Trump nods off in court on Day One of criminal trial, prompting critics to blast him as "old and weak"; one wondered if this could happen in the Situation Room

Donald Trump nods off at Day One of hush-money trial (UK Express)

 

Perhaps the hottest topic on the first day of Donald Trump's hush-money trial was the former president's disheveled appearance. He even was reported to have fallen asleep several times during the proceedings. That gave critics a chance to mock "Sleepy Don" as "old and weak." It also allowed meme artists to have a field day. (See image at the end of this post.)

Perhaps Trump was drowsy because he apparently was awake much of the previous night railing about his legal travails on Truth Social. Whatever the cause, courtroom observers said it presented a bad look. Critics said Trump came away from Day One looking "old and weak." Raw Story expounds on the issue under the headline "'Old and weak': Observers roast Trump for taking 'nap time' at hush-money trial." Brad Reed writes:

Former President Donald Trump reportedly nodded off during the first day of his hush-money trial in New York on Monday, and it didn't take long for his internet critics to pounce.

According to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, Trump's head on Monday kept "dropping down" while in court, with his mouth going "slack."

Given all of the jokes Trump has made about his political opponents' stamina over the years, including his decision to label President Joe Biden as "Sleepy Joe" in 2020, many users on Twitter mocked him for not even being able to stay awake at his own criminal trial for a day.

"If Trump is too old and weak to stay awake at his own criminal trial, what do you think will happen in the Situation Room?" asked Pod Save America host Dan Pfeiffer.

"Sleepy Don ... doesn’t have the stamina, the strength, the manhood to endure even a few hours in court," cracked anti-Trump strategist Rick Wilson. "Sad! Weak! Low-T!"

The anti-Trump Lincoln Project, of which Wilson is a cofounder, sarcastically asked, "Where's Mike Lindell when you need him," a reference to the Trump-loving pillow monger who became infamous for spouting false claims about voting machines stealing the 2020 election from Trump.

"Poor baby," joked Twitter user Alison Berkowitz. "Nap time!"

The Twitter account for Republican Voters Against Trump noted the irony of Trump dozing off, given his nickname for Biden. "'Sleepy Joe' is projection, like everything else," they wrote.

David DeWitt, a former court reporter and current editor-in-chief at the Ohio Capital Journal, noted that he "never saw a felony defendant sleep during his criminal trial like Trump apparently is doing."

Twitter user Francis Maxwell, meanwhile, pondered just how the president's staunchest supporters would spin him falling asleep."How long before the MAGA cultists claim Trump was actually deep in prayer as opposed to taking a catnap during his own criminal trial?" he wondered.

 

 

Compared to the other three criminal cases facing Donald Trump, the Stormy Daniels hush-money case, which begins today in NY, could be more substantive than the American public has been led to believe

Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels (Getty)

 

Based on media coverage, Donald Trump's hush-money case in New York -- the one involving former porn actress Stormy Daniels -- has been a virtual afterthought compared to attention heaped on the other three pending criminal cases against the former president and presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 race against Democratic incumbent Joe Biden.

But Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin says the public should not be lulled into a sense of complacency about the hush-money matter, which is scheduled to begin this morning in New York City. And the case's importance goes beyond the historic aspect of Trump being the first former president to stand trial on criminal charges. The case itself, Rubin writes, carries more weight and substance than many Americans have been led to believe. 

Rubin explains in an op-ed piece under the headline "Don’t overlook these five aspects of Trump’s N.Y. trial." She writes:

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed the first criminal case ever against a former president. Despite criticism that the case was small potatoes, the case is more substantial and more likely to lead to conviction and jail time than coverage has suggested. The 34-count business falsification case may be the only case against former president Donald Trump to reach a verdict before the November election. As a result, it may well shake up the presidential race. Here are five things to keep in mind as the trial begins today.

(1) The same key facts were considered in Trump’s first impeachment.

Trump’s first impeachment seems like ancient history. But House impeachment investigators interviewed Hope Hicks and Michael Cohen, and delved into the facts concerning payment to women to silence them before the 2016 election. The hush money scheme was grist for impeachment because procuring office by corrupt means can be a sufficient basis for impeachment.

