Michael Cohen, who was an attorney for former President Donald Trump before turning against him, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking damages relating to his imprisonment, Slate reported. The news outlet outlined the issue in a piece co-authored by Cohen's friend and his attorney, while another outlet called the case a "long shot."
In an effort to drum up support for Cohen, Slate printed a piece titled, "Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?" The authors assert that Cohen was kept in jail in retaliation for turning against Trump and attempting to write a tell-all book.
"It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020," the article began.
"Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday," authors Jon Dougherty, Cohen's attorney, and Norman L. Eisen, Cohen's friend, wrote. This passionate plea is anything but impartial.
The article describes Cohen's conviction as a grave injustice and urges Americans to join them in the fight to recover supposed damages. "Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration," the piece said.
"A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in 'retaliation' for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president," the authors claimed.
They contend that Cohen was only offered release from prison after agreeing to sign a nondisclosure agreement. A judge eventually reversed that decision and allowed Cohen to profit from his sleazy betrayal.
Still, the authors warned about the consequences of not punishing Trump and other officials for an alleged limit on Cohen's freedom of speech. "The courts must provide a deterrent remedy to right this wrong, or these 'freedoms' will become illusory. A Bivens action for damages provides such a deterrent," the authors asserted.
"An order telling the federal officials to stop what they are doing, without any further consequences for those officials, does not. Without a deterrent remedy for this particular abuse of power, we are confronted with profound implications for American life and rights: Free speech, a free press, unfettered scholarship, frequent and loud protest, and more are at stake."
These hyperbolic warnings fall flat in the face of the facts, as even MSNBC pointed out. The outlet noted that the appeal is a "long shot" for Cohen and will likely amount to nothing.
Still, as a writer for the establishment media outlet, MSNBC's Jordan Rubin threw in that Cohen's case was consequential because of an abuse of power. "[T]he case highlights the dangers of officials retaliating against critics without a legal remedy to check that behavior," Rubin wrote.
"It’s an issue that goes beyond Trump and Cohen, but it’s especially difficult to ignore in the shadow of a potential revenge-packed second Trump term," he warned. However, this warning falls flat in light of what the left has done to Trump since he left office.
The former president has been the victim of lawfare with four criminal prosecutions built on flimsy charges have been stacked against him. Trump's enemies were literally trying to imprison him and interrupt his candidacy just ahead of the 2024 election.
Despite the media's appeal, Cohen is not a sympathetic figure to most Americans. The attempt to turn his case into a cautionary tale falls flat in the face of what was actually done to Trump.
Former President Donald Trump is once again the target of lawfare following his interview with SpaceX mogul Elon Musk, Newsweek reported. Democratic political action committee End Citizens United filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging their broadcast "amounted to a virtual campaign event" for Trump.
The former president sat down with Musk on his X, formerly Twitter, for a two-hour interview. The pair spoke about a wide range of issues, including criticism of Trump's agenda and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2024
Although Democratic candidates routinely get such friendly treatment, End Citizens United believes the exposure was akin to a campaign contribution. As if the Trump family hasn't been through enough, the group filed a formal complaint against the former president on Tuesday in yet another attack against the former president using the law.
Many believe Trump has already been a victim of lawfare after facing an onslaught of questionable charges in several Democrat-run venues. However, this latest attempt to use the law against Trump is the most egregious example yet.
There's no shortage of establishment networks and news outlets falling all over themselves to prop up Harris. However, it's considered a grave injustice when Trump is the beneficiary of such treatment.
The complaint alleges that the interview on X "amounted to a virtual campaign event" for the former president, which translates to a campaign contribution. "Such a brazen corporate contribution undermines the anti-corruption aims of the Act, and the Commission should immediately investigate these violations and take appropriate remedial action," the filing contended.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 prohibits candidates from accepting these kinds of contributions from companies. In the complaint, it defines "contribution" as "anything of value" given to a candidate during the campaign that could help with their election.
It names Trump and his campaign treasurer, Bradley T. Crate, and Musk's X platform. The filing suggests the FEC "immediately investigate these violations, fine Respondents the maximum amount permitted by law, and enjoin Respondents from further violations of the law."
It's no surprise why they are making this claim given the success of the online audio-only event. According to Fox News, Musk shared that the interview received one billion views on the platform.
