U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the current speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, recently disclosed a shocking revelation that President Joe Biden allegedly made to him about the southern border crisis.
Johnson did so multiple times this past week, including during an appearance Friday on the Fox News Channel's America's Newsroom.
During his Fox appearance, Johnson talked about how he has been pushing Biden to use his executive authority to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.
Johnson, in particular, says that he has been encouraging Biden to reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy. This was the policy that former President Donald Trump used to reduce illegal immigration by requiring immigrants who illegally cross into the United States to "remain in Mexico" while their immigration case makes it through the courts.
"If he would just do one executive order and reinstate Remain in Mexico, the border patrol, the people in charge, say it would reduce the flow by 70 percent," Johnson told Fox.
It was at this point that Johnson made a rather shocking revelation.
Johnson said, "I told [Biden] that, I said, 'Why won't you do it?' He goes, 'Mexico doesn't want to do that.'"
We are relying here on Johnson's account of what Biden allegedly said, so we don't know for sure. But, if Biden did say it, then it is fairly surprising - surprising to think that the president of the United States is essentially taking orders from Mexico.
Johnson made the same claim on Thursday, the day before his Fox News appearance. This time Johnson told reporters what Biden said, and the speaker added some extra details.
Johnson said:
How do you reduce the flow? The answer is simple. You reinstate Remain in Mexico, that alone would reduce the flow by 70 percent — that’s their estimate. I told the president that at the White House again. He acted as though he had never heard that, didn’t understand, said he couldn’t do it. I said, "That’s not true." "Well, Mexico doesn’t want that," [Biden said].
The House speaker then told reporters that he responded to Biden by saying, "Mr. President. We’re the United States, Mexico will do what we say, OK. President Trump did it. Why can’t you do it?"
A record amount of illegal immigration continues to take place under the administration of Biden. Upon taking office, Biden infamously repealed Trump's stringent and effective border policies, which precipitated the crisis that has followed.
Now, however, it is an election year and Biden is getting hammered in the polls on the issue of illegal immigration.
So, Biden is trying to make it appear as though he is addressing the issue, when, in actuality, he is not.
Former President Donald Trump has often and repeatedly accused Special Counsel Jack Smith of engaging in election interference on behalf of President Joe Biden with his two criminal indictments that Smith is trying to push to trial, if not also convictions and sentencing, before voters cast their ballots in November.
Now that election interference accusation has been formally put forward in a complaint filed by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that calls for an internal DOJ investigation against Smith, The Hill reported.
In the formal complaint, Gaetz, one of Trump's allies in Congress, asserted that the special counsel may be in violation of a DOJ regulation that generally prohibits prosecutorial actions ahead of an election if those actions might be perceived as interfering with or altering the results in favor of one candidate over another.
In the letter to IG Horowitz, Rep. Gaetz pointed to section 9-85.500 of the DOJ Manual, which applies to all federal prosecutors, including Special Counsel Smith, and states: "Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."
"Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department's mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution," the provision added.
Gaetz went on to observe that Smith has, in multiple legal filings, including at the Supreme Court, frequently urged the courts to move with great haste in settling various pre-trial motions and appeals, such as former President Trump's claimed immunity from prosecution, and just as frequently has cited a great "public importance" that the cases against Trump be rapidly concluded, albeit without explicitly stating any reasons why such speed is necessary.
"Were there a legitimate, non-election related purpose for this request, these attorneys, who have filed in appeals courts many times, would have listed such," Gaetz wrote. "Since charges have been filed and the defendant himself is taking a legal position on timing and lodging various appeals, that justification cannot, for example, be the rights of the defendant under the Constitution or Speedy Trial Act."
"So, there can be only one conclusion: Special Counsel Jack Smith sees it as of paramount importance to hold a trial before the November 2024 election, but he is unable to explicitly say so, as such a justification is in violation of Departmental policy and law," the congressman asserted.
Rep. Gaetz went on to point out that numerous legal commentators from across the ideological spectrum, including those who oppose former President Trump, have called out Special Counsel Smith for his overt and readily apparent efforts to rush through his criminal prosecutions of Trump before the November election.
