corporations

Amy McGrath, a former Marine fighter pilot and Democratic congressional candidate from Kentucky,, told MS NOW anchor Nicolle Wallace on Tuesday that members of the United States armed forces are "stunned" at President Donald Trump's open contempt for and betrayal of them.

"I think one of the people that's purged was the last, literally the last general in Afghanistan, General Donahue," Wallace told McGrath when describing Trump's purging of high-ranking military officers to replace them with political loyalists. "So, I mean, we have purged people for being less than, who were the best of us. And I wonder what you think of sort of the zombie reaction to things like this."

McGrath described a military that is "stunned" at how Trump is treating them.

"I think many in the military are kind of stunned right now, as many veterans are," McGrath told Wallace. "We've never seen anything like this. Just to go back to Trump's comments [saying it would be acceptable if Iran attacked Los Angeles and San Diego, both of which have large numbers of active soldiers and veterans] —I mean, if folks are thinking this is a joke, that's sick."

She added, "The USS Lincoln battle group is out of San Diego. We're talking about that in the news as wanting to help those sailors. And then we have the commander-in-chief joke around about Iran attacking them, and he wants that. It's just that there's so much here, Nicolle, and it also just doesn't make sense. His comments, to those of us in the military—we're looking at this like, you can't simultaneously tell Americans and the military, 'Hey, we defeated Iran,' and then the next day say, 'Iran can just go take out an American city.' Which one is it?"

McGrath concluded, "I mean, the stuff just doesn't make any sense anymore. So I think a lot of people are in shock, especially at the higher levels within our ranks."

At a separate point in the conversation, Wallace pointed out that "anyone in America that's seen 'Top Gun' understands this. It's not just an attack on San Diego, and it's not just an attack on what is known by anybody that knows anything about California and Southern California, and that there's so much active-duty military around there. What is your sense about Trump's, really, not track record of indifference to the men and women of the military?"

McGrath responded by pointing out the diverse backgrounds of people in the military.

"The military is made up of folks from all different walks of life and different political beliefs," McGrath told Wallace. "And more and more, when you read transcripts of what Trump says, when you listen to what he says, there's a lot of indifference, as you mentioned. And I think that more and more people are sort of waking up to that. I wish it would have happened years ago."

She added, "And also, he started this war. He doesn't know how to get out of it. This is a war he never should have started. It's unpopular. And that's why you're seeing him try to scare Americans right now. He's trying to justify this war that he started by throwing things against the wall and seeing what sticks."

Trump has previously come under fire when multiple officials who worked for him said that he referred to soldiers as "losers" and "suckers" because they were willing to risk their lives for a cause other than their own interests.

Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, a veteran who saved 14 allied soldiers' lives who were pinned down in the Vietnam War despite being wounded himself, said in 2020 that Trump's comments "cut deeply."

"It cuts deeply,” Jacobs said. “Let me just say at the outset that the president has said so many things that are fallacious, outrageous, hyperbolic, that they now fail to shock anymore. Maybe [GOP consultant] Rick Tyler is correct and this will resonate and maybe it will resonate not just with military people but with the large majority of Americans who support the military, who understand what the military does and what the military has been doing since the inception of the country for our freedom.”

He continued, “But the president has said so many things that are outrageous that now it almost fails to shock, and it would be interesting to see what is the fallout, if any, from this. I’ve spoken to a lot of people who work directly for the president who reiterate exactly what Jeffrey Goldberg said in that article, who said the president has no respect for people in uniform, no respect for people who have served and, most significantly, does not understand the notion of being part of something that’s larger than yourself.”

- YouTube youtu.be

Newsweek reports all four active U.S. district judges in Middle Tennessee have recused themselves from a lawsuit brought by Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn against former special counsel Jack Smith over the collection of her phone records. This includes two judges that Trump himself appointed.

Blackburn filed the lawsuit on September 30 over Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. As part of that inquiry, Newsweek reports investigators “obtained phone metadata linked to Blackburn and several other lawmakers.”

“Through his Arctic Frost witch hunt that targeted conservatives across America and even the President of the United States, Jack Smith perpetrated one of the worst abuses of government power in our nation's history," said Blackburn. "This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable and ensuring that our nation's justice system can never again be weaponized against the American people."