During the interview, Trump hammered Harris hard on many of her failings at a time when the establishment media is doing all it can to make Americans forget how awful she is. One of the main narratives they've been attempting to spin is her handling of the border issue.
While they attempted to rewrite history about Harris' role in it, Trump countered the scheme with facts. "She had three and a half years, and by the way, they have another five months that they can do something," Trump told Musk about the illegal immigration problem.
"But they won't do anything. It's all talk. She's incompetent and he's incompetent. And frankly, I think that she's more incompetent than he is, and that's saying something, because he's not too good," the former president charged.
Trump has been through so much with his opponents dragging him into court at every turn. This latest effort is particularly disgraceful considering the way Harris and other Democrats are routinely given the royal treatment by members of the media.
A Supreme Court decision in favor of presidential immunity has sent special counsel Jack Smith back to the drawing board, The Hill reported. Smith will now decide whether to change how he proceeds or abandon his case against former President Donald Trump.
Smith is pursuing Trump for his supposed involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. However, Trump has been vindicated, and the game has changed now that the high court has ruled that a president cannot be prosecuted for certain conduct.
With the Supreme Court's decision, Smith is left weighing his options on how to proceed with his case. Each charge must be tested against the standard of the decision, and that requires more time and perhaps even a new strategy.
Trump was supposed to be in court while in the thick of the 2024 presidential campaign season. Now, Smith lost that chance as it's unclear whether Trump will be back in a courtroom before the election at all.
Prior to the Supreme Court's intervention, Smith was intent on getting a jump on the trial start date. Now, he's asked the court for more time as he updates his strategy, as Election Day is less than three months away.
Smith has two clear paths to choose from now if he wishes to proceed quickly. One is for him to eliminate all charges except the ones he's sure won't get tossed because of immunity, while the other is to branch outward and begin charging others involved in the upset as his co-conspirators.
Trump's defense has done such a good job pushing back against Smith that it may be beneficial to pivot to going after others involved. Meanwhile, former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade said it's likely Smith will "choose the path of least resistance" to get his case to trial.
For McQuade, that means pursuing some of the people on Trump's legal team at the time of the riot, such as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jeff Clark. So far, Smith has focused only on Trump.
"Initially, Jack Smith did not name them, I am guessing, because he was hoping to streamline the case against Trump and get it done quickly, because it was Trump who’s the threat to democracy. But in light of the fact that there will be no trial [before the election], maybe he’s decided, 'You know what, the time’s come, I’m just going to charge the other defendants.'"
Whichever way Smith decides to proceed, he's likely to encounter the immunity issue at every turn. Even if Smith gets Trump convicted, it is likely to be overturned on appeal if any piece of evidence is deemed part of that immunity.
The Supreme Court's ruling said that actions taken by a president in an executive capacity are covered as are any official acts. That means the conversations Trump had with then-Vice President Mike Pence, which were central to Smith's case, are no longer admissible.
Other evidence will similarly be subject to the same scrutiny. "They need to make a number of decisions," University of Baltimore constitutional law professor and former federal prosecutor Kimberly Wehle said.
"They have to decide what evidence do they have left potentially within the scope of the immunity ruling. Each of the four counts [brought against Trump] is going to have its own elements that they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and they’ll have to assess whether the evidence that’s now off the table somehow collapses any of those counts so they can’t go forward," Wehle explained.
Smith was supposed to be the person to finally stop Trump as the Democrats had hoped. Unfortunately for Smith and the rest of the left, the Constitution doesn't allow for that kind of action against a former president, no matter how much they'd like it to.
Special counsel Jack Smith will have to rework his prosecution strategy following the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, the Washington Examiner reported. This will likely delay the case Smith is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has granted Smith's request to move a filing deadline from Aug. 9 to Aug. 30 in light of the high court's ruling. Another hearing that will take place in person has been moved from Aug. 16 to Sept. 5.
This comes after months of delays, thanks to the Supreme Court's willingness to consider the question. Attorneys for the 2024 GOP presidential contender previously lobbied for delays, but now it's Smith who is pushing back on the timeline.
It's clear that Trump's adversaries were hoping to wrap up these cases before Election Day in November. Now, Smith is panicking as Trump is vindicated while proceedings will begin just 60 days before the candidate's most important date.
