Hillary Clinton has sparked a firestorm of controversy with her D-Day commemoration post.
Daily Mail reported that Clinton's social media post comparing D-Day to voting against Donald Trump in the upcoming elections has been widely condemned.
On June 6, 1944, the anniversary of D-Day, Hillary Clinton posted a message on her X account. Her statement parallels the historic WWII event and the current political climate, urging Americans to vote against former President Donald Trump in November's elections.
Clinton's post read, "Eighty years ago today, thousands of brave Americans fought to protect democracy on the shores of Normandy. This November, all we have to do is vote." This comparison was met with fierce backlash from various figures who felt the analogy was disrespectful to the sacrifices made during WWII.
Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator, described Clinton's comments as "an enormously stupid and vile comment." He emphasized that Trump is not akin to Hitler and voting is not comparable to the D-Day landings, where soldiers stormed the beaches under heavy fire to liberate Europe from Nazi control.
Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) criticized the comparison, labeling it as dramatic and deranged. According to Tuberville, comparing the monumental bravery displayed during the Normandy invasion to current political actions is disrespectful and inappropriate.
Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also condemned Clinton's message, expressing concern over the disrespect shown to the WWII heroes who faced immense dangers 80 years ago during the D-Day landings.
D-Day, which occurred on June 6, 1944, marked the beginning of a major Allied invasion aimed at liberating Nazi-occupied Western Europe. Allied forces, including thousands of US and Allied paratroopers, launched a massive air, land, and sea assault on Normandy, France.
The operation involved the largest armada in history and was pivotal in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. Allied forces suffered significant casualties on the beaches of Normandy, with thousands of troops losing their lives in the effort to regain control of Europe from Nazi forces.
Clinton's comparison of this historic and tragic event to the act of voting has struck a nerve with many who regard the sacrifices made by the soldiers as sacred and unparalleled.
One user sharply criticized Clinton's comment, calling it "pure evil" and accusing her of equating the sacrifices of those who fought against Hitler with voting against Trump. This sentiment was echoed by others who felt the comparison was sick and inappropriate.
Sean Parnell, an American author and veteran, expressed his disdain, stating that Clinton's comment was loathsome and cheapened the heroism shown by WWII veterans. He believes that WWII veterans deserve far more respect than to be included in what he described as "BS garbage politics."
To summarize, Hillary Clinton's social media post that compared D-Day to voting in upcoming elections has sparked widespread criticism for being disrespectful to WWII sacrifices. High-profile figures including Ben Shapiro, Senator Tommy Tuberville, and Senator Marsha Blackburn have openly condemned the comparison. The backlash highlights ongoing debates about the appropriateness of using significant historical events in political discourse.
The Navy has dismissed Capt. Michel Brandt from her position as commanding officer of the amphibious transport dock Somerset.
Capt. Michel Brandt was relieved of her duties less than a year after assuming command due to a "loss of confidence in her ability to lead the crew."
According to the Navy Times, Brandt was relieved of her duties on Thursday. She had taken command of the ship in July 2023. Despite the sudden change, the Navy did not provide specific reasons for the dismissal.
In a statement, the Navy emphasized the high standards to which commanding officers are held. “They are expected to uphold the highest standards of responsibility, reliability, and leadership, and the Navy holds them accountable when they fall short of those standards," the statement read.
Capt. Michel Brandt's tenure as commanding officer of the Somerset lasted less than a year. The Navy's decision to relieve her came as a surprise given the brevity of her command. The specific reasons and incidents leading to this decision remain undisclosed.
The Navy's statement did not delve into potential causes, maintaining a stance of confidentiality. Brandt's administrative reassignment to Naval Surface Force Pacific indicates that while she may no longer command the Somerset, her naval career continues in a different capacity.
Naval Surface Force Pacific oversees various surface combat ships and support vessels. With her reassignment, Brandt remains within a significant organizational unit within the Navy.
Upon Brandt's relief, Capt. Tate Robinson has been named as the interim commanding officer of the USS Somerset. Robinson's temporary appointment is expected to provide stability and leadership until a permanent replacement is named.
The Navy ensures that transitions in command are conducted smoothly to maintain operational readiness. Robinson’s experience and leadership abilities will be instrumental during this period of change.
The USS Somerset is an amphibious transport dock ship that plays a crucial role in naval operations. The ship's crew looks to their commanding officer for guidance and leadership, both of which are crucial for successful missions.