This issue goes back to Trump appointee Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling that Smith was not a legal special counsel because she claimed he was not approved by the U.S. Senate. Until Smith, no special counsels were required to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

Blackburn claims that obtaining the records violated her constitutional rights, even though Smith said the records did not include call contents and that his office consulted the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section before issuing the subpoenas. Her lawsuit alleges violations of the Speech or Debate Clause, First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, and also challenges the legality of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.

But now, Newsweek reports, an order filed October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reveals that no judge is willing to take up Blackburn’s argument.

“All District Judges of the Middle District of Tennessee have recused in this matter.”

“The order, signed by Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr., said a judge from outside the district will now be designated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the case will then be reassigned,” reports Newsweek. “The October 5 order does not give a reason for the recusals, and it does not say that any judge has a specific conflict of interest or bias in connection with the litigation. Two of the judges were appointed by President Donald Trump, while one was appointed by Bill Clinton and another by Barack Obama.”

Blackwell’s complaint points out that Smith and others who worked on the investigation subpoenaed toll records associated with a cellphone she used for legislative purposes. The lawsuit said those records revealed who Blackburn communicated with and the times and duration of the communications. But Blackburn herself does not allege that investigators intercepted the contents of her calls.

Blackburn is currently running for the governor's mansion in her state.

A former congresswoman, who is currently the spouse of a prominent United States senator, is taking her crusade against the NRA into the 2026 midterm elections — and placing seats that were considered safe for Republicans into serious consideration.

"Giffords PAC, the pro–gun control organization founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), released two new ads as part of a $10 million campaign in battleground House races ahead of the November elections, The Bulwark can exclusively report," reported The Bulwark's Joe Perticone on Tuesday. "The campaign—an unusually large intervention from an independent PAC—targets districts at the edges of Democrats’ hopes for how far a blue wave this November might carry them."

Perticone continued, "In a $1 million campaign in Michigan’s 10th Congressional District, the PAC’s ad elevates Christina Hines, the Democratic nominee." The ad said, “I investigated cold cases that Christina Hines prosecuted: gun traffickers, domestic abusers, and murderers. I was always relieved when prosecutor Christina Hines was assigned to a case. She not only listened to me, she heard me. Christina Hines is a great partner to law enforcement. She’s tough, she’s honest, and I trust her.”

Perticone also described how Giffords PAC has spent money on ads on behalf of Democrat Leela Gray who is opposing Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL).

"They give her thousands of dollars, then she votes their way," Perticone wrote. "Luna voted to weaken gun laws, making it easier for criminals and domestic abusers to get access to guns. She even voted to cut millions from law enforcement—putting our police and families at risk. The gun lobby can always count on Anna Paulina Luna. But Florida families can’t."

He concluded, "These two races are interesting targets for Giffords because they aren’t the obvious high-profile races that other Democrats typically designate as most crucial for retaking the House majority. The seat in Michigan’s 10th district, now an open race, has been held by a Republican in recent years while Luna’s seat is rated as “lean Republican” according to the Cook Political Report, indicating Giffords PAC is sending its resources to places national Democrats have been too thinly stretched to meaningfully contest in recent election cycles."

Giffords is married to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a veteran and former astronaut who has frequently been the target of Trump's wrath. Even though Trump has waged politically-motivated and baseless prosecutions against Kelly, in particular when Kelly told the military that its soldiers should not follow illegal orders, Kelly has only become more popular rather than less so while being targeted by Trump. He began his political career after Giffords was nearly assassinated in 2011.

Just hours after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at bringing down skyrocketing diesel prices, CNN analyst Matt Egan was there on Tuesday to show audiences exactly how little that means to Trump’s beleaguered Republican Party.

Trump’s signed an order waiving restrictions on cheaper red dye diesel, but other federal officials were already warning that diesel prices are not expected to drop before the midterms. Today, the national average for diesel stands at around $6.32 a gallon, but Egan revealed prices are slated to expand 80 percent despite Trump’s efforts

“The bad news, though, is that help [is] pretty modest and it's not nearly enough to make diesel cheap again,” Egan told CNN anchor Boris Sanchez.