"It is indisputable that we are already in an election season. However, the Justice Manual does not set hard dates," he continued. It is the core of prohibited conduct that a purpose (not the purpose) of any official action of a prosecutor be to affect any election: it may be morally correct that the American people should see swift resolution of this case, perhaps with dropped charges or a Trump acquittal before the November 2024 Presidential election, but wielding Executive Branch authority in the service of this is a violation of law. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard."
The Florida congressman reminded IG Horowitz that it was his "statutory mission" to investigate potential violations of DOJ policies and regulations, and further observed that the DOJ has been resistant to and uncooperative with outside efforts from Congress to initiate any such interbranch probes, which necessitates the IG's "immediate attention into compliance of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith with Departmental regulations, particularly related to investigatory and prosecutorial actions during an election season."
"The precise scope of an investigation may be as narrow as interviewing the Special Counsel, and determining that he has a lawful purpose in seeking the expediting of his case against Donald Trump, and determining that he did not have the purpose of keying a trial date to the election calendar. Or it may be wider," Gaetz's letter concluded. "Please alert my office of any developments in this matter."
In a statement that accompanied the public release of the letter to IG Horowitz, Rep. Gaetz said, "The witch hunt against President Trump by Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith is a partisan exercise, and the American people know it."
"The actions of the Special Counsel Smith to speed up the trial against President Trump violate the DOJ’s rules and the law," he added. "His public comments and his office’s briefs before the Supreme Court demonstrate that he has no reason for his actions other than to unlawfully interfere in the 2024 presidential election."
The U.S. Supreme Court this week, in unanimously reversing the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling last year to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's ballots, determined that only Congress, and not individual states, can declare a presidential candidate disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Now some House Democrats, led by Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD), have wasted little time in following that determination from the Supreme Court and immediately launched an effort to legislatively disqualify Trump and others who "engaged in insurrection" from holding office, Axios reported.
Raskin, a known hater of Trump, is the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, served as an impeachment manager against Trump, and was a member of the now-defunct and overtly anti-Trump House Jan. 6 Select Committee.
"Congress will have to try and act," Rep. Raskin told Axios of the Supreme Court's 14th Amendment ruling against Colorado's removal of Trump from its ballots, and asserted, "I'm working on it -- today."
He pointed to legislation he cosponsored in 2022 with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) that he'd like to revisit which, if passed into law, would create a civil litigation process for the federal government or private citizens to sue to have a candidate adjudicated as disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment.
"We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court's decision," Raskin said of the introduced legislation that never made it out of a committee when Democrats previously controlled the House.
He further suggested that the bill would be paired with a resolution he cosponsored with Wasserman Schultz -- again, which failed to move beyond a committee -- that would formally declare the Jan. 6 Capitol riot of 2021 to be an "insurrection" against the U.S. government, as well as disqualify all "participants" in that event from holding office under the 14th Amendment.
"I don't have a lot of hope that Speaker [Mike] Johnson (R-LA) will allow us to bring enforcement legislation to the floor, but we have to try and do it," Raskin told Axios, and added that if Democrats regain control of the House in November, this effort would be "one on a huge list of priorities" and that, "It's clearly something that we need to focus on."
Newsweek reported that Rep. Raskin also shared his plans to legislatively disqualify former President Trump from holding office during an appearance on CNN to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling that overrode Colorado's removal of Trump from the ballot.
"I'm working with a number of my colleagues -- including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell -- to revive legislation," Raskin explained, "to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment."
"The House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it," the Maryland congressman continued. "So, the House has already pronounced upon that, and there was also a 57 to 43 vote in the Senate."
"The question is whether Speaker Mike Johnson would allow us to bring this to the floor of the House," Raskin added, echoing the uncertainty he raised in comments to Axios.
While Rep. Raskin is clearly motivated by his dislike of former President Trump and desire to see him forever barred from holding presidential power, there appears to be one major problem with his plan -- the resurrected legislation has no chance of taking effect before November's election, and assuming Trump wins that election and returns to power while Democrats retake the House, any subsequent bills passed by a Democratic House would end up on President Trump's desk.
