Uncategorized

More than 100 GOP security experts warn Trump's refusal to concede ‘poses significant risks to national security'

With President-elect Joe Biden having won 306 electoral votes in addition to defeating President Donald Trump by over 6 million in the popular vote, there is no question that Biden's victory was decisive. Regardless, Trump is still refusing to concede the election and vowing to fight Biden in court until the bitter end. But some Republican national security experts, journalists Tom Hamburger and Ellen Nakashima report in the Washington Post, are urging Trump to concede for the good of the United States.

In a joint statement, more than 100 Republicans with national security backgrounds signed a joint statement calling for Trump's concession — and those Republicans range from former CIA Director Michael Hayden to Tom Ridge, the former two-term Pennsylvania governor who went on to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.

Ordinarily, a president-elect would have access to the highly classified President's Daily Briefing. But Biden, so far, has been denied access to it — which the Republicans who signed that letter view as a threat to the United States' national security. In their statement, they warned, "President Trump's refusal to permit the presidential transition poses significant risks to our national security at a time when the U.S. confronts a global pandemic and faces serious threats from global adversaries, terrorist groups and other forces."

The statement also called for "Republican leaders, especially those in Congress, to publicly demand that President Trump cease his anti-democratic assault on the integrity of the presidential election." Moreover, they urged Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to "strongly oppose" Trump's "dangerous and extra-legal efforts to threaten and intimidate state officials in order to prevent a vote by the Electoral College."

John B. Bellinger III, who served as a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council under the Bush Administration, told the Post, "It is shocking to me and other senior national security officials, who have dedicated much of our careers to protecting the country, that congressional Republicans are allowing Trump to impugn the integrity of our elections…. (Elections are) the very core of American democracy."

Another Bush Administration alumni who signed the statement, former U.S. Attorney Ken Wainstein, told the Post he feels a "sense of both alarm (and) disappointment" that "the president of the United States is trying to undermine our election" and "that so many Republican leaders are abetting that effort either with active support or with their silence."

John D. Negroponte, who served as national intelligence director as well as deputy secretary of state under Bush, told the Post that Trump's allies are "in denial about the loss and therefore, not allowing the transition to go forward…. Every day that's lost is not only unfair to the new administration, it's harmful to the country and our national security."

Pence's political aspirations hang in the balance as his every move is now tied to Trump: report

As Trump continues to wreak havoc with his baseless legal battle in hopes of overturning the results of the election, Vice President Mike Pence's advisers are urging caution as they move forward. According to The New York Times, Pence's team has two issues they would like him to focus on: leading the coronavirus task force amid the raging pandemic and working with the Republican Party to help two Republican senators win the Georgia runoff so the party can remain in control of the Senate.

Although the Republican Party would much rather focus on securing the Senate, Trump's legal ploy has taken time, attention and resources from the party's key issue.

As the votes were tallied after Election Night, Pence appeared to offer a tacit endorsement of Trump's push to overturn the election. "As the votes continue to be counted, we're going to remain vigilant, as the president said," Mr. Pence told a crowd of supporters. "We're going to protect the integrity of the vote."

There have also been whispers about the possibility of Pence running for president in 2024. However, given recent reports about the possibility of Trump also entering the 2024 presidential race, a 2024 Trump run would also leave Pence hanging in the balance.

Polling guru who predicted Trump's 2016 victory: 'We’re watching an incumbent self-destruct'

With Election Day just one week away, polls signal that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden will take the Oval Office. President Donald Trump's supporters are pointing to the outcome of the 2016 election in hopes that the president will defy the odds. Democratic voters are also on edge because they, too, vividly remember the upsetting outcome of that election.

Now, the polling guru who predicted Trump's 2016 win is admitting that he, too, is betting on a Biden win. During a recent interview, Dave Wasserman, a polling expert who analyzes Congressional races polls via the non-partisan Cook Political Report, has revealed just how difficult it will be for Trump to win the upcoming election.

According to Vanity Fair columnist Mark McKinnon, the takeaway was clear: the president will need an electoral sweep to beat Biden and it does not appear that will happen.

After talking with him I came away with the sense that Trump is not just toast, but burnt toast. To use a poker metaphor: In the last election, Trump won by pulling an inside straight. This time he'll need nothing short of a royal flush—by pulling an ace from his sleeve.