The order Trump signed amounts to a pre-election tax holiday that instructs the IRS to waive penalties for highway use of what's known as red dye diesel, normally restricted for off road use, like in the farming industry. However, farmers already using red diesel throughout the agriculture industry are still raging that they can’t afford to stay in business despite the preexisting tax breaks — thanks to inflated fuel prices resulting from Trump’s attacks on Iran.

And, in any case, Egan said the tax payments aren’t “going away completely. They're just being deferred.

“[The EO] does instruct officials to explore forgiveness,” said Egan, which is a different thing.

“And the problem, of course, is that it's really expensive to fill up right now because of how high prices are,” added Egan. “The cost of filling up an 18-wheeler is almost $1,600 at current prices. Now, if you account for the federal move and state moves on taxes, then the cost would go down, but it would only go down by about $150 per fill up. And it's not really clear how much of this $150 is going to be shared with consumers,” said Egan.

Additionally, mostly red states, including North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and at least one purple state, North Carolina, are considering foregoing the tax as well. This means truck drivers — who move across state lines — will discover a useless patchwork of painful prices.

“And I talked to a truck driver, a truck company owner in my home state of New Jersey, and he said that this all amounts to just a Band Aid. And he said the Band Aid is arriving pretty late because they've been dealing with sky high prices now since the war started,” said Egan.

Worse, Egan said diesel prices, going back to the year 2000, have had increases of roughly 20 percent in 2021 and 2022, after Covid, and during the Russia/Ukraine war.

“But look where we are now,” said Egan, pointing to a large column of red dwarfing earlier increases. “You're looking at a nearly 80 percent increase in the cost of diesel so far this year, by far on track to be the biggest annual increase since AAA started tracking. And that's what gets lost in this conversation here about the executive order, is that it really doesn't do anything to address the underlying problem.”

The issue is this global shortage of refineries because of the war between Russia and Ukraine and now Trump’s war with Iran destroyed additional refineries in the Middle East.

“[The EO] doesn't do anything to address those problems,” said Egan.

“Matt Egan, that’s not a great looking end of that bar graph,” acknowledged Sanchez, staring at the mass of red at the end.

- YouTube youtu.be

In the age of President Donald Trump, a man who dismisses man-made climate change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world" and actively pushes expert scientists out of the government, the world needs a great mainstream climate change movie.

Instead, with "Digger," we only get a very good movie. The one great climate change movie was released more than two decades ago.

Two years ago, I wrote a Salon retrospective on the 2004 blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow," one in which I lamented the fact that it was the only Hollywood blockbuster to ever focus explicitly on climate change as its antagonist. I'd written about that movie before (and would do so again later), both because I respect its historical significance and because I find it wildly entertaining, but only in 2024 did I get to interview its director, Roland Emmerich. His words about the movie's significance resonate with me to this day.

"As far as the film's legacy is concerned, it was ahead of its time and now is perceived as prophetic," Emmerich explained. "There should be more movies and TV shows on climate change, so we need more stories tackling this urgent and important concern. Every bit helps to show people that this is going to happen. Art can wake up people, especially whenever it is an end-of-the-world scenario about life and death, where the stakes are really high, so it intensifies and heightens everything. You have to frighten people to usher in change. This is what the film aims to accomplish."

Enter "Digger." As with "The Day After Tomorrow," I respect the movie's political message. At a time when Hollywood shies away from discussing climate change except indirectly ("Interstellar") or through allegory ("Don't Look Up"), "Digger" is a $180 million passion project, a giant gamble that critics and audiences will be persuaded by its attempt to chastise humanity about climate change with a labyrinthine narrative, state-of-the-art special effects and an all-star cast led by Tom Cruise. Also like "The Day After Tomorrow," "Digger" can be described as prophetic. But it is a flawed movie and, in many essential respects, inferior to "The Day After Tomorrow."

Yet in its own way, for the right audience, it is also wildly entertaining. And at this point spoilers follow, so be warned. I can't discuss "Digger" with the depth it deserves unless I divulge key plot points.

"Digger" is a matryoshka doll of a motion picture.