The Navy's decision underscores its commitment to maintaining high standards among its officers, reflecting the critical nature of their roles. The public statement emphasizes the rigorous expectations placed on those in command and the importance of holding officers accountable. This effort ensures that all personnel adhere to these high standards.
To summarize, Capt. Michel Brandt has been relieved of her duties as commanding officer of the USS Somerset after less than a year in the role.
The Navy cited a loss of confidence in her leadership as the reason, though no specific incidents were provided. Capt. Tate Robinson has taken over as interim commanding officer. Brandt will now serve with Naval Surface Force Pacific, and the Navy continues to underscore its commitment to high standards and accountability among its officers.
This week's decision by a Georgia appellate court to halt the criminal case against former President Donald Trump has cast serious doubt on the case proceeding before the 2024 election, according to CNN’s top legal analyst, Elie Honig.
Former President Donald Trump faces criminal charges in Georgia related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, as the Daily Wire reports, but recent developments have some pundits suggesting that the matter is effectively "over."
The appellate court has decided to pause the district court proceedings amid questions about the prosecutor's continued participation, raising questions regarding the future of the case. This decision follows a ruling by the trial court judge that allowed Trump and other defendants to file an appeal while continuing with the trial court proceedings.
Honig, CNN's senior legal Analyst and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, voiced strong skepticism about the case advancing. He remarked, “It’s over. Let’s be realistic. It’s not happening before the 2024 election. It’s not happening in 2024. It’s maybe not happening at all.”
Honig emphasized that the appellate court's decision to take up the appeal is significant, noting that they could have rejected it outright. Instead, they chose to address it and paused the district court proceedings as well. This move indicates that the appellate court is treating the appeal with a high degree of seriousness.
The trial court judge had originally specified that proceedings would continue in the trial court despite the ongoing appeal. However, the appellate court's decision to pause these proceedings signals the possibility of an entirely different outcome.
A separate issue involves comments made by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis outside of court. These remarks have been deemed “legally improper” by Judge McAfee, although he has taken no formal action against Willis.
The defense is expected to argue that such “legally improper” comments by the prosecutor could impair the constitutional rights of the defendants. They believe that appropriate remedies should be implemented to address this alleged breach.
In the event that Trump and the other defendants prevail in their appeal, the case might effectively be dismissed. This could have a cascading effect, potentially leading Trump officials who have pled guilty to recant their pleas, thereby unraveling the prosecution's efforts.
Honig explained the gravity of the appellate court's actions, stating, “In fact, the trial court judge, when he issued his ruling, allowing Donald Trump, and the others, to ask the appeals court to take the case, the trial court judge specified, while you all are doing that, I am going to continue holding proceedings in this trial court.” Honig pointed out that if the defendants succeed, the essence of the case would be undermined. “If Trump and the defendants prevail in this appeal, this case is essentially toast,” he noted.
The legal battles surrounding Trump and other defendants also highlight the growing contention regarding prosecutorial conduct and its implications for fair trials. As Honig remarked, any statements by prosecutors that are found to be legally improper need to be addressed adequately to ensure a just process.
The criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in Georgia are facing significant hurdles following the appellate court's decision to halt proceedings. CNN's Elie Honig has expressed strong doubts about the case proceeding, noting the importance of the appellate court's actions in pausing the district court's work.
Additionally, concerns over comments made by D.A. Fani Willis and their potential impact on defendants' constitutional rights are likely to be key arguments in the appeal. The outcome of this legal battle remains uncertain, with potential ramifications for Trump and other defendants ahead of the 2024 election.
Supreme Court financial disclosures have revealed a stark contrast in media scrutiny of justices’ earnings.
Left-wing activists and Democrats have criticized Justice Clarence Thomas over allegations of receiving $4 million in gifts over 33 years, while overlooking the substantial earnings of more liberal justices, as the National Pulse reports.
Recent financial disclosures highlight Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's significant earnings from her book advance. Last year, she brought in $893,750 for her forthcoming memoir. This sum forms part of the total $1.5 million in book income reported by U.S. Supreme Court justices last year.
Justice Clarence Thomas has faced significant criticism for allegedly receiving $4 million in gifts over 33 years. Despite this scrutiny, there has been limited media focus on the earnings of other justices. This disparity raises questions about the objectivity of the media's coverage.
