marjorie taylor greene

President Donald Trump's attempt to create an "anti-weaponization" slush fund prompted dozens of retired judges to speak out against him, and as one ex-federal prosecutor argued for The Hill, this shows the true extent of the "collusion and fraud" inherent in the plan.

James D. Zirin is a legal analyst who previously served as a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. In a new piece for The Hill published Tuesday, he invoked a classic turn-of-phrase to emphasize the severity of the pushback against Trump's slush fund from these judges.

"'Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong' was a delightful 1927 ditty, sung by the immortal Sophie Tucker, contrasting the laissez-faire culture of 1920s Paris with the strict, puritanical attitudes in the U.S.," Zirin explained. "Over time, the saying morphed into a general idiom often used to suggest that if a massive number of people believe in or do something, there must be some undeniable truth to it. If 50 million Frenchmen couldn’t be wrong, nor could 35 former federal judges. They say the key to longevity is not to retire but to remain engaged. Retired judges enjoy a certain mystique, and when they talk, everyone listens."

Zirin noted how, two weeks ago, Florida Federal Judge Kathleen Williams "gave weight to a motion from 35 former federal judges arguing that Trump’s bogus settlement of his meritless lawsuit against the IRS was a fraud on the court." In a filing to Williams, the judges had urged the court to reopen the case and examine whether or not the settlement — in which Trump had effectively sued and settled with himself — constituted a case of fraud.

"The purported ‘settlement’ that was publicly disclosed after this court dismissed this matter raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice," a lawyer representing the bipartisan group of judges wrote.

Leading the charge for this group, Zirin explained, was Michael Luttig, "a rock-ribbed conservative "who was appointed to the federal appeals court bench by George H.W. Bush in 1991 and served until 2006, when he was passed over as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

"The courageous voices of the federal and state judges,” Luttig said. “Are the only voices that can and have been heard above the deafening din of partisan political rancor that is literally threatening our nation.

”The former judges argued that the purported settlement of the case was the product of collusion and fraud," Zirin wrote. "With Trump suing and settling with himself, that is self-evident. But the argument lands with singular force coming from the 35 retired judges. Larger numbers of former judges have filed briefs in other cases. In a Supreme Court case on immigrant protection, more than 175 former judges filed a brief last March arguing that the court’s shadow docket orders are not binding precedent if the justices do not justify their reasoning."

A series of recent GOP primaries found incumbents who President Donald Trump was upset with — including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), and at least five Indiana state lawmakers — losing to Trump-backed MAGA candidates. One of the things that is driving tensions between Trump and other Republicans is his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and according to Newsweek reporter Hugh Cameron, those tensions are playing out in deep red South Carolina.

"The group of Republican lawmakers who, last year, split with President Donald Trump over the handling of the Justice Department's files on Jeffrey Epstein seem set to suffer another defeat, this time in South Carolina's gubernatorial primary," Cameron explains in Newsweek. "Rep. Nancy Mace, one of the most-outspoken Republican advocates for releasing the Epstein files, is trailing in a crowded GOP primary field after Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette. Mace argues her support for greater transparency in the Epstein case was the key factor behind Trump's decision to back her rival."

Mace recently told Politico, "That's the sole reason I didn't get the endorsement: because I voted to release the Epstein files — and I'm OK with that. I've worked very hard to expose p– –, and child r– –, and sex trafficking in my state, and will continue to do it regardless of the outcome of the election.”

Similarly, Mace told CNN, "If the price of an endorsement was to not vote to lease the Epstein files, that is a price I am unwilling to pay."

Mace's comments, according to Cameron, "underscore lingering tensions inside the Republican Party over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files."

"The bipartisan push to release government records related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became an unexpected source of friction between Trump and a group of Republican lawmakers who demanded greater transparency," the Newsweek journalist notes. "Although Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, directing the Justice Department to release all unclassified records tied to the case, critics argued the disclosures were incomplete and moved too slowly. Some of the loudest complaints came from Republicans who had championed the legislation, creating a rare public disagreement between Trump and members of his own party."

Cameron continues, "At times, Trump dismissed the controversy as a 'hoax' driven by political opponents, while transparency advocates continued pressing for additional disclosures. The dispute never developed into a broader rebellion against the president, but it exposed divisions within the GOP and raised questions about how far lawmakers were willing to challenge Trump on an issue that remained highly sensitive among Republican voters."

Democrats are betting controversial candidate Graham Platner is their best chance to unseat U.S. Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who has not lost a race since she first won her seat in 1996. But scandal could sink his campaign even after Tuesday’s primary, handing Collins a clearer path to a sixth term.

Bloomberg opinion columnist Ronald Brownstein writes that the voting will “illuminate the one thin path that could allow” Democrats to “avoid that fate.”

“Polls show that Collins and Trump are both weaker in Maine today than during her last reelection in 2020, which could allow even Platner to beat her,” Brownstein writes. “Yet the oysterman’s many vulnerabilities increase the odds that, as during that 2020 race, Collins could improbably survive in this blue-trending state.”