While impeachment ultimately focused solely on the Ukraine “perfect call,” obtaining office by corrupt means is central to Bragg’s case. When Trump allegedly falsified documents to disguise the hush money, he violated New York law, Bragg will argue. (“The core is not money for sex,” he told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. “We would say it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.”)

A conviction would impose accountability for the scheme that helped put Trump in the White House. That would be a key affirmation of the rule of law.

(2) Yes, if convicted his punishment might include jail time.

Norman Eisen, former counsel to House impeachment managers (who investigated the hush money scheme as described above), in an analysis and compendium of trial materials, “Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial,” employs a unique argument to conclude that “Trump’s case presents legally cognizable aggravating factors that make a sentence of incarceration not only possible but likely, and there are many examples of first-time offenders charged with this offense getting jail time.” Eisen explains how he reached that conclusion:

New York State aggregate case data suggest that approximately one in ten cases in which the most serious charge at arraignment is falsifying business records in the first degree (and in which the court ultimately imposes a sentence) results in a sentence of imprisonment. Our analysis of the raw data available from New York State shows that between November 2020 and March 20, 2024, there were 457 cases with a final disposition in which the most serious charge at arraignment was falsifying business records in the first degree. Fifty-five of these cases — or approximately 12 percent of the total — resulted in a prison sentence.

Comparing cases in which first-time offenders were sentenced to incarceration for falsifying business records in commission of campaign finance violations, he concludes incarceration would not be unusual punishment in this case. Since the judge in determining punishment would consider the number of other pending criminal cases against Trump and Trump’s behavior (e.g., threatening court personnel, flouting gag orders), he could well sentence Trump to some time behind bars.

(3) Tump’s counsel blew it on a possible immunity defense.

No matter the result, the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity in the Jan. 6 case cannot help Trump in New York for two reasons. First, the hush money scheme was set up before the election, although payments continued into his presidency. And second, Trump’s attorney dropped his appeal from a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein that the case could not be removed and was not preempted by federal law because “evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a coverup of an embarrassing event.” Trump’s counsel let stand Hellerstein’s ruling that “money paid to an adult-film star is not related to a President’s official acts."

Having failed to keep the issue alive, even a very favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would not allow Trump to re-raise the argument. That’s precisely what New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan held last week in rejecting Trump’s last-minute gambit to delay the trial.

(4) Trump’s behavior could risk a contempt of court ruling — or worse.

Many Americans express frustration that Trump’s attacks on the courts’ legitimacy and on judicial personnel and their families have not been adequately punished. That may change.

Merchan issued an order on March 26 prohibiting Trump from making public statements about witnesses, counsel other than Bragg or their families, court staff, and jurors. Within days, Trump attacked Merchan’s daughter, leading the judge to expand the order.

However, out-of-court statements may not constitute the highest risk of Trump landing in contempt. He must sit in court day after day as former associates (such as Cohen) testify against him and prosecutors accuse him of mounting a coverup to win election. Few Trump-watchers think he has the self-control to remain quiet. What then?

The judge could set a series of escalating fines. (Judge Arthur Engoron in the New York civil case twice fined Trump for violating a gag order barring certain public statements; Trump soon stopped.) Theoretically, Merchan could also detain him, even briefly, in the holding cell behind the courtroom used for defendants not out on bail.

Trump’s true comeuppance: His behavior could adversely affect the judge’s sentencing decision and the jury’s decision on guilt. After all, they will have to decide if Trump is the sort of person to flout the law.

(5) Trump won’t have the ‘deep state’ to blame. And voters may cheer a conviction.

Trump continually plays the victim of persecution and election interference by an alleged “deep state.” (If anything, he is using trials and screeds about them to help win election.) But he’s wrong — and not only because he gets treated no worse, and perhaps better, than any criminal defendant.

Ordinary New York grand jurors indicted him, and run-of-the-mill trial jurors will determine guilt. As Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a veteran of the Manhattan DA’s office, reminds us, “This jury isn’t going to be forced down his throat. He will have chosen the people in this jury.” With 10 peremptory challenges (to eliminate a juror for virtually any reason) Trump will face his jury’s verdict.