Perhaps Raskin will revise the bill to make it retroactive, a constitutionally dubious prospect, or add language to make the "insurrection" disqualification grounds for impeachment, but even that seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster and the whole thing reeks of yet another longshot partisan effort to "get Trump" that Democrats apparently can't help themselves from pursuing.
Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a speech on Sunday in which she called for an "immediate ceasefire" in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, and used the remarks to stridently call out both sides of the combat for their perceived violations.
According to one report, however, Harris' prepared remarks were heavily edited ahead of time by the National Security Council to strip out and tone down "harsher language toward Israel on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza," the Daily Caller reported.
Such language, had it been left in the original draft of the speech, likely would have been intended to appeal to the Biden administration's anti-Israel critics on its far-left flank, but also likely would have resulted in potentially severe damage to the already strained relations between the U.S. and the embattled Jewish nation that is its most important ally in the Middle East.
On Sunday, VP Harris traveled to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 59th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday," when civil rights activists were brutally attacked by law enforcement while attempting to march across a bridge.
At the outset of her remarks, however, Harris first addressed "the humanitarian crisis in Gaza," which she said was "devastating" and a "horrific tragedy" as "innocent Palestinians" reportedly faced starvation and insufficient aid in worsening conditions that she described as "inhumane."
She then turned her attention to Israel and, to great applause from the audience, critically said, "And the Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid. No excuses. They must open new border crossings. They must not impose any unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of aid. They must ensure humanitarian personnel, sites, and convoys are not targeted. And they must work to restore basic services and promote order in Gaza so more food, water, and fuel can reach those in need."
To be sure, Harris was also sharply critical of Hamas, which has "shown no regard for innocent life, including for the people of Gaza, who have suffered under its rule for almost two decades." She further called out the "brutal terrorist organization" for its Oct. 7 atrocities that sparked the current conflict, including the taking of Israeli and American hostages, and asserted that it must be "eliminated" as a threat toward Israel.
"I will repeat: The threat of -- Hamas poses to the people of Israel must be eliminated. And given the immense scale of suffering in Gaza, there must be an immediate ceasefire -- for at least the next six weeks, which is what is currently on the table," the vice president stated. "This will get the hostages out and get a significant amount of aid in. This would allow us to build something more enduring to ensure Israel is more secure and to respect the right of the Palestinian people to dignity, freedom, and self-determination."
"Hamas claims it wants a ceasefire. Well, there is a deal on the table. And as we have said, Hamas needs to agree to that deal," Harris added. "Let’s get a ceasefire. Let’s reunite the hostages with their families. And let’s provide immediate relief to the people of Gaza."
According to NBC News, which cited at least four anonymous current and former U.S. officials, Vice President Harris' speech was "watered down" with adjustments to her tone and criticisms of Israel by the National Security Council before she was permitted to deliver it -- an allegation that the VP's team thoroughly denied.
"The original draft of Harris’ speech, when it was sent to the National Security Council for review, was harsher on Israel about the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the need for more aid than were the remarks she ultimately delivered," the anonymously-sourced report stated. "Two of the U.S. officials said the initial draft specifically called out Israel more directly about the need to immediately allow additional aid trucks in. One of them described Harris’ original language as strong but not controversial."
For what it is worth, a spokesperson for Harris said the NBC report was "inaccurate" about changes made to the VP's speech, and further claimed that "The Vice President felt it was important to address the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, given recent developments, and to reiterate our Administration’s call on Hamas to accept the terms of the hostage dea."
As for the potential ceasefire deal VP Harris pushed in her speech, The Washington Post reported Monday that it is being negotiated by Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S., and while both Israel and Hamas have supposedly agreed to the general framework of the deal that will hopefully be in place when Ramadan begins -- a pause in the fighting. increased humanitarian aid for Gaza, and a swap of Palestinian prisoners for some of Hamas' hostages -- both sides remain hung up on some of the particular details and have made demands that are unlikely to be met.
