Atomic Energy Act, which is it's nuclear-related information. But otherwise, this is precisely the protective order that individuals have to sign to access classified information."

He predicted two things would unfold in the hearing Tuesday: first, the documents issue, and according to a new order from Judge Aileen Cannon, they'll be discussing the scheduling of the trial. Trump filed a motion to delay the trial indefinitely, the DOJ has opposed that request.

"What I think we're going to see the Department of Justice do is show we've provided now almost all the unclassified discovery in this case," Van Grack continued. "In fact, we also gave them a guide on how to review that information and what's most important. And they're going to say that we actually are ready to produce almost all of the classified documents. In fact, they're probably going to say tomorrow, it's sitting in the courthouse. All you have to do is sign this memorandum of understanding, and you have this classified information."

He thinks this will be the DOJ's trump card for encouraging the trial to move forward quickly because they have everything ready, and they'll likely say that there is no reason for delay because it's prepared.

As for Trump's lawyers, Van Grack thinks Trump's team will have to figure out how to call for more delays.

"What the government said is, we can't provide classified information until this protective order is signed, and the defendant's counsel said we object, but they didn't tell us what their objections were," he explained. "And they wouldn't talk to us over the weekend. And so we're filing this without any understanding of what their objections are."

So, they're asking for a delay without any real legal argument as to why.

"I suspect one of the reasons for the delay is a point you just raised, which is one of the things that this protective order has," he went on. "And again, this is a standard protective order, is the defense counsel cannot automatically share classified information with the defendants. And that is standard. That's not to say that most declassified information can't be shared. But there will be some classified information the government is saying which will not be shared with the defendants, and that provision alone is likely something that defendants object to."

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace asked what to expect, and Van Grack said that the first thing will be the debate over the protective order and then a discussion about the scheduling issue.

"I want to see whether Judge Cannon is actually going to take these hearings and these filings on herself, which will expedite the process, versus sending them to a magistrate judge, which can then be appealed to Judge Cannon, which would be a source for delay," he warned. "S, I think that's another piece. And finally, I'm going to be curious to see how the Department of Justice articulates that limitation that you referenced in terms of the defendants not being able to necessarily access all the classified information" under that protective order.

See the full conversation with Van Grack in the video below or at the link here.

Dave Aronberg, Florida state attorney for Palm Beach County, explained to CNN's Jim Acosta that Donald Trump is taking a considerable risk with his latest move to try and delay his trial until after the 2024 election. Special counsel Jack Smith hasn't been amenable to the request thus far.

Trump is set to appear in court this week with his co-defendant, valet Walt Nauta. Aronberg explained that it should be nothing more than a normal hearing, but the former president isn't known for doing things the normal way.

"Where it gets really interesting is Trump has requested that this trial be postponed until after the election," said Aronber. "He wants an indefinite postponement, which really proves right all the critics who said the reason why he's running is to avoid having his case tried because he thought that running for office would dissuade Merrick Garland from prosecuting him. Well, he was half right. Jack Smith is now a pit bull, so he should have been careful what he asked for. But now he's saying the quiet part out loud. He's saying, don't even try me until after the election, when he thinks he'll be president and then can order his Department of Justice to get rid of the whole thing."

There has been an ongoing assumption that Trump will go through a number of delay tactics if he isn't granted his infinite delay. But Aronberg thinks that how Judge Aileen Cannon acts in this one issue could result in a huge reaction.

"I think it's hard to try this case before the 2024 election," he confessed. "You've got classified documents. You've got this federal act called CIPA. And you have a co-defendant who's already delaying things because he couldn't find a lawyer. You see where this is headed. The difference here, Jim, is that Donald Trump is just saying, give me the whole enchilada. Just postpone it indefinitely, whereas I think Judge Cannon is more likely to give him bits and pieces, delay here, delay there, and then you turn around, and it's already past the election. Essentially it's death by a thousand paper cuts. But Trump may be overplaying his hand by asking Judge Cannon to go ahead and delay this thing indefinitely. I don't think he'll get that. If Judge Cannon grants that, I think she'll be reversed by the 11th Circuit [Court of Appeals] and possibly even taken off the case."

See the full conversation below or at the link here.

