Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

[spaminator]

Teen murdered parents to fund bizarre Trump assassination plot
The Wisconsin teen planned to use the insurance money to make his dire dream a reality


Author of the article:Brad Hunter
Published Jan 09, 2026 • Last updated 23 hours ago • 3 minute read

Nikita Casap killed his parents to raise the money to assassinate Donald Trump. WSO
Nikita Casap killed his parents to raise the money to assassinate Donald Trump. WSO
Nikita Casap wanted to take U.S. President Donald Trump off the board.


However, the 18-year-old believed he needed to raise a substantial amount of money to make the assassination work.


The Wisconsin teen settled on the tried and true: He would murder his parents and use the insurance money to make his dire dream for The Donald a reality. He didn’t get very far.

Plot to kill Trump
Trembling in a Waukesha County courtroom on Thursday, Casap pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree intentional homicide for the murders of his stepfather, Donald Mayer, and his mother, Tatiana Casap, last year.

When asked by Judge Ralph Ramirez whether he understood the ramifications of his guilty plea, and if he had gunned down his mother and stepfather, Casap responded, “Yes, your honour.”

U.S. Secret Service agents remove former president Donald Trump from the stage after a shooting during a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13.
U.S. Secret Service agents remove former president Donald Trump from the stage after a shooting during a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13, 2024. Photo by Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post
There were some indications that the plot to kill Trump and unleash hellfire on the United States was much more complicated than the musings of a troubled teenage boy.

A federal search warrant revealed that the teen Trotsky had even penned a manifesto calling for Trump to be killed. The feds indicated others may have been involved in the death plot that also called for the U.S. government to be overthrown.


Russian speaker
In addition to the murders, the wannabe assassin tried to buy drones and explosives. He also shared his plans online with a Russian speaker. The feds did not reveal that individual’s identity.

“The killing of his parents appeared to be an effort to obtain the financial means and autonomy necessary to carrying out his plan,” the federal warrant said.

HAPPIER TIMES: Before the murders.
HAPPIER TIMES: Before the murders.
Investigators discovered deeply troubling messages on Casap’s cellphone dated a month before the double murder. In one message, he asked the mystery individual how long it would take until he would be moved to Ukraine.

The feds did not supply the reply.

But Casap asked: “So, while in Ukraine, I’ll be able to live a normal life? Even if it’s found out I did it?”

Decomposing corpses
Homicide investigators believe Casap used his stepfather’s gun to kill the man and his mother around Feb. 11, 2025. Cops said he lived with the decomposing corpses for weeks.

Eventually, Casap hit the road and moved across the Great Plains in his stepfather’s SUV with $14,000 in cash, jewelry, passports, the murder weapon and, oddly, the family dog. He was pinched Feb. 28 in a routine traffic stop in Kansas.


For Casap, there will be no “normal life.” Each count calls for 20 years in prison for each murder, so 40 years before he is eligible for parole. And the prosecution says that’s what they’ll seek.



‘Maximum penalty’
District Attorney Lesli Boese will torpedo any soft sentencing regimen, she told reporters, calling Casap a “danger to the community.”

“I think this is a maximum penalty case,” Boese said. “I assume that’s what I’ll be arguing.”

She added she was taken off guard by Casap’s guilty plea.

“I guess I’m a little surprised,” she told reporters. “I mean, there’s no downside for him to take it to trial. But, again, I think the courts look at the fact that someone takes responsibility for what they did, and I think that’s a factor they consider in sentencing.”

Casap is slated to be sentenced on March 5.

bhunter@postmedia.com

@HunterTOSun

http://jsonline.com/story/communities/west/2026/01/08/nikita-casap-pleads-guilty-to-homicide-in-waukesha-parents-deaths/88030944007

Teen murdered parents to fund bizarre Trump assassination plot

Nikita Casap wanted to take U.S. President Donald Trump off the board. Read more.

torontosun.com

 

[Ron in Regina]

Anyway…”You gotta win the midterms 'cause, if we don't win the midterms, it's just gonna be - I mean, they'll find a reason to impeach me," Trump told Republican lawmakers at a retreat in Washington. "I'll get impeached."