The left had hoped to put Trump on trial again during the campaign, but now it seems unlikely that it would be started before then. The decision to hold off on the prosecution frustrates some, who wonder why Smith is reluctant to proceed.
"The downside of delay is that [to] the extent that people think there could be a hearing, a factual hearing where we hear from witnesses, the more there’s a delay, the less likely that is going to happen before the election," Andrew Weissman, a former federal prosecutor, said. Moreover, Smith and the Justice Department will have to weigh the decision against all of its proceedings.
This takes time away from prosecuting the case against when it would be most beneficial to do so in this election cycle. Trump also benefits from a new defense that could threaten any charges against him.
Before the immunity ruling, Trump was facing conspiracy charges and witness tampering in connection with his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith could choose to toss out the charges completely or revise the indictment.
However, since Trump could be immune from most of the crimes outlined by the prosecution, perhaps Smith will decide instead to go after his surrogates to save face. The conspiracy aspect of the charges gives him cover to do so, and it may be the only avenue he has left if he's still interested in getting someone on the hook.
Although it's true that Trump's immunity has complicated Smith's prosecution strategy, the decision to back off could be blatantly political. Leftists are already afraid that if Trump retakes the White House, he'll have the federal indictments dismissed.
This may be a deciding factor for Smith's decision to hold off for now. He likely sees a new avenue for legal victory if Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump's Democratic opponent, wins in November.
"Even if there’s nothing that happens between now and the election, if she is elected, this case is going to go forward," Weissmann predicted. After all, a defeated Trump will be subject to Harris' Justice Department, and Smith will have the mandate to proceed as he wishes.
If that's the case, Trump could easily see himself dragged into court over Smith's cases and more. Smith may be biding his time right now as the battle between the two candidates plays out.
It's disgraceful that Trump has been dragged into court so many times over ridiculous charges. Whether that will continue is partially up to Smith but also in the hands of voters who can stop this madness by voting Trump in as the president.
After two of the members of the far-left progressive "Squad" lost their House primaries, Republicans are circulating a plan to oust Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from her seat as well.
If Republicans vote for Omar's challenger, Don Samuels, on Tuesday in Minnesota's open primary instead of the Republican, Dalia Al-Aqidi, who is running unopposed, they might be able to defeat her.
In the last primary two years ago, Samuels only lost to Omar by 2,500 votes, so it's not inconceivable that he would be able to beat her with some Republican support this time.
Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) both lost their primaries, and at least part of the reason was their strong anti-Israel views.
Republicans are spreading the word through X about the effort through posts like this one.
You can vote Ilhan Omar out of congress on aug 13th!
Fun Fact: Ilhan Omar's primary in MN 05 is next week, August 13th.
Fun Fact: it's an OPEN primary so all registered Republicans, Independents, and Democrats can vote in the primary.
Fun Fact: Omar is running once again… pic.twitter.com/5ADCYNKZUa
— Brian BJ (@iamBrianBJ) August 7, 2024
The posts make it clear that Omar is anti-Semitic and supports police defunding, both unpopular views.
It really wouldn't take much to defeat Omar, in all likelihood.
Bush and Bowman both blamed the Democrat super PAC United Democracy Project, which has ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), for their losses.
The group spent $24 million to oust the two Squad members, but has not really come after Omar.
Other Squad members Reps. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) survived their primaries, so the coalition won't be completely decimated even if Omar can't hang on.
If a July poll is to be believed, Omar was ahead of Samuels by 27 points.
An internal poll trumpeted by Samuels said 20% of voters were still undecided then, however.
It seems that AIPAC didn't think Omar was particularly vulnerable in the race, but Tuesday will show whether they were right.
The delays and uncertainty surrounding special counsel Jack Smith's legal warfare against Donald Trump took yet another turn this week amid the government's request for additional time to decide how to move forward with its election interference case in which the former president is a defendant.
As The Hill reports, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday approved Smith's motion for an extension of time to assess the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity on the case against Trump, a move that went unopposed by the former president's legal team.
It was on Thursday that the government's team made its request for more time to evaluate how its lawyers believe the case against Trump should move forward in light of the SCOTUS decision.
The difficulties for Smith arose in the wake of the thigh court's ruling that granted Trump at least some degree of immunity for acts deemed to have been part of his “official” duties while in office.