Like the famous Russian nesting dolls (or matryoshka dolls) in which progressively smaller figurines are placed inside larger ones, "Digger" has a complicated story in which there is more than meets the eye. On the surface, it tells the story of the titular character Digger Rockwell (Cruise), an oilman who ignores multiple warnings from scientists about the impact of his drilling in Greenland and winds up plunging the world into ecological disaster. (Worth noting: Trump is already trying to increase drilling for oil and mining for rare earth minerals in Greenland despite the rapid ice melt occurring there.) Because Digger is friends with the president (John Goodman), he is initially able to control the narrative about the impending calamity, and therefore proceeds in his stubborn ignorance to worsen the environmental calamity even as his expert advisers led by Dr. Nirav Ganesh (Riz Ahmed), try to reason with the men in power (all the leaders are male, which is not a coincidence).

That, at least, is the surface story. Near the end of the first act, the screenplay (intricately crafted by director Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Alexander Dinelaris, Nicolás Giacobone and Sabina Berman based on a story by Berman, Iñárritu and Jez Butterworth) takes a radically unexpected turn. We realize that the story of Digger we have watched is actually a technically sophisticated play called "Fossil Fools," with Cruise and company playing actors depicting individuals who are nevertheless indeed quite real in this film's fictional universe.

This conceit is both the strength and weakness of "Digger." By making this a story about how to remember the individuals who literally destroyed our planet, rather than simply telling that same tale in a straightforward way, "Digger" allows itself to wax philosophical about myriad interesting subjects. The characters offer dueling perspectives on whether one should be literally truthful or comically satirical in depicting real-world tragedies. We are able to see not only the tipping point at which humanity's irresponsible business practices rendered our world borderline uninhabitable, but also the long-term social consequences of that same reckless behavior. In this clever fashion, Iñárritu is able to dive into the psyches of two sets of characters at two different points in time — the rationalizations and personalities of the individuals whose greed plunged us into chaos (both in the "Digger" universe and in our shared reality), yes, and also the billions of ordinary schlubs who have to endure the aftermath.

Yet this same characteristic distracts just as often as it engages. Much like Iñárritu's most famous pictures, 2014's "Birdman" and 2015's "The Revenant," "Digger" sometimes gets so bogged down in its style that it muddles one's ability to focus on the substance. The word "pretentious" is overused when describing art-house cinema, but it unfortunately is quite apt here. When Iñárritu encourages his cast to indulge in hammy monologues and cartoonish mugging, or believes bizarre jokes about dying cats and rectal cancer are somehow funny, he creates obstacles between the audience and their ability to be entertained — and, therefore, to be provoked into deeper thought about the dangers of man-made climate change.

"The Day After Tomorrow" is still the gold standard of fictional climate change cinema.

"The Day After Tomorrow," on the other hand, is refreshingly simple and linear. Emmerich and co-screenwriter Jeffrey Nachmanoff used the skeleton of a disaster movie and added on top of it the flesh of a climate change awareness flick. While the science is not always correct (both men admitted to me that they prioritized telling a fast-paced adventure story over precise accuracy), the film is close enough to the truth that it raises awareness. Indeed, after its release, a survey by environmental science and policy expert Anthony Leiserowitz determined it "had a 'significant impact' on climate change risk perceptions, conceptual models, behavioral intentions [and] policy priorities" among the roughly 21 million Americans who saw it in theaters.

I doubt "Digger" will have that impact. For one thing, it bombed at the box office, while "The Day After Tomorrow" was a hit. More important, though, is the fact that it simply doesn't have the zip, the drive, the momentum of "The Day After Tomorrow." The opening scene of that motion picture, which reenacts the real-life disintegration of the Larsen B ice shelf in 2002, far exceeds any of the action or special effects sequences in "Digger." There are long stretches where "Digger" is frankly boring, or, if one is to be generous, so slow-paced that it feels like the filmmakers are showing off rather than focusing on telling a good story. Even worse, for all of the film's sincere concern about climate change, the storytellers are more fixated on the depravities of the elites than on the suffering of their victims — many of whom, in one ugly scene centering on Cruise's character, are disingenuously blamed for needing oil to survive, a position that ignores their inability to change the economic system on which they depend.