Midterm elections in the United States are the general elections that are held near the midpoint of a president's four-year term of office, on Election Day on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November. Federal offices that are up for election during the midterms include all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, and 33 or 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate.

United States midterm election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Worried about losing unified Republican power in Washington and mystified at his lack of support among the public, President Donald Trump keeps talking about not holding the November midterm elections, when Republicans could lose control of the House, Senate or both.

Trump doesn’t understand why his approval rating is underwater (and it is, on every issue, in a CNN Poll conducted by SSRS and released Friday).

Trump did talk about canceling the election in an interview with Reuters this week. He said Republicans have been so successful that “when you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

White House insists Trump is "joking" about canceling midterm elections

Asked about a comment Trump made earlier this week about canceling U.S. midterm elections, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said "he was speaking...

www.youtube.com

(YouTube & White House insists Trump is "joking" about canceling midterm elections

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later said the president was “joking” and “being facetious” about canceling the election.

If it’s a joke, it’s material he’s been working on for months. Told during an appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last September that Ukraine won’t hold an election during a period of martial law during its war with Russia, Trump expressed some envy.

While Trump might fantasize about canceling the election, the reality is that the election system is already changing in some key ways. Some of them may be enormously consequential.

Republicans have drawn themselves nine more friendly seats across the country, and Democrats have ended up with six, mostly in California. Republicans see additional opportunity in Florida, while Democrats plan a redistricting ballot initiative in Virginia in April. If the Supreme Court decides to further gut the Voting Rights Act, Republicans could in theory redraw maps in many other states.

While much of the effort has been stopped, for now, by courts, Trump’s goal is to exert more executive control over elections that are supposed to be governed by Congress and states.

http://www.cnn.com/2026/01/17/politics/midterm-elections-trump-2026-analysis

 

[spaminator]

CBS airs ‘60 Minutes’ episode on Trump deportations it pulled last month
'CBS News leadership has always been committed to airing the 60 Minutes CECOT piece as soon as it was ready,' the broadcaster said in a statement

Author of the article:Ling Hui
Published Jan 18, 2026 • 1 minute read

122225-US-Media-60-Minutes
The CBS logo at the entrance to its headquarters, in New York Dec. 6, 2018. Photo by Mark Lennihan /AP
CBS News aired an episode of 60 Minutes on Sunday night about the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants to a notorious El Salvador prison that it had pulled abruptly last month.


“CBS News leadership has always been committed to airing the ”60 Minutes“ CECOT piece as soon as it was ready,” the broadcaster said in a statement. “Tonight, viewers get to see it, along with other important stories, all of which speak to CBS News’ independence and the power of our storytelling.”


CBS News chief Bari Weiss made the controversial decision to hold Sharyn Alfonsi’s story, which was originally scheduled to air on Dec. 21, over her concern that there was a lack of response from the Trump administration in the report.

The last-minute scheduling change sparked an internal battle within the news organization, with Alfonsi telling colleagues in a memo circulated by multiple news outlets that CBS pulled the segment due to “political reasons.”

The story was updated to include Trump administration statements, although it has no new on-camera interviews, according to the Associated Press.


Alfonsi provided additional details about the two Venezuelan migrants that she interviewed about their experiences in the prison.

Though the original segment was pulled from broadcast in the U.S., a version of it was streamed on Global Television via its app before it was eventually taken offline.