After months of appeal-induced delay, the case was finally returned to Chutkan's jurisdiction, and that is when she weighed in on Smith's request.
Smith sought a three-week halt to a number of upcoming deadlines, indicating to many the unlikelihood that a potentially riveting evidentiary hearing complete with witness testimony might take place in advance of the presidential election.
In asking for additional time, Smith's team wrote, “The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States. Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.”
Though originally scheduled for trial on March 4 of this year, a series of subsequent appeals resulted in noteworthy delays in the case's progress, and the Supreme Court's blockbuster immunity ruling has now all but guaranteed that proceedings will be stalled far beyond November.
As the Associated Press has noted, the justices' ruling requires a new round of fact-finding regarding the nature of the conduct at issue in the election interference case, the results of which could force Smith to make radical alterations to the charges against Trump.
The ability of either of the parties to appeal rulings made throughout that process adds even greater uncertainty to the timeline, which Trump foes had hoped would see him face trial -- and perhaps even a conviction -- before voters go to the polls.
With Chutkan's grant of additional time, both parties to the case will continue working on their respective status reports in which they will offer recommendations on where the case should go next.
As such, the reports that were initially set for submission on Friday are now due on Aug. 30.
In addition, a status conference that had been slated to take place on Aug. 16 has been pushed back until Sept. 5.
Legal observers and voters alike now await the filing of Trump's and Smith's status reports that will offer key insights as to how the government might attempt to salvage its case against the former president, knowing full well that nothing determinative is likely to unfold before Election Day.
Former President Donald Trump's airplane was forced to make an emergency landing due to a mechanical failure on Friday afternoon, the National Pulse reported. The GOP presidential candidate was on his way to a rally that evening in Bozeman, Montana.
The Trump family got another scare weeks after an assassination attempt on Trump as the former president's private jet made an emergency landing in Billings, Montana. Trump released a video statement after the landing but didn't mention the mechanical issue.
"I just landed in a really beautiful place: Montana. So beautiful, flying over, and you just look down and that's the way it's supposed to be. I'm here to do some fundraisers and most important to support Tim Sheehy who's running for the U.S. Senate, and we think he's going to do really well. We're going to have a rally. And it'll be a lot of fun," Trump said on a video shared on X, formerly Twitter.
🔥🚨HAPPENING NOW: Donald Trump posted an update this after his emergency landing in Billings, Montana. pic.twitter.com/eZL4qemwrK
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) August 9, 2024
Despite the emergency landing, Trump would go on to his scheduled rally 120 miles from Billings in Bozeman, Montana, on Friday evening According to Montana Right Now's report, supporters from all over the country showed up at the Brick Breeden Fieldhouse.
Trump spoke to an eager crowd along with Tim Sheehy, the state's GOP candidate for U.S. Senate. One of the attendees told the news outlet that it was a great turnout for Trump in the Treasure State.
When asked about anything "surprising" at the rally, another attendee said that it was "just how supportive Montana is," the unnamed person told Montana Right Now. "I was not expecting everyone to show up this big. Everyone was sitting out here for a long time like it was just such a great showup."
While spectators celebrated the substance of the rally, Trump is lucky to be alive after a safe emergency landing that came weeks after an assassination attempt. According to CBS News, Trump's grown son, Eric Trump, was "infuriated" in the aftermath of the shooting on July 13 because failures in security allowed it to happen in the first place.
However, he also was thankful that his father lived through it. "I'm not an overly mushy person ... but, you know, somebody was watching down on him because it could have gone very, very differently," Eric Trump said in the days following the shooting.
It seems Trump is no stranger to these kinds of harrowing situations. The New York Post reported that Donald Trump coincidentally shared the story of another emergency landing he lived through at a speech on Thursday.
He said he was in a helicopter with Willie Brown, Kamala Harris' ex-lover when they were forced to make a quick landing. The story came up when speaking about Brown, who was the San Francisco mayor at the time.
"I know Willie Brown very well. In fact, I went down in a helicopter with him. We thought, maybe this is the end. We were in a helicopter going to a certain location together, and there was an emergency landing," Donald Trump said.
"This was not a pleasant landing, and Willie was – he was a little concerned," the former president added. There are accounts that Brown did indeed survive a crash landing at a school playground in September 2004, though it's unclear if that's the incident involving Trump.