Israel has been reluctant to negotiate until Hamas provides definitive information on the number and status of the hostages it still holds, which Hamas has thus far refused to do. Meanwhile, Hamas has insisted that it will only release its hostages in exchange for prisoners held by Israel once Israel completely withdraws all its troops from Gaza, but Israel has refused to pull out until Hamas has been destroyed as a viable threat and effective fighting force.
One of former President Donald Trump's closest associates, the Trump Organization's former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, will soon be headed to prison again to serve more time behind bars.
Weisselberg on Monday pleaded guilty to two felony counts of perjury brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over lies the ex-CFO ostensibly told first to investigators and then later during testimony amid Trump's recently concluded civil fraud trial, the New York Post reported.
As part of a plead deal with prosecutors that reportedly will result in his serving another five months in prison, Weisselberg, 76, admitted that he had previously been dishonest when asked about his knowledge of Trump's false claim on financial documents that his Trump Tower apartment was approximately 30,000 square feet in size when it is only about 11,000 square feet.
Prosecutors from DA Bragg's office accused Weisselberg of twice lying under oath -- first during a May 12, 2023, deposition and again during his October 10, 2023, trial testimony -- about when he first became aware that his former boss, Donald Trump, had falsely tripled the claimed size of his Trump Tower apartment.
Weisselberg had claimed that he only learned of the false claim about the size of the Trump Tower apartment from a 2017 Forbes article, but prosecutors confronted him with an audio tape of him being informed about the discrepancy by a Forbes reporter before the article was published, and provided further evidence which suggested that he may have been aware as far back as 2012.
The former Trump Organization CFO had previously suggested that this and other discrepancies were mere "exaggerations" and minor mistakes that didn't mean much in the broader picture.
Neither he nor his attorneys responded to requests for comment after the guilty plea, and Weisselberg is due back in court on April 10 for a sentencing hearing, in which he is expected to receive another five-month sentence. He previously served part of a five-month sentence in the notorious Rikers Island prison after pleading guilty in 2022 to tax evasion charges related to off-the-books benefits and perks he had received from the company he helped manage for decades.
ABC News reported that a spokesperson for DA Bragg said in a statement following Weisselberg's guilty plea on Monday, "It is a crime to lie in depositions and at trial -- plain and simple."
"Allen Weisselberg took an oath to be truthful, and then committed perjury both at depositions during the New York State Attorney General's Investigation and Proceeding, as well as at their recent trial," the prosecutor's statement added. "Today, Allen Weisselberg is pleading guilty to this felony and being held responsible for his conduct."
Of course, Trump and those representing him saw the situation differently, as Trump's attorney Christopher Kise said, "Alvin Bragg continues to waste public resources in a tyrannical attempt to impede President Trump's ongoing ascent to the White House," and added that the perjury charges "have no place in our justice system."
Likewise, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement that Bragg "has been on a crusade of vindictive and oppressive pressure leading, today, to a forced plea by Allen H. Weisselberg," and added that "innocent Americans cannot continue to be harassed, and we have to save our Country."
The Trump Organization also issued a statement that praised Weisselberg as a "loving and devoted husband, father, and grandfather" who had dedicated nearly 50 years of life in service to the company.
"He is now being used as a pawn in a scorched earth attempt to harm the former President," the statement continued. "The District Attorney is bringing a criminal prosecution involving employee benefits that neither the IRS nor any other District Attorney would ever think of bringing."
"This is not justice; this is politics," the Trump Organization's statement added.
One of Hunter Biden's former legal clients is threatening to sue the first son if he does not return the client's $1 million deposit.
According to the New York Post, the former client is Dr. Patrick Ho.
The outlet reports:
Hunter Biden was paid $1 million by Chinese firm CEFC to act as attorney for its employee, Dr. Patrick Ho, but now Ho is threatening to sue the first son within seven days unless he gets the money back — because he claims Hunter did no legal work for him.
The Post published this report on Sunday, so the clock is ticking.