— with files from the Associated Press

CBS airs ‘60 Minutes’ episode on Trump deportations it pulled last month

CBS News aired an episode of 60 Minutes about the Trump administration's deportation of migrants that it had pulled last month. Read more.

torontosun.com

 

[spaminator]

U.S. second lady Usha Vance expecting fourth child: 'Our family is growing!'
The 41-year-old Vance and his wife, 40, already share three children: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel

Author of the article:Eddie Chau
Published Jan 21, 2026 • Last updated 19 hours ago • 2 minute read

012126-JD_and_Usha_Vance
US Vice President JD Vance (L) stands with his wife Usha Vance as they take part in a tour of the Dachau Concentration Camp memorial site in Dachau, southern Germany, on February 13, 2025. Photo by TOBIAS SCHWARZ /AFP via Getty Images
It’s a boy!

On Tuesday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and his wife, second lady Usha, announced they are expecting a fourth child, a boy, in late July.


“We’re very excited to share the news that Usha is pregnant with our fourth child,” said a post on social media. “Usha and the baby are doing well, and we are looking forward to welcoming him in late July.”



The 41-year-old Vance and his wife, 40, already share three children: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel.

“During this exciting and hectic time, we are particularly grateful for the military doctors who take excellent care of our family and for the staff members who do so much to ensure that we can serve the country while enjoying a wonderful life with our children,” the announcement concluded.

How did they meet?
Born and raised in San Diego, Calif., Usha met her future husband as a student at Yale Law School in 2010 after joining a discussion group on “social decline in white America,” BBC News reported.

Usha had a career in law before becoming second lady. She was previously a corporate litigator at Munger, Tolles & Olson in San Francisco, and also worked for conservative judges such as Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court and appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Usha is the first to have a child while being second lady. However, other first ladies have had children while their husbands were in office.


Frances Cleveland, the wife of then-president Grover Cleveland, had a daughter, Esther, while in the White House in 1893




.

Vice President advocated for higher birth rates
The news of the Vance family growing comes as the Vice President has spent years advocating for higher birth rates in the United States.

When he launched his political career in 2021, Vance said he was alarmed by declining birth rates. As vice president, he said “I want more babies in the United States of America” during a 2025 March for Life speech.

The news of the Republican Vice President’s growing family comes as he has spent years passionately advocating for Americans to have more children.

– With files from Associated Press

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2013712959608946721

Second lady Usha Vance announces she is pregnant with fourth child

Vance posted on social media that she is looking forward to welcoming a boy in late July.

bbc.com

U.S. second lady Usha Vance expecting fourth child: 'Our family is growing!'

"We're very excited to share the news that Usha is pregnant with our fourth child," Vance said on social media. Read more.

torontosun.com

 

[spaminator]

U.S. second lady Usha Vance expecting fourth child: 'Our family is growing!'
The 41-year-old Vance and his wife, 40, already share three children: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel

Author of the article:Eddie Chau
Published Jan 21, 2026 • Last updated 19 hours ago • 2 minute read

012126-JD_and_Usha_Vance
US Vice President JD Vance (L) stands with his wife Usha Vance as they take part in a tour of the Dachau Concentration Camp memorial site in Dachau, southern Germany, on February 13, 2025. Photo by TOBIAS SCHWARZ /AFP via Getty Images
It’s a boy!

On Tuesday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and his wife, second lady Usha, announced they are expecting a fourth child, a boy, in late July.


“We’re very excited to share the news that Usha is pregnant with our fourth child,” said a post on social media. “Usha and the baby are doing well, and we are looking forward to welcoming him in late July.”



The 41-year-old Vance and his wife, 40, already share three children: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel.

“During this exciting and hectic time, we are particularly grateful for the military doctors who take excellent care of our family and for the staff members who do so much to ensure that we can serve the country while enjoying a wonderful life with our children,” the announcement concluded.

How did they meet?
Born and raised in San Diego, Calif., Usha met her future husband as a student at Yale Law School in 2010 after joining a discussion group on “social decline in white America,” BBC News reported.

Usha had a career in law before becoming second lady. She was previously a corporate litigator at Munger, Tolles & Olson in San Francisco, and also worked for conservative judges such as Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court and appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Usha is the first to have a child while being second lady. However, other first ladies have had children while their husbands were in office.