State attorney explains how Judge Cannon could risk being taken off Trump case in upcoming hearingwww.youtube.com

Former Donald Trump impeachment lawyer and Ethics Czar Norm Eisen gave a list of the top co-defendants that he thinks will also be indicted along with the former president when it comes to Jan. 6 and the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.

Speaking to former FBI deputy director Andy McCabe and legal analyst Allison Gill, Eisen brought up his model prosecution memo posted to Just Security last week.

Eisen explained that most are not very long, but Eisen drafted one that is about 250 pages to try and explain every possible option.

"I needed to provide a prosecution memo or pros memo that explains the reasons that the charges meet the charging standards the DOJ has," said Eisen. Such prosecution memos are about "the ability to obtain a conviction at trial and then to sustain that conviction on appeal. You identify the defendants, you identify the charges; sometimes you'll say a word about the defenses and why they won't be successful. They're not voluminous documents. I know we'll talk about my inspiration for this 250-page memo. It's the only 250-page memo in history. The actual ones are short."

McCabe explained that such memos are sometimes mysterious, but in this case, Eisen is trying to "sift through everything" to give all possible options.

Among the people, Eisen names as possible co-defendants are Donald Trump, John Eastman and Ken Chesebro. Two ancillary people would be Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows. There is a concern that Giuliani might already be cooperating with the special counsel under a proffer agreement, which can be a kind of precursor to a cooperation agreement, former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) explained on MSNBC.

Taking to Twitter after the podcast dropped, Eisen explained that among those top three, he absolutely sees Eastman among those that will be indicted in conjunction with the federal charges.

Gill said that she was struck by the three parts that Eisen broke it down into: The conspiracy to defraud the U.S. with the fraudulent electors, conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding by pressuring Mike Pence and inciting the insurrection. She noted that there were so many other facets, including fundraising, rally donations, threats to officials, help from members of Congress and others items. But at its heart, Eisen explained that these are the three pieces that it will lead back to.

A big piece of this, he continued, is that the House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack and the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election crafted a final report that he said would go down in history.

So, in crafting his own mock indictment, he followed a kind of legal Occam's Razor, with the most straightforward path being the sensible one that can be won.

"Trump tried everything in the world, and it all failed," Eisen continued. "But when that ended — from running for election to the failure of the [Brad] Raffensperger call in early January — when that ended, he was left holding these counterfeit certificates and 48-hour pressure campaign on Pence to use those phony certificates, it's like counterfeit money."

With those three acts, the fake certificates, pressuring Pence, and the insurrection, there are three statutes that can easily lead to the full indictment for the 2020 election crimes.

Listen to his full explainer in the "Jack" podcast by McCabe and Gill here.

A Washington Post exposé revealed that Saudi Arabia is aware that their options for growing crops in the desert are limited. It takes a hefty amount of water to grow alfalfa and it appears the country doesn't want to waste their water doing it. So, they're using water from Arizona.

Arizona is among the states currently suffering from an extended heat disaster. During the so-called "monsoon season," Arizona is able to collect water that can help for times like these. Unfortunately, this heat front has lasted longer than normal, resulting in what the Postcalled a "megadrought."

But while Arizonans are baking "green fields of alfalfa stretch across thousands of acres of the desert land, shimmering in the burning sunlight." The Saudi-owned company sucks wells dry from deep underground, grows their crops, and ships them back.

A memo given to the Post revealed state planners wondered if they should use a meter to capture "accurate information" on the water drained from the valley. But former Gov. Doug Ducey (R) stopped it, saying he wanted to be “cautious of tangling with a powerful company.”

"The proposal also ran headlong into a view, deeply held in the rural West, that water is private property that comes with access to land, rather than a public resource," the Post explained. In a world where water is expected to become a scarce resource, some states are simply giving it away. In Saudi Arabia, the Post explained, their water usage is heavily regulated.

"The inaction was an early sign of how state officials gave leeway to Fondomonte as a global fight for water took root in the Arizona desert," said the report. "Leaving water unprotected amid a drought worsened by climate change has been a boon to Saudi Arabia, where industrial-scale farming of forage crops such as alfalfa is banned to conserve the Persian Gulf nation’s limited water supply."

The Post investigation found that with lobbying efforts using a former influential GOP member of Congress, and lax regulations on the environment, Arizona has become the perfect place for the Saudi-owned corporation to tap the water resources of the desert state.

Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) doled out some tough love, demanding details about the company's water usage. When they refused, she threatened to pull their lease. They finally revealed that they use about as much water as a city of 50,000 people.

Meanwhile, despite the lack of water, California's central valley continues to be one of the largest in the country, growing more than half of the fruits, vegetables and nuts grown in the country, said research from NASA and the USDA.

Read more about the expose at the Washington Post.

The speech by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) at the Talking Points Action conference left some progressives scratching their heads after her attacks on President Joe Biden appeared to be more like compliments.

Ranting at the far-right crowd, Greene attacked programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other infamous programs started by the late Democratic presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.

She began by warning Joe Biden is trying to "finish what FDR started" by trying to address problems related to "education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and welfare."

It was revealed this week that "Bidenomics," the new attack phrase from the GOP, has done more to help red states with higher incomes than blue states, The New Republic cited.

"How will Dark Brandon ever recover from this?" mocked "Did Nothing Wrong" podcaster Jay McKenzie.

Issuing a "'warning' that Joe Biden is going to create things like Medicare and Medicaid — both wildly popular programs — seems like an odd way to attack him, but have at it," said historian Kevin M. Kruse said, citing Kaiser Family Foundation data showing the popularity of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) knocked her too for saying Democrats and Biden want to "finish what FDR started."

"Yes," he agreed. "Guilty as charged."

"Did not have “Marjorie Taylor Greene doing campaign ads for Biden” on my election bingo card but here we are," influencer Shauna W. mocked.

See the video below or at the link here.

In a letter to Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), 21 members of his own GOP caucus listed their demands to support any appropriations bill.

According to the letter, “We plan to vote against any appropriations bills" that don't remove the debt ceiling "deal" that the House and the President agreed to earlier this year.

They also want no floor consideration of any appropriations bills until the 12 bills before the Appropriations Committee have been passed out to be voted on by the full House.

The Republicans are also rejecting any supplemental funding for Ukraine.

Finally, they say, "Through continued conversations, we will consider options in good faith that address the spending crisis in concert with other urgent policy changes — beyond simple one year riders that likely won't make it past the Senate and the President's desk. For example, enactments of H.R. 2 to secure the border, capping or cutting the harmful impacts of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, and/or forcing the President to follow current laws and restricting its ability to abuse executive power to advance his radical agenda."

The demands aren't likely to go anywhere as it would mean another government shutdown by eliminating the debt ceiling deal.

The 21 members that signed on to the letter are: Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) Chip Roy (R-TX), Bob Good (R-VA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Mary Miller (R-IL) Barry Moore (R-AL), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Andy Ogles (R-TN), Bill Posey (R-FL), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), and Keith Self (R-TX)

Read the full letter below or at this link.

Slate's Jeremy Stahl wrote Monday that the Washington, D.C. Bar Association hasn't been as kind as New York when it comes to Rudy Giuliani.

Two years ago, New York suspended the former federal prosecutor and so-called "America's Mayor" from ever practicing law. But now, Giuliani is being recommended for disbarment after the three-member panel voted unanimously to stop Giuliani from his ability to practice law. Now that their full report is being released, it reveals the methodology behind the decision in a blistering takedown.

"The D.C. allegations focus on Giuliani’s efforts in Pennsylvania to overturn Biden’s roughly 80,000-vote victory in the state based on nothing more than conjecture," wrote Stahl. "While an investigatory panel issuing a pitiless smackdown of Giuliani’s 2020 post-election conduct is nothing new at this point, this latest recommendation (much like the previous New York ruling) shines a spotlight on how corrupt Giuliani’s litigation strategy for Trump in 2020 was and offers an appropriate remedy."

But what he found particularly amusing is that the Bar admonished Giuliani in a fairly funny way.

On the matter of Giuliani's false voter fraud claims, the Bar panel cited an incident in Pennsylvania when Trump was protesting the 2020 election results claiming fraud. The lawsuit had fraud allegations cited, but they'd apparently been “wrongly deleted.” The “corrected” version “contained only vague and speculative allegations about random and isolated electoral irregularities which did not and could not support [Giuliani’s] inflated legal claims.”