Ho, according to the Post, made his demand in a letter that was sent by the Hong Kong law firm Huen & Partners to Hunter Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell.
The Post goes on to provide the details of the agreement that included a $1 million retainer fee.
"The $1 million legal retainer was wired from CEFC in China to CEFC’s Hong Kong HSBC account, and then, on November 2, 2017, to the American bank account of Hudson West III (HWIII), the firm Hunter co-owned with CEFC, and then to Hunter’s private firm, Owasco, according to his California tax indictment," the outlet reports.
But, "why, specifically, was Hunter Biden given the money?" you may ask.
Apparently, it was to help Ho with the legal troubles that he ran into in 2017.
Ho, at the time was arrested - and he ended up being convicted two years later - for paying bribes to the presidents of Chad and Uganda. He was given a three-year prison sentence for the crimes.
Hunter Biden, apparently, was supposed to help Ho out, but the first son allegedly never did.
The Post reports, "According to Ho, Hunter, 54, pocketed the $1 million but did no legal work for him, other than call another attorney, Edward Kim, and turn up half an hour late for a meeting with Ho and Kim at the Manhattan Correctional Center the morning after Ho’s arrest. Hunter didn’t visit Ho, 74, even once in jail, Ho has told friends bitterly."
The outlet goes on to reveal that Hunter Biden has, in court, under oath, admitted to receiving the $1 million deposit from the CEFC. But, under questioning from the judge, Hunter Biden struggled with the details of the legal arrangement between him and Ho.
At the time of this writing, it does not appear that either Hunter Biden or his lawyer has responded to Ho's request for a return of the $1 million.
A softball player for Baylor University has been arrested.
The local CBS affiliate KWTX 10 reports that 23-year-old McKenzie Wilson has been charged with theft.
Wilson is the lead-off hitter and the center fielder for Baylor's softball team. At the university, she is a senior who is studying broadcast journalism.
Now, however, Wilson has landed herself in some legal trouble.
Wilson is alleged to have stolen over $1,200 worth of goods from the Target located in Waco. Rather than take all of the goods at once, it is alleged that she took them over the course of more than 10 visits to the store.
"On May 13, 2023, McKenzie Wilson failed to scan and pay for multiple Hero Cosmetics items valued at $119.41 at the Target Retail Store …” the affidavit states.
It continues, "The theft of Hero Cosmetics items was captured by security cameras. Target Loss Prevention also provided video evidence of 11 other thefts that occurred throughout the rest of 2023 and some in 2024 where McKenzie failed to scan and pay for Hero Cosmetics items."
The most that Wilson allegedly stole on any one of these outings was $136.87 worth of goods, which took place, just recently, on Feb. 5, 2024. The least she allegedly stole was $11.99 worth of goods on Sept. 23, 2023.
This may suggest that she got bolder with every theft.
Wilson has been charged with a Class A misdemeanor for thefts that fall between $750 and $2,500. Accordingly, she could face a fine of as much as $4,000 and a term of imprisonment for up to a year.
This, however, may end up being a small change compared to the consequences that the theft could have on her life going forward.
Baylor, thus far, has only decided to suspend Wilson from this past weekend's softball games. It does not appear as though the university is going to take any further action - or, at least, it is not going to take any further action at the time.
Brent Ingram, Baylor's assistant athletic director for communications, has put out a statement, saying, "We are aware of the reported situation, and based on the available information, we have taken the appropriate action. We will continue to handle this matter internally and in accordance with university protocols. We will have no further comment."
Wilson was held in jail on a $1,000 bond. That bond has been posted, and she has been released from the McClennan County Jail. Reports have yet to indicate whether a court date has been set.
Kensington Palace has released a statement to Page Six providing an update on Kate Middleton's condition, following her recent hospital stay.
The reader may remember that Middleton had abdominal surgery in January. No details, however, about why the surgery was needed have been provided, which has led to widespread speculation - and even conspiracy theories - about what could be wrong with Middleton.
The speculation was intensified this week when Middleton's husband, Prince William, decided to skip a memorial service. There will be more on this in a moment.