Frances Cleveland, the wife of then-president Grover Cleveland, had a daughter, Esther, while in the White House in 1893




.

Vice President advocated for higher birth rates
The news of the Vance family growing comes as the Vice President has spent years advocating for higher birth rates in the United States.

When he launched his political career in 2021, Vance said he was alarmed by declining birth rates. As vice president, he said “I want more babies in the United States of America” during a 2025 March for Life speech.

The news of the Republican Vice President’s growing family comes as he has spent years passionately advocating for Americans to have more children.

– With files from Associated Press

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2013712959608946721

Second lady Usha Vance announces she is pregnant with fourth child

Vance posted on social media that she is looking forward to welcoming a boy in late July.

bbc.com

U.S. second lady Usha Vance expecting fourth child: 'Our family is growing!'

"We're very excited to share the news that Usha is pregnant with our fourth child," Vance said on social media. Read more.

torontosun.com

just what we need more magats.

 

[Ron in Regina]

What to know in the Supreme Court case about immunity for former president Trump
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Mark Sherman
Published Apr 23, 2024 • 5 minute read

The cases were dropped after Trump was elected to a second term, with Smith citing judicial precedents that prevented prosecutions against a sitting president. He instead completed reports into both of the cases before resigning from his position before Trump took office.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has scheduled a special session to hear arguments over whether former president Donald Trump can be prosecuted over his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

Not while Trumps in for his second non-consecutive term it would seem.

The case, to be argued Thursday, stems from Trump’s attempts to have charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have found he cannot claim for actions that, prosecutors say, illegally sought to interfere with the election results.

Jack Smith, the former special counsel, has begun his first testimony about his criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as he appears before the House judiciary committee on Thursday January 22nd, 2026.

The Republican ex-president has been charged in federal court in Washington with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, one of four criminal cases he is facing. A trial has begun in New York over hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an alleged sexual encounter.

“As I testify before the committee today, I want to be clear I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity,” Smith said.

The hearing follows a closed-door interview last month that lasted for more than eight hours as he defended his decision to indict Trump and obtain metadata of phone calls made by Trump-allied lawmakers in Congress.

The Supreme Court is moving faster than usual in taking up the case, though not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith wanted, raising questions about whether there will be time to hold a trial before the November election, if the justices agree with lower courts that Trump can be prosecuted.

Apparently not. Smith was appointed in late 2022 to oversee two criminal investigations into Trump that had begun at the justice department before his arrival: Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and Trump’s alleged push to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The justices ruled earlier this term in another case that arose from Trump’s actions following the election, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court unanimously held that states could not invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment known as the insurrection clause to prevent Trump from appearing on presidential ballots.

The cases were dropped after Trump was elected to a second term, with Smith citing judicial precedents that prevented prosecutions against a sitting president. He instead completed reports into both of the cases before resigning from his position before Trump took office.

Here are some things to know:

WHAT’S THE ISSUE?
When the justices agreed on Feb. 28 to hear the case, they put the issue this way: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

Most of the December 2025 interview focused on the election interference case, after Smith declined to answer questions about the documents case on grounds that Aileen Cannon, the US district judge in Florida appointed by Trump who dismissed the case, also blocked the release of Smith’s report.

That’s a question the Supreme Court has never had to answer. Never before has a former president faced criminal charges so the court hasn’t had occasion to take up the question of whether the president’s unique role means he should be shielded from prosecution, even after he has left office…

…& here we (the Globe) are. Republicans spent most of their time grilling Smith on his decision to successfully obtain so-called toll records for phone calls made by Trump and his lawyers to at least nine Republican senators who were pressured to stop the certification of the 2020 election results.

Both sides point to the absence of previous prosecutions to undergird their arguments. Trump’s lawyers told the court that presidents would lose their independence and be unable to function in office if they knew their actions in office could lead to criminal charges once their terms were over.