Trump is tough as nails and certainly a survivor. Thankfully, his plane landed without incident, but like the assassination attempt, it leaves many uneasy thinking about the "what ifs" had things gone differently.
A Zoom call from the 2020 presidential election reveals that the Biden/Harris campaign used technology, psychology, and manipulation to sway voters, RedState reported. The recently surfaced video recording outlined these tactics.
The call, which occurred on Nov. 18, 2020, was a postmortem of the election strategy. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were voted into office, and the team spoke openly about their underhanded techniques that made it happen.
Internet personality Matt Orfalea leaked the footage on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday. It provides insight into just what the campaign was willing to do to get the Democrats elected, as well as what it did once Biden was in the White House.
EXCLUSIVE: In a newly discovered Zoom recording, the Biden/Harris team reveals how they manipulated voters to think Biden's mental decline was "disinformation". 🧵/1 pic.twitter.com/i5Spfxtjkb
— Matt Orfalea (@0rf) August 7, 2024
Rob Flaherty, the campaign's director for digital strategy, touted the focus on steering internet users away from "misinformation." Once someone was exposed to whatever they considered misinformation online, the manipulation would begin.
Although he would later be cagey about its definition during a Congressional hearing, Flaherty said "conversation online about corruption or mental fitness" and other narratives that would hurt Biden were misinformation. Regardless of the fact that these were serious and true concerns, Flaherty and his team were determined to suppress the information while pushing their own narrative.
He carried the same strategy into the White House. According to emails included in Orfalea's post, Flaherty strongarmed Facebook to censor opinions the administration didn't like, such as Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren's vaccine hesitancy.
He was unhappy when the platform allowed those opinions to be amplified. Flaherty made it known to someone at Facebook, whom he seemed to admonish for failing at the "reduction" of these opinions.
Emails show Flaherty carrying out the (supposedly) counter-misinformation program in the White House, pushing Facebook to censor Tucker Carlson for correctly saying the COVID-19 vaccine didn't stop transmission, and Tomi Lahren for her strong "my body, my choice" stance. /3 pic.twitter.com/QgtATjqI2Z
— Matt Orfalea (@0rf) August 7, 2024
Leaning on social media platforms and manipulating online information isn't the worst of what the Biden/Harris campaign engaged in to get elected. One of the more frightening tactics dealt with what's known as "microtargeting."
Data mining allowed them to create profiles of types of individuals and tailor messaging to them. "So we would know what kinds of messaging you would be susceptible to..., where you’re going to consume that, and then how many times we need to touch you in order to change how you think about something," Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie explained in one of the clips.
One example of this strategy included changing the minds of people who were concerned about Biden's mental acuity. By manipulating what those users would see, about 200,000 voters changed their minds about Biden.
Incidentally, Biden won by fewer than 200,000 votes in several key states. This means that these tactics translated to real votes and real results, while the people exposed to them had no idea it was orchestrated just for them.
Rather than changing minds with facts, the Biden/Harris campaign used underhanded tactics. Support for this regime was manufactured, and they're likely attempting to do the same for Harris.
CNN's Van Jones said it's "not good" that Republicans are "rejoicing" over Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate pick, the Daily Caller reported. Harris has chosen radical Gov. Tim Walz over more moderate candidates.
Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said there was "cheering at Mar-a-Lago" over Harris' choice of the Minnesota Democrat. Jones appeared Tuesday on CNN Newsroom With Jim Acosta to react to Republicans' excitement.
Jones, a former Obama administration adviser, lamented that Democrats' opponents are happy with Harris choosing the leftist governor over the other more moderate possibilities. "You see a lot of rejoicing on the right. That’s not good.”
'That's Not Good': Van Jones Says It 'Worries' Him How Conservatives 'Rejoicing' Over Harris' VP Pick pic.twitter.com/8YJ5VM8Sho
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 6, 2024
Jones compared Walz to other Democrats who were said to be on Harris' shortlist, such as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona. "What worries me is you see a lot of relief from the conservatives," Jones told Acosta.
"They were scared of Josh Shapiro … they were scared of a Mark Kelly. They thought that would help define Kamala more to the middle," Jones pointed out.
Although Shapiro is a popular governor in a swing state, many Democrats were worried that the Jewish politician would be a problem on the ticket. However, Jones thinks overlooking him caused "disquiet in the Jewish community" that adds to Democrats' woes.