Wasserman outlined the differences between this election and the 2016 election that awarded Trump his first term.

"There are a couple of important differences," Wasserman said, adding, "At the district level, the polling that we're seeing is pretty consistent; it's in line with the national polls that suggest that Donald Trump is underperforming his 2016 margins [by] anywhere from 8 to 10 points, with few exceptions."

He also noted important differences between Biden and former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Wasserman added, "There are a couple of exceptions: One is in really heavily Hispanic districts. [These] are places where Donald Trump is approaching or even exceeding his 2016 performance. But we also are seeing in really wealthy suburbs or highly white-collar, professional suburbs—even in traditionally conservative metro areas—that Joe Biden is doing 10 or more points better than Hillary Clinton did."

The poll expert also explained how Biden's polls fair differently from Clinton's polling in 2016. Wasserman compared the 2016 polls to the erratic diagrams you see on an EKG. Unlike Clinton, who rarely maintained a consistent lead over Trump, Wasserman notes that "Joe Biden has never been behind; he's had a fairly stable lead that's ebbed around the margins."

So, what's the bottom line? Wasserman believes Trump needs to "win all of the states that are really close in the polls right now: Florida, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina." and "he's gotta break through in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Arizona to have a pathway to replicating his success in 2016."

With all that has transpired, Wasserman is convinced that will not be an easy feat for the president because Biden appears to be "doing better in Arizona than in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania."

Although Trump managed to snag the 2016 election, Wasserman believes what the American public is witnessing now is "an incumbent self-destruct."

The RNC has spent nearly $1 million making Sean Hannity's book a bestseller

The Republican National Committee continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for copies of the latest book by Fox News personality Sean Hannity, which was published in August These efforts have helped boost the book up bestseller lists, according to recent Federal Election Commission filings.

This week the RNC reported $492,308 in expenditures on "donor mementos" at book retailers, all of it spent on Sept. 16. Salon has confirmed that at least $159,000 of that amount went for bulk retail purchases of Hannity's book, "Live Free or Die," which have been offered to GOP donors who gave $75 or more.

Additionally, a retail representative told Salon that the RNC placed at least one more recent order for the book, on Oct. 22: an additional 1,500 copies for $26,100. That purchase will not appear in public filings until after the election.

While the RNC did not send Salon the data it originally promised, evidence suggests that all of the $492,308 in expenditures went to Hannity's book. Combined with August receipts, it is possible that the RNC has spent more than $900,000 on Hannity's book over the last three months.

Outside of Hannity and Donald Trump Jr.'s recent book, "Liberal Privilege," the RNC has not recently promoted any other such deals. Both landing pages (here and here) are hosted by Winred, the Republican online fundraising platform, and a Winred representative confirmed to Salon that the platform had only recently been promoting the Hannity and Trump Jr. books. Other books were available for purchase, according to both GOP and Winred representatives, but not as promotional items.

Further, an RNC spokesperson told Salon in an email that none of the Sept. 16 purchases were for Trump Jr.'s book — which would appear to narrow the options to Hannity.

"The RNC appears to be personally enriching Hannity while he dedicates airtime to promoting Trump," said Brett Kappel, campaign finance and government ethics expert at the law firm Harmon Curran.

Hannity, a close confidant and informal adviser to President Trump, also styles himself as a prime-time journalist who hosts an influential news and opinion program on Fox News, which experts say raises new ethical questions.

"President Trump and his campaign have had an interesting relationship with books," Jordan Libowitz, head of communications at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told Salon.

"Whereas President Obama's book recommendations are all books he read that he liked, President Trump often takes to Twitter to recommend books that say nice things about him, creating an incentive for books by reporters that play to his ego," Libowitz said. "This was taken to a whole new level when the RNC emailed an ad for Hannity's new book to the Trump campaign's list and offered signed copies in exchange for donations. Spending thousands on Don Jr.'s book plays into the general grift of campaign funds by the Trump family, but this is something new: a campaign essentially putting a major reporter on the payroll."

"The RNC regularly uses new books as part of our record-breaking fundraising efforts as we work to deliver victories across the country in November," an RNC spokesperson told Salon in an email. "We have netted a significant amount off of book promotions and have more resources, not less, because we have incorporated them into our fundraising efforts."