It is clear, however, that, with its statement to Page Six, the Royal Palace is hoping to cut back on some of the speculation surrounding Middleton.
In its statement to Page Six, Kensington Palace, the home of the Royal Family, insisted that the 42-year-old Middleton is "doing well," with regard to her recovery from her abdominal surgery.
The Palace, however, refused to say much more than this.
This is because the Palace said that it would only be providing "significant updates" on Middleton's condition, and, thus far, there, apparently, are no "significant updates" to provide.
"Kensington Palace made it clear in January the timelines of the princess’ recovery and we’d only be providing significant updates. That guidance stands," the Palace told Page Six.
Chances are that this statement is probably not going to do a whole lot to cut back on those Kate Middleton conspiracy theories that are going around.
This past week, Prince William decided to skip one of his royal engagements.
ABC News reports, "William was scheduled to attend a service of Thanksgiving for King Constantine of Greece at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, but was forced to drop out of the ceremony Tuesday."
The big question is "Why?" The Palace provided this statement: "Unfortunately, The Prince of Wales is no longer able to attend the King Constantine Memorial Service this morning due to a personal matter."
ABC News was able to confirm that "the personal matter was not related to his father King Charles III's health." The king, of course, has been diagnosed with cancer, and it was reasonable to assume that this could have had something to do with William's absence.
But, now with the king's health issues being ruled out, many are wondering whether William's absence has to do with his wife's health problems. At this time, we simply do not know the answer to this question.
Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin was grilled during a Thursday hearing by Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee over his previously undisclosed prolonged hospitalization in early January -- even the White House had been uninformed -- that was only publicly revealed by leaks to the media several days later.
Of particular note during that hearing was Austin's admission that normal notification procedures were not followed, though he appeared to blame his top aides and staffers for the fact that even President Joe Biden was unaware of his absence from the usual chain of command, Breitbart reported.
However, the secretary nonetheless insisted that, because Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks had been placed in charge temporarily -- albeit while on vacation and without knowing why -- the critical chain of command was never actually broken.
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), himself a combat veteran, used his time to question Sec. Austin about the secret transfer of power to Hicks when he was hospitalized on Jan. 1 for complications from a recent surgical procedure and found that the transfer decision had been made not by Austin but rather by his aides and without anybody else's knowledge or oversight.
Asked if he made the transfer of authority decision, Austin acknowledged, "I did not. The decision was whether or not they had reached a point, a threshold, where I could not communicate, or have access to secure communications."
When pressed on who made that consequential decision without notifying anybody else, the secretary admitted, "Well, as my assistants conferred, they agreed that we had reached that threshold, and they should put the process in place and they did, and I think it was the right decision."
Breitbart reported that at another point during the hearing, while taking questions from Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI), Sec. Austin admitted that he didn't have a phone with him while hospitalized and couldn't be reached or communicated with, and seemed to suggest that his top aides and staffers were to blame for the fact that the White House and President Biden were not notified for several days that he was incapacitated and out of the command loop.
Speaking of his time as a hospitalized "patient," Austin said, "And so my expectation is that the organization informed the right agencies."
"So it wasn’t your fault, it was the staff’s fault?" McClain asked about the lack of proper notifications, to which the secretary replied, "Well, I didn’t have access to any kind of communications during that time."
That lack of communication about the undisclosed breakdown in the chain of command was keyed in on by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who noted that elements of the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division, which is based in her district, were deployed to Iraq and Syria and involved in a major military operation that could have resulted in retaliatory strikes during the time that Sec. Austin was secretly hospitalized without even President Biden being aware.
"First of all, I would say that when we’re attacked we have a right to defend ourselves and respond immediately if it’s a local attack," Austin explained. "If a strike is warranted, then recommendations need to be provided to the President. Those recommendations come through from me and after I’ve consulted with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the Combatant Commander. The Deputy Secretary would have done the same thing and she has all of the capabilities and situational awareness to do that."
"Except the President wasn’t aware. The President of the United States was not aware that you were not in the Chain of Command, so God forbid there was a retaliatory strike, that would have caused potential delays and it is unacceptable," the congresswoman fired back, and later reiterated how "unacceptable" it was for there to have been a "breakdown in communication" with the president at a critical time.