When it comes to Giuliani's basis for a lawsuit, the Bar found it was "thoroughly without merit." Giuliani was miffed that "election observers" in the state had the physical distance in the ballot-counting rooms. Giuliani thus believed that everything was corrupt and all votes had to be thrown out and Donald Trump made the winner.

Giuliani’s accusations “were simply not true,” the Bar said. In fact, “Mr. Giuliani did not offer any evidence that fraudulent mail-in votes were actually cast or counted.” Oddly, Giuliani then told the Bar panel that it didn’t matter both party observers had to keep a distance, because “Democrats weren’t allowed to see it because they couldn’t count on the fact that all Democrats are crooked.”

Giuliani’s thought “was premised on a conclusive presumption of irregularity, i.e., the wholly unfounded supposition that observational boundaries necessarily led to fraudulent counting of mail-in ballots to favor President Biden.”

Giuliani swore he met with observers in Philadelphia that "unearthed credible proof" of "widespread fraud." The Bar found "clearly and convincingly disclosed that there was no such evidence: [Giuliani] based the Pennsylvania litigation only on speculation, mistrust, and suspicion."

Giuliani also claimed that he was required to sue, even if he didn't have proof, which the panel said simply, "We reject this argument." Giuliani went on to then claim that legal filings were really nothing more than wild guesses, which again, is questionable. They also complained that Giuliani turned over discovery evidence after the deadline and in the middle of the hearing.

Read the full Bar comments in Slate.

A leak from former top Homeland Security aide Miles Taylor's new book "Blowback" revealed Donald Trump was flashing classified information around to reporters. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner explained on Sunday that a key piece of this information can be used by special counsel Jack Smith in the classified document scandal.

Speaking to MSNBC's Yasmin Vossoughian, Kirschner explained that this isn't directly related to the classified documents that Donald Trump took upon leaving the White House. What there does appear to be, he explained, is a lot of "factual overlap."

"However, what it does is it shows Donald Trump's pattern or practice of completely disregarding the sort of sanctity of classified information and classified documents," said Kirschner. "I'm sure Jack Smith will be keenly interested in it. I would certainly subpoena Miles Taylor and put him before the grand jury to testify about what he knows, what he saw, and what he heard. Hearsay is admissible before the grand jury about Donald Trump's potential mishandling of classified information while president. Now, that's not to say that evidence will necessarily be admissible at Donald Trump's future trial in federal court in Florida. But it might be that's the kind of issue that motions will be filed about. It'll be litigated, and the judge would have to make the decision. Is this relevant in the classified documents prosecution?"

See the full conversation in the video below or at the link here.

Kirschneryoutu.be

The district attorney of Philadelphia didn't hold back during a Tuesday press conference after another mass shooting in America.

Five people were killed, and two were injured on Monday in his city, leading to anger and frustration. It has become an emotion seen in many cities nationwide that experience mass shootings. Over and over, local lawmakers move from begging for help to demanding action.

It was just two days ago that Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott explained how the local and state officials need help from the feds.

"You're talking about a country where it's easier for a 14-year-old kid to order pieces together, to put a gun together and go out and use it and commit a crime than it is for me to get Claritin D from CVS. That's what we should be talking about every day in this country until those folks take action, because I could stand up here and talk about back-and-forth stuff that they like to do with partisan politics when they say, 'Oh, the violence is happening in Democrat-led cities,' or, 'The guns are coming from Republican-led states.' But who cares? People are dying in Baltimore and the United States, and that's what should matter and that's what we should be acting on every day," Scott said, according to WBALTV.

Such was the case with Larry Krasner on Tuesday afternoon.

"Finally, I just want to say this: it is disgusting, the lack of proper gun legislation that we have in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," Krasner began. "It is disgusting that you can go to New Jersey and find a whole list of reasonable gun regulation that we don't have, that you can go to Delaware, and there's almost as long a list of reasonable gun legislation that we don't have."

“It’s time for everybody in our legislature—including the ones who walk around with an AR15 lapel pin—to face the voters…if they're not going to do something, then voters have to vote them out," he told the press.

“That lapel pin means I am against you. I am against your safety. And I can tell you a lot of us have had enough of it," he continued.

The alleged gunman in Philly was 40 years old, wearing a ballistic vest, and had an "AR-type rifle," with multiple magazines.

See the clip of Krasner in the video below or at the link here.