The GOP has altogether poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the purchases, propelling both Hannity's and Donald Trump Jr.'s books to exalted positions on a number of bestseller lists.

Hannity's book hit No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list in August, and debuted at No. 2 on Amazon's overall bestseller list, hitting No. 1 in a few sub-categories such as "political commentary" and "elections." Barnes & Noble — where the RNC placed tens of thousands of dollars in orders — ranked Hannity's book third upon debut.

"Live Free or Die" went to press for a fourth printing, and currently ranks at No. 444 on Amazon.

It is less clear, however, how the RNC secured copies of Trump Jr.'s book, "Liberal Privilege." The president's eldest son, who self-published his second book, at first eschewed traditional retailers and only sold copies through his own website and Amazon.

"While I was offered a generous book deal by my previous publishers, I turned it down and decided to self-publish," Trump Jr. said in July, in a statement sent by the RNC to The Hill. "The RNC was able to raise almost a million dollars from their fundraising campaign with my first book, 'Triggered.' I look forward to helping them fundraise once again for the benefit of the Republican Party."

By self-publishing, Trump Jr. trades the distribution, marketing and publicity support afforded by a top publisher for a more lucrative royalty haul.

As the New York Times reported last month, Trump Jr.'s distribution plan appeared to avoid traditional retailers almost entirely:

Unlike Mr. Hannity's book, "Liberal Privilege" will not be in bookstores. A person with knowledge of the project said that it will be $29.99 on Mr. Trump's website, where presales are being handled, and on Amazon, along with an e-book and an audiobook narrated by Kimberly Guilfoyle, a senior campaign adviser and Mr. Trump's girlfriend. It's unclear if any major retailers will carry the book, though managers at some traditional distribution channels said last week that they hadn't heard anything about it. ReaderLink, a company that supplies books to more than 80,000 stores, including big-box chains like Walmart and Target, said it had no plans to distribute it.

It's possible that the entire $405,000 that the RNC itemized to book retailers in August went toward Hannity's book, and given that the committee says that it has not purchased Trump Jr.'s book, the same appears true of September's $492,000.

The RNC did not report payments to Trump Jr. in August, so it might have fulfilled its preorder promise through Amazon. The committee's August filings reveal an unusually large $126,423 expenditure to Amazon on Aug. 10, for "office supplies."

Trump Jr.'s book has branched out to some traditional retailers since its Sept. 1 debut. "Liberal Privilege" currently ranks at No. 3,080 in Amazon books overall, a steep drop from eighth place in early September.

RNC press secretary Mandi Merritt told the New York Times that signed copies of "Triggered," which Trump Jr. published with Center Street, an imprint of Hachette, raised nearly $1 million for the party. As mentioned above, Trump Jr. claims turned down the publisher's offer for his second book.

Amy Coney Barrett ‘lied’ to Democratic senator over ties to anti-LGBTQ hate group: political scientist

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being accused of lying to a top Democratic Senator in an apparent attempt to hide her ties to and awareness of an anti-LGBTQ hate group that advocates for the re-criminalization of homosexuality and sterilization of transgender people.

Judge Barrett has been paid by and given speeches to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups. ADF advances its agenda by finding and litigating cases involving Christians who say they are being discriminated against for their faith by LGBTQ people, often same-sex couples.

"The head of the Alliance Defending Freedom attended the announcement of Amy Coney Barrett's #SCOTUS nomination in the Rose Garden," former US Senator Al Franken tweeted Wednesday.

He posted a devastating video (below) of him questioning Barrett in her 2017 judicial confirmation hearing. The video then cuts to this week's confirmation hearing, with Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) asking her about the Alliance Defending Freedom.

"Were you aware of ADF's decades-long efforts to re-criminalize homosexuality?" Leahy asked Barrett on Tuesday.

"I am not aware of those efforts, no," Barrett firmly responded.


Amy Coney Barrett Lying About Her Knowledge of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) youtu.be

Franken adds, "I questioned her about this in 2017. She spoke to them 5 times, took money from them, and is very, very, very aware of what they do."


Norman Orenstein, a top political scientist and a resident scholar at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), says Barrett "lied."