In contrast to the extensive media focus on Justice Thomas, details surrounding the earnings of more liberal justices, such as Justice Jackson, are less scrutinized. Justice Jackson’s substantial book advance underscores this discrepancy.
Justice Jackson's financial disclosures reveal she earned $893,750 for her memoir. Additionally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh disclosed $340,000 from a "legal memoir," pointing to the notable earnings potential for justices through literary endeavors.
Other justices also reported smaller earnings from book-related activities. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor disclosed minor book income, reflecting the broader trend of literary ventures among Supreme Court justices. Beyond book advances, Justice Jackson received concert tickets valued at $3,712 from singer Beyonce. She also accepted two artworks valued at $12,500 for her chambers, highlighting various forms of non-financial recognition.
On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor earned $1,879 from Fred Rogers Productions for her voiceover work on the PBS children's show Alma’s Way. These supplementary earnings from diverse activities reflect the multi-faceted interests and engagements of Supreme Court justices.
Three justices also received additional income from teaching roles at educational institutions. Justice Neil Gorsuch earned $29,798 from George Mason University. Justice Brett Kavanaugh received $25,000 from the University of Notre Dame Law School, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett earned $14,947 from Notre Dame Law School.
In terms of financial reporting, Justice Samuel Alito was granted a 90-day extension to file his financial report. This extension reflects the flexibility in deadlines for justices' financial disclosures, ensuring comprehensive reporting. The reporting requirements for Supreme Court justices are designed to ensure transparency in their earnings and gifts received. However, the varied scrutiny between justices underscores concerns regarding media focus and potential biases in reporting.
Justice Clarence Thomas remains a focal point of criticism due to the allegations of receiving $4 million in gifts. Meanwhile, financial disclosures show notable earnings among several justices, such as Justice Jackson and Justice Kavanaugh, primarily through literary and teaching endeavors.
Justice Jackson's nearly $900,000 book advance and her receipt of high-value gifts highlight the financial opportunities available to justices beyond their official duties. This raises questions about the consistency of media scrutiny across the judiciary.
With three justices receiving significant teaching income and others granted extensions for filing reports, the fiscal activities and declarations of Supreme Court justices remain a point of public interest. The variable focus on individual justices, however, suggests potential biases in media coverage that deserve scrutiny.
Former President Donald Trump's campaign has ramped up its vetting process to select a vice presidential candidate for the 2024 election.
According to Fox News, Trump's team is expected to announce the final choice for a running mate during the Republican Party's presidential nominating convention, which will start July 15 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The convention, slated for mid-July, marks a crucial moment for Trump's campaign as it intensifies the search for a suitable running mate. Several prominent GOP figures are being considered, with their documents being closely examined.
The list of potential candidates is lengthy and includes various politicians and public figures. Notable names include North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, and JD Vance of Ohio.
Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Tim Scott of South Carolina are other candidates under consideration.
Representatives Byron Donalds of Florida and Elise Stefanik of New York, as well as retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, are also on the list.
Rep. Byron Donalds chose not to comment on his potential involvement, stating, "I'm not going to comment on that. I'm going to leave that one alone."
Brian Hughes, a senior adviser for Trump's campaign, emphasized the confidentiality and unpredictability of the decision. He declared, "Anyone claiming to know who or when President Trump will choose his VP is lying unless the person is named Donald J. Trump."
The campaign's vetting has reached a new phase, with documents requested from several contenders. This indicates a heightened level of scrutiny and suggests that the list will be progressively narrowed down.
Trump himself has hinted, through various interviews, that he'll likely reveal his vice-presidential pick during the convention in Milwaukee.
The selection process ensures that the chosen VP will complement Trump's strategy and appeal to a broad Republican base. The decision is critical, as it will shape the dynamics of the 2024 GOP ticket.
The process aligns with the overall strategy of the campaign to build momentum leading up to the convention. Trump's team meticulously evaluates each contender's political and personal background.
In summary, Trump's campaign is focused on vetting potential running mates ahead of the upcoming convention in Milwaukee. The list of possible candidates includes governors, senators, representatives, and other notable figures, and the decision is expected to be announced close to or during the convention itself.
Hunter Biden is facing trial for the alleged illegal purchase and possession of a firearm while using illegal substances. The trial includes testimonies from Biden's ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, and the gun shop salesman who sold him the weapon.