"The Day After Tomorrow," by contrast, strikes an ideal balance between the two. It has characters clearly satirizing President George W. Bush and his administration, and they are effectively condemned while still depicted as three-dimensional human beings. (As I once joked with meteorologist Glenn "The Hurricane" Schwartz, perhaps the most unrealistic part of the movie was its analogue for Vice President Dick Cheney admitting he was wrong about something.) Importantly, it also has a compelling set of main characters dealing with identifiable problems like saving their families and doing their jobs even as the world is literally destroyed around them.

This brings me to one of my favorite clips from "The Day After Tomorrow," a moment in which Emmy Rossum's character, Laura Chapman, mourns the loss of modern human civilization due to a superstorm.

"Everything I've ever cared about, everything I've worked for... has all been preparation for a future that no longer exists," Rossum's Chapman says. "I know you always thought I took the competition too seriously... you were right. It was all for nothing."

Despite its admirable and grandiose ambitions, nothing in "Digger" ever achieves the simple eloquence and profundity of those lines. I can recommend "Digger" for its intellect, its intriguing plotting, its ability to anticipate the likely future and its unique visual style, but when it comes to being a timeless climate change parable (which it obviously aspires to be), it simply falls short. As far as climate change cinema is concerned, "The Day After Tomorrow" remains the gold standard.

(It's just a shame that the star of "The Day After Tomorrow," Dennis Quaid, wound up supporting Trump.)

President Donald Trump failed to convince a judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a former Stars and Stripes publisher over alleged First Amendment violations — although the same judge also decided not to provide the plaintiff with injunctive relief.

"JUST IN: Judge Amit Mehta (Obama/DC) denies fired Stars & Stripes ombudsman Jacqueline Smith's bid to be quickly restored to her post, but judge also declines DoD's request to dismiss case, says 1st Amendment issues are complex," reported Politico's Josh Gerstein on X on Tuesday. In the decision, Mehta wrote that "on September 24, 2026,the court took testimony from one witness called by Plaintiff, Max Lederer, Stars and Stripes’ mostrecent publisher, and heard argument on the motions. See Hr’g Tr. (draft).As discussed further below, the court denies the request for injunctive relief becausePlaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is “likely to succeed on the merits.” Winter v. Nat. Res.Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)."

Mehta added, "The court, however, denies the motion to dismiss."

Speaking to an event hosted by Military Veterans in Journalism that was broadcast by CSPAN earlier in October, former Stars and Stripes publisher Max Lederer described how the Pentagon described journalists who wrote stories that the Trump administration disliked as guilty of "insubordination" and demanded they be fired.

"I was just told, 'do what you're instructed and serve these notices,'" Lederer explained.

He added, “There were a couple of things wrong when I received the direction to terminate them. First: I don’t believe you can direct a supervisor in what they should do and tell them what they should do. You can share with them what you believe and … give that supervisor an opportunity to consider and have that conversation. So, my initial reaction was to push back as say ‘I don’t understand the foundation of your conclusion that they were insubordinate and that they were not using their First Amendment rights to speak their personal opinion.’”

He concluded, “I do not believe that when we put on a uniform or work for the government, we give up all our First Amendment rights,” Lederer continued. “We do have rights to speak up and say what we believe is right or wrong or good or bad about how we serve. But their disciplinary action was saying basically ‘you have no First Amendment Rights.’ It’s not consistent to me to fire somebody who’s exercising their First Amendment right when their job is to speak for other people who are also speaking their First Amendment rights. It didn’t make any sense to me.”

Disclosure: AlterNet publisher Roxanne Cooper worked with Mr. Lederer at Stars & Stripes from 2000-2003.

Tuesday marks 28 days until the Nov. 3 election, and Democrats are preparing for a "doomsday scenario," CNN reports.

It's not unheard of for the Democratic Party or presidential campaigns to assemble an army of lawyers ready to file lawsuits or go to judges at a moment's notice. This year, however, something else is brewing, and it's much bigger.

Senior CNN reporter Annie Grayer told Manu Raju that for months Democrats have been working behind the scenes to play out possible scenarios that would have been unheard of even six years ago "because Democrats do not want to leave anything up to chance here."

"Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been convening groups of senators, lawyers, outside experts to do the sort of role-playing scenarios where they're given very specific scenarios to talk through how they would handle potential intervention from the [Donald] Trump administration, what that intervention could look like."