Austin insisted that Biden "is clearly at the top of the chain in terms of command and control, but what is important is that we provide him with credible options that he can pursue to address any situation and it would’ve happened in this case," but Stefanik countered, "Except he was unaware, so what’s important is the President was unaware of this breakdown in command and control and you were not there in terms of who he would hear from."
Former President Donald Trump, as expected, filed an appeal of the massive judgment imposed against him by Judge Arthur Engoron in the civil fraud case brought against him in New York by that state's Democratic Attorney General Letitia James.
On Wednesday, Trump won a partial victory in that process as an appellate judge stayed some of the more onerous business-related provisions included in the judgment, though he remains on the hook for the hundreds of millions of dollars he now ostensibly owes the state, the Daily Caller reported.
The outrageous judgment followed a lengthy but one-sided jury-less trial, with a clearly biased judge and prosecutor aligned against him, in which Trump was declared guilty of engaging in fraudulent business practices even though the state failed to prove any individuals or entities had been victimized by the alleged fraud.
CBS News reported that New York Appellate Judge Anil Singh ruled on Wednesday that former President Trump still needed to post a bond in the full amount of the judgment against him, at least $454 million and rising by the day, if he wanted to halt the immediate enforcement and collection efforts launched by AG James.
However, despite concerted opposition from the prosecutors, the judge did agree to grant Trump's request for a stay on some of the other punitive measures imposed by Judge Engoron, including a three-year ban on his ability to continue leading his eponymous Trump Organization and a three-year ban on his ability to apply for and receive loans from New York-based financial institutions.
That means that, at least for now, Trump can continue to run his real estate empire and take out any necessary loans to cover the bond that is needed to forestall enforcement of the judgment while the appeals process plays out.
Trump had offered to post a $100 million bond for that purpose and had argued that, without the ability to take out loans, he would have been compelled to liquidate and sell off some of his assets to come up with the full amount needed for the bond -- an argument that AG James asserted only bolstered her efforts to seek immediate enforcement of the judgment against him.
Those who have followed along with this saga will recall that AG James ran for office in 2018 on an explicit pledge to New York voters to "get Trump," and though she failed to find anything criminal to use against the former president, she did finally bring the civil fraud charges against him, his adult sons, the Trump Organization, and some of its top executives in 2022, according to the Daily Caller.
That jury-less trial in Judge Engoron's court began with a guilty verdict in September and finally ended this month with a $354 million punitive judgment compounded by pre-trial interest and continuing daily accrual of more interest every day until it is paid in full.
Meanwhile, per the CBS News report, James has been taunting Trump since the verdict from Engoron and openly discussing her intentions to begin seizing and liquidating some of his properties as soon as possible, despite the ongoing appeals process.
The Daily Caller reported that George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has been outspokenly critical of the entire civil fraud case brought by AG James and the excessive judgment plus punitive measures imposed by Judge Engoron, called former President Trump's partial win at the appellate level a "mixed victory" on Wednesday.
In an interview with Fox News host Martha MacCallum, Turley said, "It still leaves him with a rather onerous burden, but the decision of the lower court, in my view, was unfair. The judge imposed an unprecedented penalty under this law for this type of conduct."
"In fact, none of us have seen this law applied in this way. And by doing so, you not only hit Trump with this massive award, but required Trump to put the money up front under a separate rule, which requires you to deposit money or to get a bond," he continued. "And then Trump was hit with a 30-day deadline to do so, and then on top of that, he was unable to do business with some of the New York banks. Most of us felt that that was really beyond the pale."
"At some point, it becomes confiscatory just in order to bring an appeal. If you’re contesting an order taking your home, you shouldn’t have to sell your home to appeal that order," Turley added. "But people like Attorney General James were talking about precisely that. She was naming properties that she might seize or he might sell just to get the court of appeals to look at this opinion. So, it is a mixed victory for Trump, but it does give him some more options he didn’t have before."