Toll records do not pull the content of the calls, and Smith defended the move by saying they were needed to recreate a timeline in court. He added that none of the senators were targets in the criminal investigation.

Smith ultimately laid the blame for the investigation and the decision to obtain the call records of senators with Trump. “I did not choose those members, President Trump did,” Smith said then.

Smith’s team wrote that the lack of previous criminal charges “underscores the unprecedented nature” of what Trump is accused of.

He also pushed back at Republicans’ assertions that the toll records were protected by the first amendment. Accusing Trump and allies of exploiting the January 6 Capitol riot to further a criminal scheme, Smith said fraud was not protected by the first amendment.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING
The subtext of the immunity fight is about timing. Trump has sought to push back the trial until after the election, when, if he were to regain the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case….

…And he did, and then he did just that. “He was free to say that he thought he won the election – he was even free to say falsely that he won the election,” Smith said. “But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.”

Trump has repeatedly called for Smith to be prosecuted for investigating him, but there did not appear to be a clear avenue or misstatement from Smith that could form the basis of a criminal referral to the justice department.

Of the nine justices hearing the case, three were nominated by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. But it’s the presence of a justice confirmed decades before Trump’s presidency, Justice Clarence Thomas, that’s generated the most controversy.

Lanny Breuer, the lawyer representing Smith, earlier said his client welcomed the opportunity to publicly defend the investigations into Trump.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, urged the reversal of the 2020 election results and then attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot. That has prompted calls for the justice to step aside from several court cases involving Trump and Jan. 6.

“Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump’s alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents,” Breuer said.

But Thomas has ignored the calls, taking part in the unanimous court decision that found states cannot kick Trump off the ballot as well as last week’s arguments over whether prosecutors can use a particular obstruction charge against Capitol riot defendants. Trump faces the same charge in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution in Washington.

What to know in the Supreme Court case about immunity for former president Trump

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted over his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss.

torontosun.com

Jack Smith defends move to seek criminal charges for Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election — Guardian US

Ex-special counsel testifies to Republican-led House panel that he followed law in holding president to account

apple.news

 

[pgs]

The cases were dropped after Trump was elected to a second term, with Smith citing judicial precedents that prevented prosecutions against a sitting president. He instead completed reports into both of the cases before resigning from his position before Trump took office.

Not while Trumps in for his second non-consecutive term it would seem.

Jack Smith, the former special counsel, has begun his first testimony about his criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as he appears before the House judiciary committee on Thursday January 22nd, 2026.

“As I testify before the committee today, I want to be clear I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity,” Smith said.

The hearing follows a closed-door interview last month that lasted for more than eight hours as he defended his decision to indict Trump and obtain metadata of phone calls made by Trump-allied lawmakers in Congress.

Apparently not. Smith was appointed in late 2022 to oversee two criminal investigations into Trump that had begun at the justice department before his arrival: Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and Trump’s alleged push to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The cases were dropped after Trump was elected to a second term, with Smith citing judicial precedents that prevented prosecutions against a sitting president. He instead completed reports into both of the cases before resigning from his position before Trump took office.

Most of the December 2025 interview focused on the election interference case, after Smith declined to answer questions about the documents case on grounds that Aileen Cannon, the US district judge in Florida appointed by Trump who dismissed the case, also blocked the release of Smith’s report.

View attachment 32882…& here we (the Globe) are. Republicans spent most of their time grilling Smith on his decision to successfully obtain so-called toll records for phone calls made by Trump and his lawyers to at least nine Republican senators who were pressured to stop the certification of the 2020 election results.

Toll records do not pull the content of the calls, and Smith defended the move by saying they were needed to recreate a timeline in court. He added that none of the senators were targets in the criminal investigation.

Smith ultimately laid the blame for the investigation and the decision to obtain the call records of senators with Trump. “I did not choose those members, President Trump did,” Smith said then.