The trial, now in its third day, involves serious allegations against Hunter Biden. He is accused of buying and possessing a firearm in October 2018, during a period when he was allegedly using illegal drugs. Testimonies have been heard from multiple significant witnesses connected to the case.
Fox News reported that Kathleen Buhle, Hunter Biden's ex-wife, has provided her testimony, shedding light on the firearm purchase's circumstances. Zoe Kestan, Biden's ex-girlfriend, has also taken the stand, offering her perspective and experiences related to the allegations.
Additionally, the Delaware gun shop salesman who sold Biden the firearm has testified, giving crucial insight into the transaction. Testimony is scheduled to continue on Thursday. Prosecutors have indicated that they may complete calling witnesses by the end of the day, which could bring a pivotal moment to the proceedings.
Defense lawyer Abbe Lowell is actively working to discredit the evidence that suggests Hunter Biden was using illegal drugs at the time of the firearm purchase. The defense's strategy focuses on demonstrating that the allegations lack direct proof connecting Biden's drug use to the specific time of the purchase. This approach aims to cast doubt on the prosecution's claims and mitigate the charges against Biden.
The courtroom has seen a meticulous examination of the witnesses' testimonies, with both sides focusing on the accuracy and relevance of statements made. The testimonies from Buhle, Kestan, and the gun shop salesman are pivotal, as they provide detailed accounts related to the alleged illegal activities.
As the trial progresses, the testimonies continue to paint a comprehensive picture of the events surrounding the firearm purchase and Biden's personal life at the time. Observers are closely monitoring how these narratives will influence the trial’s outcome.
Thursday’s continuation of the trial is expected to mark a significant stage, with prosecutors potentially wrapping up their witness testimonies. This development would shift the trial's focus toward the closing arguments and eventual verdict. The testimonies so far have provided detailed and, at times, conflicting accounts that contribute to the complexity of the case.
The trial has garnered significant public interest, given Hunter Biden's high profile and the seriousness of the charges. The testimonies from close personal ties and the gun shop salesman are crucial, as they offer firsthand experiences that are vital to understanding the context and validity of the allegations.
Observers await the conclusion of the witness testimonies, which will lay the groundwork for the subsequent phases of the trial. The final arguments from both the prosecution and defense will play a crucial role in the court’s final decision.
In summary, Hunter Biden is on trial for allegedly buying and owning a firearm while using illegal drugs. Extensive testimonies have been provided by his ex-wife Kathleen Buhle, ex-girlfriend Zoe Kestan, and a Delaware gun shop salesman. The trial is set to continue Thursday, with the potential conclusion of witness testimonies and a focus on the defense's arguments.
The allegations and evidence presented during the trial have attracted considerable scrutiny, adding to the public's keen interest in the trial's outcome. Both sides prepare for the concluding stages, which are anticipated to bring crucial developments and insights into the case.
The trial's resolution will be pivotal for Hunter Biden, and the proceedings continue to unfold with each day's testimonies, aiming to bring clarity and justice to the allegations at hand.
Former President Donald Trump has accused President Joe Biden and his administration of influencing the criminal prosecution led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Newsbusters reported.
Trump asserts that Biden's affiliations and actions suggest a coordinated effort to prosecute him, supported by various connections and events.
Repeated fact-checks have been conducted on Trump’s claim regarding Biden's involvement. CNN's Daniel Dale has prominently disputed Trump’s accusation.
Margot Cleveland, a legal analyst, authored an article titled "Joe Biden’s Fingerprints Are All Over The Criminal Prosecutions Of Donald Trump." The piece explores the purported ties between Biden and the Manhattan D.A.’s office.
Matthew Colangelo, who previously held a significant position in Biden's Justice Department, joined Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecutorial team. This connection has fueled speculation about Biden's influence.
The relationship between the Manhattan D.A.’s office and Biden's team reportedly began in mid-February 2021. This timeline has raised questions about potential political motivations.
Cyrus Vance, Bragg's predecessor, enlisted Mark Pomerantz as a special assistant district attorney specifically for the Trump investigation. This move was considered highly unusual.
Pomerantz had been informally assisting with the case months before officially joining the team. His official appointment was followed by the involvement of Elyssa Abuhoff and Caroline Williamson from Paul, Weiss, a law firm known for its support of Biden.
Paul, Weiss hosted a $2,800-per-plate fundraiser for Biden’s campaign and continued to support his re-election efforts. This connection has added another layer to the allegations.