Judge initiates contempt proceedings against Trump’s commerce secretary for violating US Census order

Wilbur Ross, secretary of commerce in the Trump Administration, recently ordered the U.S. Census Bureau to end its field operations for the 2020 U.S. Census on October 5. But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, in San José, California, had issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Census count to continue until the end of October. And according to Bloomberg News reporter Joel Rosenblatt, Koh has "initiated contempt of court proceedings" against Ross for violating her injunction.

Rosenblatt reports that Koh "said, during a hearing Tuesday, that Monday's announcement that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is targeting October 5 to wrap up the once-a-decade population count 'is doing exactly' what she ordered the agency not to do last week. The judge said the proceeding could be identified by a more formal name but made clear she believes Ross violated the order."

According to Rosenblatt, "Ross' Monday announcement took Koh by surprise. It came days after she ordered Census data collection operations to continue through October 31 to get an accurate population count."

Axios Reporter Rebecca Falconer notes, "Koh's injunction suspended the Census Bureau's deadline for ending the once-in-a-decade count on September 30, reimposing an older Census Bureau proposal to end operations on Oct. 31."

Koh set a Friday, October 2 date for a hearing on possible contempt charges for Ross. The judge said, "You don't have to call it contempt. You can call it something else."

Democrats have been stressing that the 2020 U.S. Census count needs to be as thorough and as accurate as possible because it affects the number of seats that states will have in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Experts sound off after messy and chaotic Trump-Biden debate

Alison Gash, University of Oregon; Alexander Cohen, Clarkson University, and Rashawn Ray, University of Maryland

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden took part in a presidential debate Sept. 29 that exemplified the lack of civility in American politics. The president frequently interrupted and spoke over his challenger, Biden told Trump to “shut up," and few issues were discussed in enough depth to provide much information to undecided voters. We asked three scholars to discuss themes brought up by moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, who struggled throughout the debate to keep control.

The Supreme Court

Alison Gash, University of Oregon

Wallace opened with a question on the minds of many voters: Who should fill the vacancy left by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death?

Democrats viewed Ginsburg as the last line of defense for abortion rights, voting rights, the Affordable Care Act and other traditionally liberal policies. Trump has nominated conservative jurist and scholar Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ginsburg's seat on the bench.

Trump has already exerted a significant influence over the federal bench. He has appointed more federal appellate judges than any president since Carter. If Barrett is appointed, he will have filled more Supreme Court vacancies than any president since Ronald Reagan and will have shaped the court in ways that could last generations.

Biden all but conceded the appointment as a lost cause, pivoting to one of the few areas where a Biden win could conceivably limit the conservative influence of the Roberts Court — by stalling potential litigation over the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration has publicly and actively supported litigation to overturn the ACA. Judge Barrett, Biden reminded viewers, believes the ACA is unconstitutional. Even with Ginsburg on the bench, the ACA enjoyed only fragile court support. Biden intimated that continued litigation in an even more conservative Supreme Court could limit health care coverage for millions of Americans.

Biden mentioned Roe v. Wade — and Barrett's likely opposition — only as an afterthought. In response, Trump stated cryptically, “There's nothing happening there. And you don't know her view on Roe v. Wade."

On the whole, the debate did little to resolve questions about the future of the court — other than to shore up Supreme Court nominations as political bombs with volatile consequences.

Racism, Policing and Black Lives Matter Protests

Rashawn Ray, University of Maryland

“Why should voters trust you … to deal with the race issue facing this country?"

Wallace asked a straightforward question about the troubling state of race relations in America, but the two candidates answered it in very different ways. Biden highlighted the “systemic injustice in this country, in education, in work, and in law enforcement" that required an approach grounded in equity, equality, decency and the Constitution.

Trump pivoted quickly to “law and order" and brought up the Biden co-sponsored 1994 Crime Bill – legislation that has long been criticized for contributing to the disproportionate mass incarceration of Black Americans. But recent Trump advertisements have tried to suggest that violence will increase under a Biden presidency – paradoxically showing images of unrest under the current Trump administration. Trump seemingly wanted to attack this “tough on crime" Biden of the 1990s while simultaneously portraying his rival as being in league with what the president would like voters to believe is an unruly and violent left.

The reality is different. Despite over 90% of Black Lives Matter protests being nonviolent, much of the media's focus has been on the less than 10% of demonstrations that have turned violent. This debate did nothing to dispel that false narrative.