He also pushed back at Republicans’ assertions that the toll records were protected by the first amendment. Accusing Trump and allies of exploiting the January 6 Capitol riot to further a criminal scheme, Smith said fraud was not protected by the first amendment.

…And he did, and then he did just that. “He was free to say that he thought he won the election – he was even free to say falsely that he won the election,” Smith said. “But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.”

Trump has repeatedly called for Smith to be prosecuted for investigating him, but there did not appear to be a clear avenue or misstatement from Smith that could form the basis of a criminal referral to the justice department.

Lanny Breuer, the lawyer representing Smith, earlier said his client welcomed the opportunity to publicly defend the investigations into Trump.

“Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump’s alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents,” Breuer said.

Jack Smith defends move to seek criminal charges for Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election — Guardian US

Ex-special counsel testifies to Republican-led House panel that he followed law in holding president to account

apple.news

Nice spin .

 

[Ron in Regina]

Nice spin .

As Republicans tried to argue that former President Joe Biden and former Attorney General Merrick Garland improperly pressured Smith to bring charges against President Donald Trump — an accusation that Smith forcefully and repeatedly denied — Trump was applying pressure on his own attorney general to bring charges against Smith.

Democrats leave Jack Smith hearing ‘thrilled and frankly stunned’ Republicans let him testify — MS NOW

Both parties emerged from the Smith hearing claiming victory, but only one party seemed to want to run it back.

apple.news

Smith, for his part, was clear-eyed about the stakes of his testimony. Asked by Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., if he believes the Justice Department would find some way to indict him, Smith said he thought Trump’s DOJ would “do everything in their power” to prosecute him. “Because they’ve been ordered to by the president,” Smith said.

After the hearing, Balint argued Trump’s Truth Social post only further made her case. “It’s just astonishing that you have Republicans who continue to defend this man when, in real time, he is doing exactly the thing that we are saying he’s been doing,” Balint said.

Smith never got to argue his case in court because the cases were thrown out when Trump was re-elected. Democrats hoped Smith might litigate the case — at least, in part — during his testimony Thursday.

Instead, Smith was reserved and laconic, answering questions in a matter-of-fact manner that didn’t do much to convince the American public that Trump was guilty of crimes like conspiracy to defraud the United States or conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Oh well…

 

[pgs]

As I am sitting here today I do not recall . Seemed to be a standard answer .

 

[Ron in Regina]

Toll records do not pull the content of the calls, and Smith defended the move by saying they were needed to recreate a timeline in court. He added that none of the senators were targets in the criminal investigation.

Well, this is…something.

Smith ultimately laid the blame for the investigation and the decision to obtain the call records of senators with Trump. “I did not choose those members, President Trump did,” Smith said then.

The House on Thursday voted unanimously to tuck language into a spending bill that would repeal a law that created a new avenue for senators to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phone records without notifying them.

The 427-0 vote amounted to a bipartisan rebuke of the Senate after leaders in that chamber in November slipped the legal provision into legislation to reopen the government after the nation’s longest shutdown.

He also pushed back at Republicans’ assertions that the toll records were protected by the first amendment. Accusing Trump and allies of exploiting the January 6 Capitol riot to further a criminal scheme, Smith said fraud was not protected by the first amendment.

But maybe…now it will be. Under the language included in the bill, GOP senators whose phone records were searched as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation would have the ability to file lucrative lawsuits. (Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told Politico that it was Senate Majority Leader John Thune himself who made sure this provision was included in the final bill.)

Trump has repeatedly called for Smith to be prosecuted for investigating him, but there did not appear to be a clear avenue or misstatement from Smith that could form the basis of a criminal referral to the justice department.

So retroactively, it’s being set up so they can go after him civilly? Even by contemporary congressional standards, it was a brazen move — in part because the GOP’s “Arctic Frost” claims appear baseless, in part because the provision was added to the legislation in secret, and in part because it’s rare to see senators empower themselves to file dubious lawsuits in which they would personally be rewarded with taxpayer money.