Trump shouldn’t count on engendering sympathy for a conviction. Polling from Research Collaborative on the four Trump trials found, “Three-quarters of voters believe that if found guilty, Trump should serve time in prison, including 97% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and 49% of Republicans.” Another poll from Politico showed, “By a more than 2-1 margin, respondents said that a conviction would make them less likely to support Trump (32 percent) as opposed to more likely (13 percent).” In other words, voters may view a conviction and even incarceration as Trump getting his just deserts. No wonder Trump seems increasingly desperate to avoid trial.

Donald Watkins, of Alabama, was a friend of Johnnie Cochran; a talk over dinner with Cochran convinced Watkins that O.J. Simpson, who died last week, had killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman

 

Johnnie Cochran hugs O.J. Simpson (Associated Press)

Donald Watkins, of Alabama (now based in Sacramento, CA), and the late Johnnie Cochran, of Los Angeles, were nationally recognized experts in criminal-defense and civil-rights law and friends for many years. The two men met for dinner one night in New Orleans and wound up discussing a variety of legal subjects. When the meal was over, Watkins came away convinced that Cochran's client, former football great, actor and ad pitchman O.J. Simpson, had killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in what became probably the most closely watched murder case in American history.

Why did Watkins conclude that O.J. Simpson was the killer? He examines that question and much more in a post over the weekend at his donaldwatkins.com website. Under the headline "Did O.J. Simpson Kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?" Watkins reveals hat his answer to that question is "yes." His insights are particularly timely coming on the heels of Simpson's death from prostate cancer last week, on April 10, at age 76. Watkins writes:

On April 10, 2024, O.J. Simpson died without making a deathbed confession to murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

The question of the ages is this: Did O.J. murder these two homicide victims on the night of June 12, 1994?

O.J. was formally charged with the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman and tried on these charges. 

On October 3, 1995, a jury found O.J. “not guilty” of the two murders.

Blacks in America thought justice had been served in O.J.’s criminal case, while Whites around the country were enraged by O.J.’s acquittal.

Watkins then dives into his relationship with Johnnie Cochran. Watkins, now retired, and Cochran, who became one of the most famous lawyers in America, both clearly knew how to work a criminal case. From the Watkins post:

Friends, Peers, and Allies

Johnnie Cochran was a member of O.J.’s criminal-defense team.  Johnnie was also a friend of mine, a peer in the national community of criminal-defense lawyers who had won high-profile criminal cases, and an ally in the legal profession. 

Before O.J.’s case, Johnnie had won the freedom of Geronimo Pratt, a decorated military veteran and a high-ranking member of the Black Panther Party in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  

In the early 1970s, the FBI targeted Pratt in a COINTELPRO operation that was intended to "neutralize Pratt as an effective BPP functionary." Pratt was tried and convicted in 1972 for the 1968 murder of Caroline Olsen.  He served 27 years in prison, eight of which were in solitary confinement. 

Pratt was freed in 1997 after his conviction was vacated because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence that tended to prove his innocence.  

Johnnie considered Pratt's release from prison "the happiest day" of his legal career.

In 1976, I won a full and unconditional pardon from the state of Alabama for Clarence Norris, the last surviving “Scottsboro Boy.”  Norris was one of nine teenage "Scottsboro Boys" who were falsely accused in 1931 of raping two White girls on a train running through Paint Rock, Alabama.  All of the "Boys"were arrested, tried, and convicted of rape. Eight of them were sentenced to death on multiple occasions. 

The U.S. Supreme Court saved the Scottsboro Boys on three occasions within hours of their scheduled execution.

The Clarence Norris pardon was based upon a finding of “innocence” of the criminal charge of rape, as proclaimed by the Alabama Pardons and Parole Board. This was the first pardon ever granted by the state to a person who was originally sentenced to death and who was later declared innocent of the charges for which he was convicted.

The Clarence Norris pardon, which was awarded to him in person, was the greatest and most satisfying accomplishment in my 43-year legal career.