In fact, some of the violence of recent months has been committed by right-wing extremists. But when asked directly to condemn white supremacy, Trump hesitated and seemed to be searching for words. Instead, he sent a shoutout to the Proud Boys – a group deemed to be a hate organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Trump said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left."

“He's the racist," said Biden during their exchanges.

Meanwhile, on policing policy, Biden proposed a 21st-century redo to bring various stakeholders to the table.

But eerily for Republicans and Democrats – and not at all in keeping with the debate itself – Trump and Biden seem to espouse similar views about the defunding police movement.

“I am totally opposed to defunding the police. They need more assistance," said Biden during the debate. Earlier Trump had stated, “There won't be dismantling of our police, and there's not going to be any disbanding of our police."

The integrity of the election

Alexander Cohen, Clarkson University

When asked about the integrity of mail-in ballots, Biden and Trump offered different answers. Biden projected faith in the mail-in system. Unsurprisingly, Trump continued to assault the integrity of an election using mail-in ballots. This echoes his mantra in 2016, when he argued that the popular vote count was incorrect and fraudulent – a notion that was widely debunked.

Likewise, the assertion that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud has been widely challenged. Most studies suggest that voting by mail does not benefit one party over the other and that voting by mail is not prone to manipulation.

However, such studies on voting by mail tend to examine scenarios where state and local governments were well prepared for ballot distribution. The increased demand for mail-in voting brought on by COVID-19 is creating at least some confusion among voters. It is plausible that not all states are ready to handle the flood of mail-in votes. This could complicate the voting process and prolong vote counts in some states.

Such delays could be incredibly significant. The last time a key state struggled to tally votes was 2000. Then, the Supreme Court intervened to halt a recount in Florida, handing the victory to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore in a close presidential race.

If disputes over mail-in ballots linger beyond Election Day, the Supreme Court may again intervene. If President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is quickly confirmed, conservatives will enjoy a 6-3 majority on the Court. Three of these justices will have been appointed by Trump.

Trump has laid the groundwork for disputing the results of any close election. If neither candidate wins decisively, the nation should brace itself for a lengthy, and divisive, struggle.

Such a struggle could be dangerous to American democracy because it may undermine fundamental faith in the electoral process. While rule of law generally prevails when close elections are disputed, it does appear that the United States could be headed toward uncharted territory.

What question were you hoping to hear tonight that was left out in the midst of this chaotic debate?

Cohen: I would have liked to ask: “Do you think that there are consequences for the decreasing civility in American politics, as demonstrated in this debate?"

Gash: I would like to have seen a question about the role of the court in preserving checks and balances. This is, what I think, Wallace was trying to get at in his question about court-packing. But the question fell flat.

Ray: Black people are disproportionately more likely to experience police use of force, even when they are unarmed and not attacking. How do we reduce racial disparities in use of force – as with George Floyd and Breonna Taylor – and improve relations between Black communities and law enforcement?The Conversation

Alison Gash, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon; Alexander Cohen, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Clarkson University, and Rashawn Ray, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

'Desperate' Trump blasted for calling on supporters to engage in voter intimidation

Among the stream of authoritarian remarks President Donald Trump let loose during his disastrous performance at Tuesday night's presidential debate, one of the most alarming to voting rights advocates came at the tail-end of the 90-minute event, when the incumbent openly encouraged his supporters to "go into the polls and watch very carefully."

Though poll watching is authorized in states across the U.S., the activity is restricted by specific rules and guidelines aimed at preventing a candidate's backers from showing up at polling places and intimidating voters attempting to cast their ballots. The president's comments Tuesday night, observers warned, went well beyond a call for legally sanctioned and qualified election observers.

"He wasn't talking about poll watching. He was talking about voter intimidation," tweeted Nevada's Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford. "FYI—voter intimidation is illegal in Nevada. Believe me when I say it: You do it, and you will be prosecuted."

Asked by debate moderator Chris Wallace whether he would pledge to "not declare victory until the election has been independently certified," Trump ignored the question and repeated a lie he first spread on social media ahead of Tuesday night's event.

"As you know, today there was a big problem," the president said. "In Philadelphia, they went in to watch. They're called poll watchers, a very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren't allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia. Bad things. And I am urging my people—I hope it's going to be a fair election."

But as the Philadelphia Inquirer pointed out, "there were several reasons why elections staff did not allow members of the public to arbitrarily enter their offices."