Philidelphia DA goes after legislators wearing 'AR-15 lapel pins' after latest mass shootingyoutu.be

MSNBC host Joy Reid couldn't help but notice that there is a strange obsession on the right with the children of Democrats. Even after Hunter Biden pleaded guilty, "That doesn't satisfy Republicans. Maybe in part because they actually seem to enjoy attacking the family members of Democratic presidents."

She went on to recall Rush Limbaugh's obsession with 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton.

The younger Clinton went on to comment on just how "creepy" she felt about someone that old who couldn't stop talking about her.

"Rush Limbaugh and others, but notably Rush Limbaugh — and I think this is now somewhat well-known like — was quite vicious to me," she recalled recently. "Said terrible things about my appearance and called me 'The White House Dog' repeatedly. I was 12, 13. And I remember thinking, like, this is just so, at best odd, and at worst just wrong. Like why is this old man obsessed with me? Like this is so weird and creepy and inappropriate."

Sasha and Malia Obama were even younger, Reid noted. Still, Republicans attacked their facial expressions, their clothing, and more. Malia was 10 when she entered the White House. Sasha was seven. But their young age didn't spare them from GOP criticism.

By contrast, Donald Trump's youngest child Barron, was hardly even mentioned. When his name was brought up, the first lady went to the mattresses. She attacked a Food Network host who joked that he hoped Trump's son could spend the day with "whoever his father is." An impeachment witness was scolded for simply using Barron as an example of the powers of the presidency.

Donald Trump can “name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,” was the comment at the time.

Ironically, the First Lady's office released a statement claiming that in every other administration, the children have been "off-limits" from politics and media. They appeared to miss how children in previous administrations were treated.

At the same time, Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, were appointed to top jobs in the White House, despite anti-nepotism laws that were put in place after John F. Kennedy appointed his brother to be the attorney general. The Trumps got around the law by saying they weren't accepting any federal funds for their positions.

"They were handed powerful positions in the Trump White House with broad portfolios with not a peep from the Republicans and their friends in right-wing media," said Reid. "During the White House years, they reported between $172 million and $640 million in outside income. They should have never been allowed to work at the White House. Frankly, Jared couldn't even get a security clearance until Trump intervened. The Department of Justice reversed decades of precedent to grant Trump's wish that his children be allowed to work in the White House and profit from it. If the Republicans are so outraged about financial wrongdoing, you'd think they might want to investigate how Jared skated out of the White House to a $2 billion investment from the Saudi Public Investment Fund."

Meanwhile, she said, Hunter Biden is a private citizen and Republicans have done everything they can to investigate him.

See her full comments below or at the link here.

The GOP's obsession attacking the children of Democratsyoutu.be

There was a clash of two commentators on MSNBC Monday evening as Washington Post columnist Philip Bump explained how Donald Trump isn't going to lose any support over his trial.

"First of all, Donald Trump is doing much better now than he ever did in 2016," said Bump citing the poll numbers from the early days of 2015. In "2016 he ended up getting about 45 percent. Now he is consistently pulling 50 percent. He wasn't hitting 50 percent until later in the primary cycle last time."

He also argued that while most Americans find Trump's document behavior abhorrent, it's the same behavior that has been seen before. Over the weekend, former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that she watched as Trump frequently flashed around classified information to those who weren't cleared to see it.

"One of the foundational crises of the Trump administration was when he was on the patio at Mar-a-Lago — I believe the Prime Minister of Japan was there. And he is talking about it in front of the people dining," Bump recalled. "March 2017, we knew this was his approach. His supporters knew at that time. That was the way in which he handled national security. No one cared. He got more votes in 2020 than 2016. That has carried over. There is nothing that is going to happen that hasn't already happened that almost certainly is going to change that."

Legal analyst Harry Litman agreed with the facts, but doesn't see them being enough to save Trump from a conviction.

"Just generally on the political-legal count," Litman began, "it seems to me and has seen for a while, he is toast legally. But he's got this one strange escape route. If we or a Republican can win the election, and he can make DOJ stand down. That's his only legal strategy. It's a strange one. But there is no other I think, escape route for him under the conventional legal process."

See the full commentary below or at the link here.

'He’s toast': Legal expert warns Trump’s only hope is a Republican coming to save him in 2024youtu.be