Watkins' nationwide fame would come later, from his successful and historic defense of former HealthSouth (now Encompass Health) CEO Richard Scrushy. Along the way, Watkins prevented a federal prosecution of former Birmingham Mayor Richard Arrington. Watkins writes:

In 1992, I successfully prevented a criminal prosecution of Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Richard Arrington, Jr, on federal public-corruption charges.  Arrington was a victim of the unofficial and unlawful COINTELPRO program. He was a designated "target" in a racially-motivated, Birmingham-based, criminal investigation for four years (1988-1992).

My criminal defense team ultimately persuaded the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington to decline the approval of an indictment in Arrington's case. I was also able to get the Department to issue its first-ever formal public apology to the “target” of a public-corruption investigation.

By 1995, Johnnie Cochran and I had earned national reputations for our work in high-profile criminal cases. 

That leads us to the dinner conversation in New Orleans. This is how Watkins remembers it:

The New Orleans Conversation

After O.J.’s acquittal, I saw Johnnie in New Orleans, Louisiana. We discussed Johnnie's work in O.J.’s case at length, including Johnnie's strained relationship with co-counsel Robert Shapiro and Shapiro’s post-trial criticism that Johnnie had played the race card “from the bottom of the deck” to win O.J.’s case.

Of course, I asked Johnnie whether O.J. had killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, as charged in the criminal indictment. Based upon this private conversation between two friends, peers, and allies, I knew going forward that the answer to my question was a definite, “Yes.”

Epilogue

Johnnie Cochran died on March 29, 2005, while I was in the middle of a six-month criminal trial in the case of U.S. v. Richard Scrushy.  Scrushy, the founder and former CEO of HealthSouth Corp., was charged with leading a multiyear, $2.7-billion corporate fraud scheme.

My criminal defense team defeated federal prosecutors on all 85 felony charges in Scrushy's original indictment.

Unlike O.J. Simpson, Richard Scrushy was truly innocent of all 85 criminal charges against him. Under pressure from our defense team, federal prosecutors voluntarily dismissed 27 of the 85 felony charges against Scrushy in a superseding indictment.

I retired from practicing law in 2019.

Will the stock market's Truth Social tailspin cause die-hard MAGAs to get a clue, dump Trump, and finally start taking the 2024 presidential election seriously?

(Reuters)

Donald Trump's Truth Social stock is crashing to earth, raising this question: Just how bad can it get for the severely wounded stock and the investors who unwisely put money into it? The Above the Law (ATL) legal website examines the wreckage and provides its take on the matter -- and does it with a touch of its trademark snarkiness under the headline "Truth Social Stock Price Tanks, We All Wonder, “How Low Can It Go?” Jonathan Wolf, at ATL's Finance Docket newsletter, writes:

We can all agree that if this were a Limbo contest rather than a theoretically money-making endeavor, the Truth Social stock price would be absolutely crushing it. As it stands, however, all that this corporate fiasco is crushing is its small-dollar investors.

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns Truth Social, continue to slide. When the markets closed on April 9, a single share was valued at less than half of the security's all-time high price of $79.

The Truth Social tailspin already has had unpleasant repercussions for its owner. We can only imagine how much fun it has been for retail investors, like MAGA supporters. Wolf writes:

The market bloodbath has been so severe that Donald Trump (the company's largest shareholder) was dropped from the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a ranking of the 500 richest people on earth. Sad!

Of course, none of this is a surprise to most of us, given that Trump Media has almost no revenue and is rapidly bleeding capital. We'll see how close the stock can get to zero before the restrictions on Trump's personal shares expire.

What impact will this have on MAGA investors? That's hard to say. The rational ones -- assuming there are any -- might notice the blood dripping off their wallets and recognize this truth: If Trump can't run a relatively small company, maybe (just maybe) he's not the guy to be running the U.S. economy. But if the MAGAs' brains have shut down -- or never were turned on in the first place -- their support for Trump will remain firm, likely leading them, and our country, to a place where severe headaches (think recession, staggering inflation, trade wars, and other unpleasantness) are a part of daily life -- with a hapless malignant narcissist at the controls. What fun!