"The Trump campaign has no poll watchers approved to work in Philadelphia at the moment," the Inquirer noted. "There are no actual polling places open in the city right now. And elections officials are following coronavirus safety regulations, such as those limiting the number of people indoors."


"Trump is brazenly demanding voter intimidation from his supporters," tweeted Sean Eldridge, founder and president of advocacy group Stand Up America.

In a joint statement following the debate, during which the president also repeated a number of falsehoods about mail-in voting, Eldridge and Indivisible co-executive director Leah Greenberg said that "the confusion and doubt that Donald Trump tried to sow about the election tonight is the behavior of a desperate man and a losing candidate."

"We are building a broad network of people who are working to make sure every vote is counted and preparing to mobilize if Trump attempts to undermine the valid results. The voters will have the last word," said Eldridge and Greenberg. "While we work to resoundingly defeat Donald Trump in this election, preparing to also protect the results of this election isn't just reasonable, it's necessary."

The Inquirer reported that on Tuesday afternoon, as early voting began in Pennsylvania, "a woman approached the supervisor at the entrance of the satellite office at Overbrook Elementary School" claiming that "she was there to monitor 'the integrity of the election'" and asking to be allowed inside the building.

"The woman did not present any sort of certificate of being an official poll watcher, but calmly stated that she had a right to be inside," according to the outlet. "The woman told the Inquirer she was 'hired by the Trump campaign to oversee the integrity of the election.' She said she was paid to monitor the West Philadelphia site. She would not provide her name or any further information, and she left the area shortly afterward."


In a video posted online last week, Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son, called on Trump supporters to "enlist" in the campaign's "election security operation" and falsely claimed that the president's opponents "plan to add millions of fraudulent ballots that can cancel your vote and overturn the election."

On the second day of early voting in Virginia on September 19, Trump supporters heeded the campaign's repeated calls to show up at polling places en masse, offering a potential preview of the chaos the president is attempting to provoke across the country. As the New York Times reported, a crowd of Trump supporters gathered near a polling location in Fairfax and formed "a line that voters had to walk around outside the site."

"County election officials eventually were forced to open up a larger portion of the Fairfax County Government Center to allow voters to wait inside away from the Trump enthusiasts," the Times noted.

Bryan Graham, the chairman of the Fairfax County Democrats, tweeted at the time that "Republicans are straight-up attempting to intimidate voters at the Government Center. Circling the parking lots with their Trump flags and horns blaring."

Mike Flynn’s lawyer just admitted to a federal judge she’s discussed his case with Trump

The attorney for disgraced former Trump national security adviser and convicted felon Mike Flynn has just admitted to a federal judge she has been talking with President Donald Trump about her client's case – and that she personally asked the president to not pardon Flynn.

Sydney Powell, a former federal prosecutor turned conspiracy theorist, QAnon-signaler, and pro-MAGA anti-"deep state" personality, was asked by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, if she's been in contact with Trump.

Politico's Kyle Cheney provides the back-and-forth:


Powell actually tries to invoke executive privilege – to which she has no right since she does not work for the administration.

And then, this bombshell:

Former federal prosecutor, now an NBC and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner sugggests things got a little wild in the courtroom:


At issue: Flynn and the DOJ are trying to have the case dismissed – after Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, before the judge. Attorney General Bill Barr has been accused of working to protect Trump's allies.


Trump mocked for finally releasing ‘health care plan’ — which is really a ‘toothless’ executive order

For at least four years President Donald Trump has been promising the American people a health care plan. He famously sat for the “60 Minutes” cameras just days after the 2016 election and said, “this is what I do I do a good job I mean I know how to do this stuff.”

Keep reading... Show less

Judge tosses defamation suit against Tucker Carlson: 'Any reasonable viewer' would not trust him for news

Back in 2016, Donald Trump participated in a conspiracy with his former lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen and David Pecker (then-publisher of the National Enquirer) to silence women who were coming forward with stories of sexual affairs with Trump. One of the women that was paid off was former Playboy model Karen McDougal. According to reports, Pecker used hush money from Trump, funneled through Cohen, in order to buy McDougal’s story (as well as Stormy Daniels’), and then bury the stories after having the women sign a non-disclosure agreement. You know, dirtbag stuff.

Keep reading... Show less