According to Brownstein, Platner’s scandals may not be his only vulnerability.

He needs to win over Maine voters who disapprove of Trump. “In the 2018 and 2020 elections, the exit polls found that every Democratic Senate incumbent and challenger nationwide won at least 89% of voters who disapproved of Trump — except in Maine, where Sara Gideon, Collins’ 2020 opponent, won only 71% of them.”

A recent poll, taken before his latest scandal, shows Platner only winning 74% of them.

Brownstein explains that if Platner were to decide to drop out of the race by July 13, the Democratic Party would be allowed to replace him on the November election ballot. He notes that currently running for governor are several candidates who likely would meet the expectations of Platner’s coalition.

One of three candidates currently running for governor could replace Platner should he drop out before the July deadline.

“Former State Senate President Troy Jackson, a fifth-generation logger with deep working-class roots, has been endorsed in the governor’s race by the state AFL and Senator Bernie Sanders and would probably be the easiest replacement for Platner supporters to accept,” says Brownstein. “Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (who has greatly raised her stature since she lost her 2014 Senate race to Collins) and former state House Speaker Hannah Pingree (who might be the strongest statewide candidate of the three) also have many liberal supporters.”

Maine progressive activists in their conversations with Brownstein remain dedicated to Platner. “But each offered only praise for Jackson, Bellows and Pingree.”

The stakes for Democrats are high — and not only for Maine. Collins’ seat is considered must-win if Democrats are to retake control of the Senate.

“If Democrats don’t flip Maine, they will need to capture Senate seats in at least three states that Trump won by double digits in 2024,” says Brownstein. “That’s a daunting task.”

Laverne Cox published a new book where she's revealing details about her relationship with a pro-Donald Trump police officer.

Transcendent, the new book out Tuesday, describes her five-year relationship with the cop and what happened when they ultimately ended the relationship, The Root reported.

“My ex-boyfriend, when we met five years ago, at the height of the pandemic, he was 26, and I was 48. He was a blonde-haired, blue-eyed MAGA Republican voter who is a New York City police officer,” she said in a video to Instagram when she talked about it.

Cox isn't merely a proud transgender woman; she's also solidly progressive.

At first, he lied about what he did for a living. After about 3-and-a-half years, "his politics and his head examined became clear."

During an episode of "The View," Cox said that he was seemingly good to her, even "better" than some previous relationships. Over time, however, she said she was exposed to parts of his "true colors" that weren't acceptable to her.

“People show you who they are eventually,” Cox said. She added that she never intended to fall in love with him or develop any deep feelings. By the time she understood where he was politically, she was in too deep.

“We didn’t plan to fall in love, but we did. Later, his political affiliation became obvious, but I’d already had feelings for him and wanted to see him as a human being, beyond that,” she said.

Over time, “his politics and his unexamined life became clear," she added.

“I love him, but I love myself more, and staying in this relationship, I betrayed myself — not just my political values, because, in theory, I’d like to believe we can have relationships across political differences. But there was a value difference,” she explained.

“Fascism is not consistent with my values. I am an anti-fascist. I never adopted any of my ex’s politics.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

President Donald Trump prompted a firestorm of commentary and speculation after he stormed out of a major interview, but as one certified psychologist argued, his body language also exposed things about his agitated mental state.

On Sunday, NBC News's Meet the Press aired an interview with Trump conducted by Kristin Welker, in which, among other things, she pressed him about the lack of evidence for his longstanding claims that elections in the U.S. are rigged against Republicans. Trump, after growing increasingly frustrated over the tough questions, cut off the interview early, saying that Welker was either "crooked" or "stupid" before storming out.

Much has already been speculated based on this blow-up from Trump, including from Dr. John Paul Garrison, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, who maintains a popular YouTube account, "Dr. G Explains," where he gives forensic breakdowns and body language analyses for over 700,000 subscribers. While he typically focuses on true crime stories, he also delves into politics, and recently released a video breaking down Trump's body language during his interview with Welker.

At the start of the interview, Garrison noted that "most" of Trump's visible behaviors were "pretty standard" and in line with his typical demeanor. He did note one brief movement of Trump's mouth that could potentially indicate a change in the president's motor control, but said that not much could be made of it for now. What he did put particular emphasis on, however, was the sound of rain during the interview, as it was being conducted in a Wisconsin barn during a period of extended downpours.

Garrison argued that as the noise from the rain picked up and became more intense, Trump had a harder time focusing and concentrating on the questions from Welker. While stressing that nothing could be said for sure, he argued that Trump having a greater difficulty dealing with background noise could be a sign that he suffered a neurological episode at some point.

From that point, Garrison noted numerous signs that Trump was growing more and more agitated, including him furrowing his brow, bearing his teeth and putting extra emphasis on certain words, eventually escalating to the point of "real anger" and "real fury." While he concluded that it was typical for Trump to be testy with the press, Garrison argued that he showed an "unusual" level of anger during the interview, and suggested that he might having "a harder time than he used to" dealing with things like the background noise from the rain.