If the MAGAs examine the Truth Social tailspin and realize it's time to abandon Trump and take the 2024 election seriously, they could save themselves -- and the rest of us -- a whole lot of trouble. Hey, I'm a hopeful guy, so I actually believe that could still happen. But we are dealing with a glorified cult here, so I'm not counting on it.

As Truth Social deteriorates into a smelly mess, legal experts see signs that Donald Trump has committed another crime -- and this time, it's securities fraud

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump

 

Evidence suggests Donald Trump has committed another crime -- this time it's securities fraud connected to Truth Social -- according to legal experts quoted in a new Substack post from Mary L. Trump -- psychologist, author, Donald's niece, and one of the most vocal critics of her uncle's efforts to return to the White House. At her Substack page, "The Good in Us,"Mary Trump writes:

NEW: Potential SEC violation committed by Donald, Jared Kushner’s murky foreign business transactions… Let’s dive in. Read on

Upgrade to paid

I’m going to let you in on something that often troubles me. 

There are days I find myself frustrated by the seeming invincibility of Donald and my extended family. On days like those, every scandal they’re involved in seems to slide right by, leaving them unscathed. It sickens me. It infuriates me.

But in my better moments, I understand this view is not accurate. 

The truth is, Donald is facing very real consequences for his behavior. This is especially true in New York, largely because of the diligent work of people like Letitia James and the relentless outcry of citizens from his own state demanding accountability. 

This has been a source of solace for me.

Because the corporate media often downplay, ignore, or spin any news that is detrimental to Donald or his children (think, for example, about how Hunter Biden has been covered, as opposed to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner), l use my platform to ensure that such information receives the attention it deserves. 

Now is one of those moments.

Call to Prosecutors and the Media to Look Into Alleged Crimes of “Truth Social“

Members of the press, especially of the right-wing variety, have treated Truth Social, Donald Trump's publicly traded social-media platform, as a business success. But as Mary Trump shows, it has been far from a success:

First, a grim truth for Truth Social: 

Truth Social’s parent company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), has been in a free fall since it went public. It’s so bad that yesterday’s continued slide of the shares’ value erased all gains since the DJT stock began trading.

It’s at less than half of the $79 opening price on its March 26 debut, plummeting his net worth. The drop has led investors to short-sell the stock… the ultimate insult.

There isn’t much Donald can do at the moment, because he’s barred from selling or borrowing against his stock for six months.

There’s some justice for you.

But, incredibly, he may have even more to worry about than losing billions:

 How Donald May have Broken the Law

Taking TMTG public might have led Trump to, once again, cross the boundary into criminal conduct -- possibly adding to his already overflowing courtroom docket. Writes Mary Trump: 

Aside from gag orders and bank and IRS documents, there are relatively few laws that prevent Donald from lying through his teeth at every opportunity… except, however, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s very clear rules. To wit:

“SEC laws prohibit the use of ‘manipulative and deceptive devices’ to pump up stocks.”

As the Trump Media stocks tanked, Donald took to Truth Social to brag about the financial stability of his sub-par Twitter knock-off. He wrote that the company held more than “$200 million in cash and zero debt” and that the platform’s follower count is “growing fast,” indicating that the “company's user base could be growing despite its issues raised by financial disclosures.”

The lawyer I spoke with, Joe Gallina, said Donald may have committed a crime. 

Further, per Newsweek, Stanford Law School Professor Michael Klausner said, “a false statement of ‘material’ information is securities fraud.”

He explained that Donald’s statements could be a case of “pumping.” That would trigger the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which “governs the statements made by company owners that could affect investor decisions.”

Do you think it’s a leap to assume Donald used those words on purpose to drive interest in the stock?

The next key step, Mary says, is to investigate the inner workings of Truth Social: 

We can’t let up on this until the SEC agrees to look into Truth Social’s inner workings and verify whether or not Donald’s statements are fact-based. 