In unanimous vote, House tries to block Senate Republicans from cashing in on faux scandal — MS NOW

After Senate Republicans empowered themselves to file lucrative “Arctic Frost” lawsuits, House Republicans voted unanimously to take that power away.

apple.news

A Roll Call report added, “Congress flouted several legal principles with an unusual provision creating a streamlined path only for senators to file lawsuits and collect at least $1 million each for government actions in the previous administration, experts and critics say.”

Lanny Breuer, the lawyer representing Smith, earlier said his client welcomed the opportunity to publicly defend the investigations into Trump.

A variety of senators, including some of the GOP members whose phone records were subpoenaed, distanced themselves from the provision. But not Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was one of the eight GOP senators eligible for a possible payout. He boasted that he intended to take advantage of the opportunity and told Fox News in November that he plans to “sue the hell out of these people,” to the tune of “tens of millions of dollars.”

“Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump’s alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents,” Breuer said.

None of this was well received in the House, including among some GOP members who were annoyed that they had been excluded from the potential payoffs.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, the House approved a measure on a 426-0 vote designed to block GOP senators from cashing in on the faux controversy. Predictably, Republican leaders in the upper chamber ignored the effort.

So this week, the House tried again, adding the same prohibition to a must-pass spending bill, which passed late Thursday.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Worried about losing unified Republican power in Washington and mystified at his lack of support among the public, President Donald Trump keeps talking about not holding the November midterm elections, when Republicans could lose control of the House, Senate or both.

Trump’s fleeting threat to conquer the Danish territory prompted the most strident Republican opposition to anything he has done since taking office a year ago. It came on the heels of challenges to his authority over military powers, healthcare legislation and the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Trump doesn’t understand why his approval rating is underwater (and it is, on every issue, in a CNN Poll conducted by SSRS and released Friday).

The mini-rebellion suggests that a small but vocal minority of Republicans feel increasingly emboldened to speak out against a 79-year-old leader who, for all his dominance of the party, is polling dismally and “could” drag them down in November’s midterm elections.

Trump did talk about canceling the election in an interview with Reuters this week. He said Republicans have been so successful that “when you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

“You’ve never had a president with this much influence and this much political and legislative success so in that sende he’s winning but his own party is starting to question and wonder out loud at what cost?” said Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster.
“He has been the most influential president since Franklin Roosevelt but the public and even people in his own party are starting (?) to wonder whether it’s too much.” (???)

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later said the president was “joking” and “being facetious” about canceling the election.

Speculating over Trump’s grip on the Republican party, and whether it shows any sign of slipping, has been a political sport for a decade, producing many false dawns along the way. Dissenting senators and representatives such as Liz Cheney have been ruthlessly purged or made to feel they have no alternative but retirement.

If it’s a joke, it’s material he’s been working on for months. Told during an appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last September that Ukraine won’t hold an election during a period of martial law during its war with Russia, Trump expressed some envy.

Trump’s biggest crisis came with his crushing defeat in the 2020 presidential election and a subsequent insurrection by a mob of his supporters at the US Capitol, prompting even loyalists such as Lindsey Graham and Kevin McCarthy to condemn him. But not even an attempted coup was enough to break the party’s cult-like fever, but maybe DHS/ICE/CBP and their lethal shenanigans backed up by Trump’s lies exposed by pretty much every adult in North America having a video camera in their pocket now…might be a deciding factor.

Trump’s Greenland brinkmanship leaves leading Republicans rattled — Guardian US

With midterms looming some in Congress have dissented from the president – but it still falls well short of a rebellion

apple.news

For much of Trump’s first year in office they gave the president such free rein on government downsizing, immigration enforcement and trade tariffs that critics said Congress had abdicated its responsibility, in effect setting up Trump as a monarch.