Brad Karp, chair of Paul, Weiss, raised significant funds for Biden and attended a state dinner hosted by the president. Karp's statements about supporting Biden further intertwined the firm's actions with the investigation. Pomerantz claimed in early 2022 that Bragg had decided to suspend the Trump investigation.
This statement triggered political pressure and ultimately led to Colangelo's hiring. Colangelo's subsequent involvement culminated in Donald Trump's indictment and conviction, aligning with the timeline and events highlighted by critics of Biden's alleged influence.
Biden’s connections to Paul, Weiss, and the financial support provided by the firm have added to the perception of a coordinated effort. The firm's involvement in the Trump investigation has not gone unnoticed by observers and analysts.
The overlapping timelines and affiliations between Biden’s team, the Manhattan D.A.’s office, and Paul Weiss paint a complex picture. These relationships have been at the heart of the controversy surrounding Donald Trump's prosecution. In summary, Trump's claims about Biden's involvement in his prosecution are built on a series of connections and events. While some dispute these allegations, the detailed affiliations and actions suggest a deeper narrative.
Sen. Bob Menendez, facing several federal charges, has officially filed to run for a fourth term as an independent candidate.
Fox News reported that despite his ongoing legal battles, Menendez aims to secure another term in the upcoming November election.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has taken the significant step of filing a petition to seek re-election as an independent candidate. This petition, containing 2,465 signatures, well exceeds the 800 required to appear on the ballot. The New Jersey Division of Elections has confirmed Menendez's candidacy for the Nov. 5 election.
Menendez is aiming for his fourth senator term but has refrained from entering the Democratic Senate primary, as announced in March. This decision came amidst speculation tied to his multiple criminal charges. Menendez indicated his intention to run as an independent if exonerated during his summer trial.
The federal charges against Menendez and his wife, Nadine Menendez, include bribery and obstruction of justice. They have pleaded not guilty to accusations of accepting bribes totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars in various forms, such as cash, gold bars, and a Mercedes-Benz, to benefit business persons and the Egyptian government.
The trial for Menendez started in May, with jurors tasked with determining if he and business associates Fred Daibes and Wael Hana were involved in a bribery scheme. The allegations include meddling in investigations and providing aid to Egypt and Qatar. Menendez and the co-defendants have pleaded not guilty.
One significant development in this case is co-defendant Jose Uribe's guilty plea, who agreed to testify against Menendez and the other accused. This move adds a new layer to the already complex legal proceedings surrounding Menendez and the charges he faces.
Nadine Menendez's trial has been delayed to at least July due to a health issue diagnosed on April 9. This postponement affects the timeline of the legal proceedings for the involved parties.
This ordeal marks the second federal corruption case for Menendez in a decade. The charges against him have grown with additional counts of obstruction of justice unveiled in a superseding indictment in March. The indictment outlines prior allegations of conspiracy, bribery, acting as a foreign agent, extortion, wire fraud, and receiving bribes to benefit Egypt.
In a strategic political twist, New Jersey Republicans have supported Menendez’s independent candidacy. This support reflects a challenge to the Democratic stronghold on New Jersey's Senate seats, indicating a desire for a shift in power dynamics.
The upcoming November election will indeed be crucial for Menendez as he navigates the dual paths of legal defense and political campaigning. It would signify a notable political and personal victory if he secured re-election amidst his trial.
In conclusion, Sen. Bob Menendez is pursuing re-election as an independent candidate amidst severe federal charges. His petition to appear on the ballot surpassed the necessary signatures. Menendez and his wife Nadine face accusations of bribery and obstruction of justice, with all involved pleading not guilty.
The senator's trial, beginning in May, aims to uncover the truth behind the bribery allegations. Co-defendant Uribe’s testimony could influence the trial's outcome. As Menendez's legal challenges continue, New Jersey Republicans have backed his independent bid, adding a potential shift to the state's political landscape in the forthcoming November election.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has announced a critical Senate vote on the Right to Contraception Act scheduled for Wednesday.
According to The Hill, this vote coincides with the second anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The upcoming vote aims to spotlight the contrasting positions of Republicans and Democrats on reproductive rights ahead of the November elections.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter, Schumer (D-N.Y.) detailed the plans for the vote, set to take place just days before the June 24 anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, has led to near-total bans or severe restrictions on abortion in at least 20 states.
Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) sponsor the Right to Contraception Act. The legislation seeks to guarantee the legal right for individuals to access and use contraception and for healthcare providers to offer related information, referrals, and services.