As he becomes more desperate, the rest of us need to become more vigilant, because…

Truth Social is Already on Prosecutors’ Radar for Inside Trading

As we reported recently here at Legal Schnauzer, Trump Media was struggling in 2022, and a Russian-American businessman named Anton Postolnikov-- with ties to Vladimir Putin -- arranged for loans from a bank (known mostly for financing the international pornography industry) in the island nation of Dominica to save Trump's fledgling firm. That led to the involvement of a Canadian businessman named Michael Shvartsman, who is a target of a sprawling money-laundering investigation. Shvartsman is a close associate of Poostolikov, who has been a target in an FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  criminal probe of the Trump Media merger with a shadowy blank-check company called Digital World Acquisition Corporation, which took the parent company of Truth Social public. Mary Trump provides more background:

Two individuals, Michael and Gerald Shvartsman, recently admitted to insider trading related to Truth Social. The Shvartsman brothers, who were early investors in Digital World Acquisition Corp (the company that merged with Trump Media & Technology Group), made more than $22 million in illegal profits by selling on inside knowledge, which they admitted in court.

Another individual, Bruce Garelick, who was also privy to the non-public information, has pleaded not guilty to similar charges. He is set to stand trial later this month.

Speaking of shady investments, and illicitly leveraging insider connections, let’s look at another Trump family member, whose actions are screaming for greater scrutiny: Donald’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Jared Kushner’s Investment Firm’s Foreign Funders Stun Experts

Kushner, of course, is a familiar name in the Trump orbit, and his international financial entanglements are raising eyebrows with insiders who know about his peculiar machinations. Mary Trump writes:

Yesterday, a revelatory analysis found that 99% of Kushner’s investment capital has been traced back to foreign sources. This is not a common occurrence, and has raised questions about the propriety of such a financial setup.

This financial influx originates primarily from authoritarian governments, a fact that has led to concerns about potential conflicts of interest. His financial dealings have been described as “unprecedented” and “unusual” by economic analyst Steve Rattner.

 The Infamous $2 Billion The Media Refuses to Investigate

Swinging deals that involve $2 billion is one way to draw attention to yourself, and Kushner, intentionally or unintentionally, has managed to do that. Mary Trump writes:

This financial influx originates primarily from authoritarian governments, a fact that has led to concerns about potential conflicts of interest. His financial dealings have been described as “unprecedented” and “unusual” by economic analyst Steve Rattner.

In 2022, a mere six months after Kushner left the White House and four years after the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, at the direction of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, invested $2 billion in Kushner’s newly established private-equity firm. 

What does $2 billion buy? Here are a few leads the media should investigate:

In October 2018, only two weeks after Khashoggi was killed, Kushner urged Donald “to stand by the prince,” arguing that MBS could “survive the outrage.” This year, Kushner called bin Salman a “visionary leader” who has made the world better.

Of course, the Saudi investment was authorized despite reservations about Kushner’s lack of relevant experience.

Kushner’s firm has also received investments from state-managed funds in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. He’s used some of those foreign funds to invest in a $500-million real-estate project in Serbia. 

Why We Must Scrutinize Kushner’s Shady Dealings

In the past year alone, the rights and liberties of Serbia’s citizens have deteriorated significantly, representing the most drastic reduction across Europe and the country is listed as being only “partly free.”

But it has even bigger implications for the US.

Kushner has not ruled out a return to the White House under a future Trump administration. Here’s why his dealings with authoritarian governments matter:

• Conflict of Interest

• National Security

• Ethics and Transparency

It’s critical we shine a light on this. Here’s how:

The Path to Holding Jared Accountable

Relaunch of the $2-Billion Investigation

The House Oversight Committee launched an initial investigation into the $2- billion investment in 2022, but the Republican majority put it on ice.

If you want another reason to help Democrats flip the House this coming election, this is a great one.

And while they’re at it:

Khashoggi’s death

As far as Jamal Khashoggi’s murder is concerned, there is still much we don’t know. Just months after Khashoggi was killed, a blockbuster report by the Intercept alleged that “Crown Prince Mohammed told confidants that Kushner had discussed the names of Saudis disloyal to the crown prince, according to three sources who have been in contact with members of the Saudi and Emirati royal families.” 

The article also alleged “MBS bragged to the Emirati crown prince and others that Kushner was ‘in his pocket.’”