"Some people had their hopes up. Maybe you’re going to get another shot at a Jewish vice president. We haven’t had that for two decades, and now that gets pulled away,” Jones said.
"Is it just because he’s a moderate, or is there some anti-Jewish bias here? So the party is still digesting this," Jones went on.
"I think if you’re a young Muslim or a young Arab or someone who’s concerned about Gaza, it gives you a reason to stay excited about Kamala because that was going to be hard for the party to digest. So you’ve got a party now trying to figure out, 'Is this good, is this bad? What does it mean for the young people?'" Jones explained.
Choosing Walz eliminated the perceived problems of choosing a Jewish running mate who would have been problematic for Democrats. However, what they're left with is someone who is likely too radical for most Americans.
"I think it is fair to call him a progressive in sheep’s clothing. When you look at his record over the last few years, what you see are transgender surgeries for minors, carbon electrical grid by 2040, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants," McEnany said.
"In function, his abortion policy allows abortion until birth. These are policies that are far to the left of America … Kamala Harris has to do the exact opposite of what Tim Walz did," the co-host of Fox News Channel's Outnumbered continued.
"Tim Walz became more progressive. Kamala Harris is trying to become more moderate. But Republicans are going to say, ‘you’ve shed all your progressive policies, but yet you chose a progressive,'" McEnany added.
There's no doubt the Harris-Walz ticket is too extreme for most Americans. However, with the cover from the mainstream media and the Washington, D.C., machine, it's quite possible they end up getting elected anyway.
Former President Donald Trump joked that he's "never going back" to his wife, Melania Trump, after getting a kiss from one of his supporters, the Inquisitr reported. This caused humorless leftists online to charge that the former first lady doesn't care anyway.
Donald Trump engaged in a playful exchange with Michaelah Montgomery, founder of the grassroots Conserve the Culture group, who spoke at his rally in Atlanta, Georgia. "This one is so smart, so sharp. She grabbed me. She gave me a kiss. I said, 'I think I'm never going back home to the First Lady,'" Donald Trump quipped.
Montgomery responded, "Shh, you were supposed to keep that quiet!" Trump was ready with his own quick retort, "See, now, for the average politician, that's death. For me, I don't care."
Trump: She gave me a kiss. I may never go back to Melania.
Melania: 🥳🎉🤞💃🍾pic.twitter.com/WBuwGIwDZu
— W Smith Ω 🧢 (@WesSmith123) August 4, 2024
Trump's exchange with Montgomery pointed to a wonderful rapport the pair have. They first met when Montgomery was "behind the counter" at a Chick-fil-A and thanked the former president for what he did to save Clark Atlanta University, which is designated one of the nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
While the live crowd understood and appreciated their lighthearted exchange, the internet tried to turn it into a scandal. Some took offense to the verbiage Trump used to describe Montgomery.
"Wait, did I hear him correctly? 'This one is smart?' What does he mean 'this one?' Why am I offended by that? Melania doesn't want him!" one user posted to X, formerly Twitter.
Others took swipes at Trump's wife and their marriage. "I don't think Melania cares, Donald," another user said.
A user chimed with one post saying, "She doesn't!" while another claimed, "She's celebrating." Trump's detractors have no sense of humor and will use any excuse to denigrate at his character and his marriage.
Before Trump and Montgomery engaged in the banter that made the internet denizens apoplectic, Montgomery spoke out against Harris and her pandering. Last week, Trump pointed out that Harris "happened to turn black" only recently when it became convenient, the UK Daily Mail reported.
The vice president and Democratic presidential nominee's background is Asian and Jamaican. However, Harris and her surrogate have embraced her identity only as a Black woman.
Montgomery echoed Trump's viewpoint about this shift in her remarks at the rally. "I'm trying to figure out what all the outrage is about because she's only black when it's time to get elected," Montgomery said.
"The same Black people who are mad at Trump for being confused about her race, ethnicity, nationality, whatever, are seemingly forgetting that while you're touting her as a savior for black people, she identifies as an Asian woman. She chose her side, and it wasn't ours," Montgomery added.
Trump is naturally funny, and that is part of his charm among his supporters. However, the left is devoid of such lightness about many things, most especially when it involves Trump.