The Democratic doomsday preppers are crafting plans for what would happen if the National Guard was deployed to polling locations by the Trump administration, or even if the Guard soldiers attempt to seize ballots from those locations. They're planning how to deal with misinformation that comes from deep-fake videos and other AI.

"What I've learned is that the senators in these groups were even role-playing different figures in the Trump administration. So, playing the role of attorney general, playing the role of director of national intelligence, playing the role of director, homeland security secretary to get in the position of what possible interference could happen, and then talk through how they would respond to it as Democrats and in the House," said Grayer.

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) is working on his own similar effort to walk through 150 threat possibilities and how he would deal with them. He's also traveling around the country to raise awareness among Democratic voters to watch for specific things and report them as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the Senate side is "building the largest election observer program," she said.

"The first time that we've seen that in the Senate," Grayer said, describing official staffers around the country to observe and be prepared to act if some kind of skullduggery ensues.

"What lawmakers realize is they couldn't rely on the national party here," she explained. "They had to build something on their own in this off-year election for Democrats. But so they've tapped into the legal community and built this really strong legal apparatus to be ready to respond at a moment's notice. I talked to one lawyer for this story who told me that she's a go-bag ready, just in case she has to be deployed at a moment's notice."

It suggests that while they all believe strongly in the system and in elections, they're not discounting any possible dirty tricks from the White House, Grayer explained. They intend to cast a wide net of possibilities as Nov. 3 approaches and post-election legal battles begin.

This summer, former Olympian David Hearn found himself in a nightmare, as he was caught up in the highly-publicized drama with Trump’s Reflecting Pool and subsequently found himself wrongfully accused of vandalizing the national landmark.

Fast forward to the present, and although Hearn had the felony charges against him dismissed shortly after, he (via his attorneys) is firing back and asking for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to look deeper into the case.

According to MS Now, per a letter sent to the DOJ and the Interior Department on Tuesday, Oct. 6, Hearn’s legal team shared that the former Olympic canoeist, who participated in the 1992, 1996, and 200 Summer Games, suffered a “nightmare” following his June 19 arrest for vandalism and indictment a few weeks later.

The letter notes that both the DOJ and the Interior Department had knowledge that proved the damage to the Reflecting Pool was due to the widely documented flawed installation process of new pool coating, that was ordered by Trump, and not Hearn.

“From June 19 to the present, gross incompetence, negligence, and misconduct have been committed by personnel in both agencies,” the letter read in part.

“A critical purpose of the requested investigations is to collect the facts … to hold accountable the individuals and groups who failed Mr. Hearn, the criminal justice system and the public,” the attorneys’ document continued.

Additionally, the letter specifically calls for DOJ inspector general Don R. Berthiaume and Interior Department inspector general Caryl Brzymialkiewicz to uphold the ethics of the investigation and called out how the case was handled.

As the Reflecting Pool upgrade fiasco made headlines this summer, Hearns previously stated that he stopped by the pool and put his hand inside the water, only to feel a portion of partially detached coating from the pool’s surface before pulling it out of the water.

However, on July 2, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, echoed Trump’s widespread and unfounded claims that vandals were the source of the Reflecting Pool renovation disasters.

She accused Hearn of “forcefully and violently” vandalizing the pool and said at the time that prosecutors in the case had proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” he was responsible along with several others who were charged.

Almost a month later, on July 31, Pirro formally dismissed the charges against Hearn and the others, citing at the time that the Interior Department “withheld a full accounting of what happened and acknowledged that this showed Hearn was innocent of the felony vandalism charge,” per MS Now.

Hearn’s attorneys also hurled allegations that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia neglected to share key evidence in the case, such as metadata for photographs, which were a key piece of evidence.

The Attorney’s Office was also criticized with claims that evidence was tampered with when the Reflecting Pool was drained and the liner cut out.

The letter from Hearn’s legal team also acknowledged that the request for a probe “will not be welcomed” by the Trump appointees who made false claims about the former Olympian.

“But the job description of IGs does not include pleasing people at high levels of the government,” the letter said. “In fact, the finest moments of the IG community over the past 48 years have been when it has spoken truth to power, and enforced accountability for waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct.”