These claims are largely based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no definitive proof linking Kushner to any shady Saudi activity. Given the seriousness of the matter, however, the fact that this hasn’t led to a major investigation is ludicrous. The House can investigate this too, and finally get justice for Khashoggi.

How do we get there?

I’m diving deeper into Donald and my extended family’s potential wrongdoings, while continuing to insist that investigations into their financial arrangements begin. 

And I’m doing everything in my power to flip the House, so all this can become a legal reality. We are SO close.

To continue this important work, I need YOUR help. 

By upgrading your subscription, you’re directly supporting the research, investigation, and dissemination of these crucial stories to the public, including helping provide subscriptions to those who can’t afford it.  

Will you join me?

I currently have 204,258 free subscribers. If just 5% chipped in for a membership at the price of a small coffee, I could reach even more voters with the stories that might otherwise slip through the cracks. Together we can fight to save democracy.

Become a Supporting Member Now

Thank you for those who upgrade, it means the world to me.
– Mary

If you have any upgrade or tech issues, please see my support page. If you’re already a paid supporter this button is not for you. THANK YOU!

Amid reports of classified docs at Trump Tower and Bedminster, experts express concerns about Trump as a national-security risk, and that points to Trump and treason, which might be bigger now than ever before

Trump Tower: Home to classified documents (Business Insider)

Donald Trump kept classified documents at two other locations besides his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to a report at Newsweek. The information comes from court documents recently filed in Trump's classified-documents case before Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida. The revelations raise questions that are both curious and alarming.

On the curious side, we have these questions:

(1) Why did Trump store or hide documents at locations other than Mar-a-Lago, where documents have been known to be stored for months now?

(2) What was Trump planning to do with these newly disclosed documents? To whom was he planning to show them, to whom has he already shown them? 

These questions fit under the category of "alarming," especially since several experts have expressed concerns that Trump is a national-security risk, especially with his finances in a state of disarray. Would Trump sell, or give, sensitive documents to foreign adversaries? Would he be open to bribery from international bad actors as a way of upgrading his personal treasury? Experts suggest the answer to these questions is yes, and that raises the issue of treason, which has hung over Trump like a specter, especially give his apparent fondness for Russia and other authoritarian regimes.

Newsweek provides background on the newly discovered documents under the headline "Donald Trump Kept Classified Documents in Trump Tower, Lawyers Reveal." Reporter Sean O'Driscoll writes:

Donald Trump held classified documents at both Trump Tower and his New Jersey estate, his lawyers have revealed in court documents.

Trump held the documents there, as well as in his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, even before his inauguration in 2017, according to the filings. The contents of the classified documents remain unclear.

Trump is facing trial in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents from his presidency, keeping them in various parts of Mar-a-Lago—including a bathroom—and obstructing federal officials' attempt to retrieve them.

The location of Trump's classified documents beyond the Florida resort had been redacted in previous court filings.

The locations were revealed in proposed jury instructions filed by Trump's lawyers to U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.

The discovery of documents at Trump Tower and Bedminster dovetails with other recent news in the classified-documents case, O'Driscoll reports:

The new information appears to confirm revelations by Trump's former valet, Brian Butler, that he helped load boxes of presidential records onto the Trump private plane in Florida while the former president and his family were flying to their Bedminster, N.J., mansion for the summer two years ago.

Butler told CNN last month that the plane was loaded on June 3, 2022, which was the same day Trump and his lawyer met with the Justice Department at Mar-a-Lago to discuss the missing classified documents.

Butler said he later realized that the white boxes of documents were at the center of the federal indictment against Trump.

Until he went public, Butler had only been known as "Trump Employee 5" in court documents filed to Cannon.

Butler is expected to testify against Trump in the Florida trial. His version of events may have been bolstered by the latest filing in the case.

Cannon has been criticized by chief prosecutor Jack Smith for suggesting that the jury may be allowed to consider that Trump had held presidential records as his personal belongings that he was allowed to keep after leaving the White House.

Trump's claim that he designated presidential files as personal items before leaving the White House is a fundamental part of his defense in the classified documents case.

In the coming weeks, we will examine the concerns of national-security experts about Trump and the issue of treason, which continues to hang over Trump -- perhaps now more than ever.