Another medical expert and content creator, speech and language pathologist "Hilary M.A. CCC-SLP," also argued that the weather might have been having an outsized effect on Trump's mood, suggesting in a recent video that he was exhibiting symptoms common in dementia patients, who struggle to keep track of the time of day during periods of extended gloomy weather.

Many U.S. Supreme Court rulings of the 2020s are coming down along strict partisan lines, with the six GOP-appointees justices on one side and the three Democratic appointees comprising the dissent. But in Pitchford v. Cain, a 5-4 ruling handed down on May 28, the majority united the three Democratic appointees (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while the conservative dissenters were Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. And according to Reason's Damon Root, the decision showed a major disagreement between Donald Trump appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

"On the surface, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh share much in common," Root explains in the libertarian-oriented Reason. "They are both judicial conservatives, both self-professed originalists, both former federal appellate court judges with respected records, and both were appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the same president. Yet there are certain legal issues that have brought out notable differences between them. The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Pitchford v. Cain offers a fascinating case in point."

In Pitchford, the Roberts Court examined the precedent in 1986's Batson v. Kentucky, which said that prospective jurors cannot be excluded from juries solely on the basis of their race.

"In Pitchford, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Terry Pitchford's rights were violated when a lower court decided that his defense lawyer had waived the right under Batson to challenge the prosecution's supposedly race-neutral rationales for peremptorily excluding four out of five prospective black jurors in the case," Root notes. "Writing for the majority, Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, held that Pitchford's constitutional rights had indeed been violated…. Writing in dissent, Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett, denied that any such injustice had occurred."

Root argues that Pitchford wasn't the first time that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch disagreed on criminal justice matters.

"Normally, when it comes to matters of criminal justice, Gorsuch is the one with the reputation for being more sympathetic to criminal defendants," the libertarian journalist observes. "Kavanaugh, meanwhile, generally has a reputation for being the more reliable vote in favor of law enforcement. But this case flipped the script. Here, thanks to an opinion by Kavanaugh, written over Gorsuch's dissent, a Death Row inmate's conviction and death sentence were tossed out. This time around, it was Kavanaugh, not Gorsuch, who gave the civil liberties side the win."

President Donald Trump's blowup at "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker on Sunday signals something far darker than his usual outbursts at female reporters.

Trump stormed off the set of an interview in Wisconsin after he was pressed for "evidence" that the California primary elections were rigged. Trump had claimed that clearly they were rigged because Los Angeles County continues to count ballots. Once Welker asked Trump for evidence, he quickly asserted she simply had to "look" to find it.

Speaking to tech writer Gil Duran, author of The Nerd Reich, The New Republic's Greg Sargent said it puts Trump's actions into perspective and explains why he was so furious when his reality was questioned.

California allows any ballots postmarked on Election Day to be counted. So, it typically takes about a week for all mailed-in ballots to arrive at the election location, plus a few more days for processing.

"This is typical Trump," said Duran. "He’s been doing this for years and years. He tries to create his own version of reality and insist that other people agree with it. The main enemy, the main challenge that Republicans have in California, is called simple math."

Trump thinks that Republican Spencer Pratt should have won the race, but there are fewer than 20 percent of registered voters in Los Angeles County. They're only 25 percent of the state. Pratt has already outperformed that number, but it doesn't mean he is anywhere close to a win.

Meanwhile, Steve Hilton's numbers actually look good when it comes to making it through the primary.

"But this is important to Trump because Trump’s brand is about winning," said Duncan. "He can’t accept that his party and his politics are so unpopular in California. So in order to maintain his winning image, he creates this counter-reality in which it’s all because of fraud on the part of the Democrats and that he would have actually won. He said, actually, in 2020 that he would have won the race if Jesus had been allowed to count the votes, whatever that means."

Trump and other Republicans have long claimed that California is only a Democratic state because of cheating. There's no evidence to prove it. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger said in 2007 that the California Republican Party was dying at the box office, Duncan recalled.

Sargent thinks that Trump's anger is coming from the fact that someone he endorsed, like Pratt, is losing. Durant affirmed that the early votes always break for Republicans because they vote in person. About 80 percent of California voters cast mail-in ballots. So those ballots coming in after the fact are more likely to break for Democratic candidates.

"And so what Trump is doing is exploiting this simple, very well-known mechanism. We all knew that the Republican numbers go down. [He’s exploiting it] to create a false narrative for the MAGA audience, to continue this kind of complaint of fraud and thievery that he’s so fond of. That’s all it is. It’s a very simple mechanism. You take the early returns, you claim that any deviation from those early returns is evidence of a crime of some kind. And that’s pretty much it," Duncan said.

As of Tuesday morning, about 81 percent of the votes have been counted in Los Angeles County.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

US economic growth is picking up again after a slowdown towards the end of 2025. According to price data released on May 28, US GDP grew by 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2026. This is despite energy prices rising and consumer confidence falling since the US president, Donald Trump, went to war with Iran in February.