This bill also aims to prevent both federal and state governments from restricting the sale or use of contraceptives. Additionally, it would enable the Justice Department, healthcare providers, and individuals harmed by contraception restrictions to pursue legal action to enforce these rights.
Schumer emphasized the importance of reproductive freedoms as Senate Democrats return from the Memorial Day state work period. He highlighted the need to preserve these freedoms amid ongoing political battles.
Schumer asserted that there is no doubt in the minds of the American people that Republicans are responsible for the country's current state. He referenced Donald Trump's recent declaration of being "proudly responsible" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the significant rollback of women's personal freedoms.
He added:
Democrats have been clear we will not stand for these attacks and we will fight to preserve reproductive freedoms. That is why as we return from the Memorial Day state work period, Senate Democrats will be putting reproductive freedoms front and center.
According to Schumer, members should expect to vote on the legislation on Wednesday. He assured that there would be further actions to follow.
Last month, Schumer scheduled a Senate vote on a bipartisan border security deal. This significant vote demonstrated the political maneuvers involved in legislative processes. Schumer had to force a second vote on the border security deal in May after Republicans blocked it in February when it was attached to a $95 billion emergency foreign aid package.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the sole Republican to support the border security bill in May. This highlights the partisan divisions that are likely to surface again during the upcoming vote on the Right to Contraception Act.
With the November elections approaching, Democrats are increasingly emphasizing abortion rights and reproductive freedoms. Poll data indicates that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on these issues, driving the party's focus on highlighting these contrasts.
The Senate vote on the Right to Contraception Act, led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, underscores the contrasting positions of Republicans and Democrats on reproductive rights. This legislation, sponsored by Senators Markey, Hirono, and Duckworth, aims to protect the legal right to contraception and prevent governmental restrictions. With the November elections on the horizon, this vote highlights the ongoing political battles over women’s healthcare access.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is being urged to issue a pardon for Donald Trump by Democrat Rep. Dean Phillips, as the fallout from the former president’s conviction grows.
Phillips believes pardoning Trump will prevent him from becoming a martyr, something the lawmaker says could inadvertently boost his electoral chances, as Breitbart reports.
Making his plea, Phillips described Trump in unsparing terms, calling him a "serial liar, cheater, and philanderer" on social media. This came closely following the conclusion of Trump’s hush money trial. On Thursday, Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records by a New York jury. These charges stemmed from efforts to cover up alleged extramarital affairs.
Phillips did not hold back, further questioning the logic behind martyring Trump over the payment made to a porn star. He emphasized that such legal entanglements are only fueling Trump's campaign momentum.
Phillips warned that the legal action against Trump is energizing his base and generating unprecedented sums of campaign cash. According to Phillips, this scenario could potentially result in an unexpected electoral advantage for Trump.
Following the conviction, Trump's campaign reported a historic fundraising surge. By Friday morning, small-dollar donations had reached $34.8 million. Trump's son, Eric Trump, highlighted in a Fox News interview that the campaign had pulled in nearly $53 million within a 24-hour period post-indictment, far surpassing previous records.
The fundraising figures cited by Eric Trump overshadow the previous single-day record set in 2016, which stood at $16 million. This remarkable financial response demonstrates the potency of Trump’s appeal among his supporters in the aftermath of legal challenges.
Rep. Phillips, who had earlier suspended his campaign for the Democratic nomination in March following Super Tuesday losses, took to social media to voice his concerns and recommendations. He reiterated his stance that pardoning Trump would be beneficial for the country, given the current political climate.
The spike in campaign contributions suggests that Trump’s loyal base remains highly engaged and ready to support him, regardless of ongoing legal problems.
Phillips' repeated calls for a pardon reflect his belief that the focus should be shifted away from what he views as misguided prosecutions. "You think pardoning is stupid? Making him a martyr over a payment to a porn star is stupid," he stated emphatically.
Trump has leveraged his legal battles to enhance his narrative as a victim of political persecution, thus resonating strongly with his followers. The financial windfall experienced by his campaign is a testament to this strategy’s effectiveness.
As the political drama unfolds, Hochul’s response to Rep. Phillips' appeal remains to be seen. The broader implications of this legal and political saga continue to reverberate.
In summary, Rep. Dean Phillips urges New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to pardon former President Donald Trump following his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Phillips contends that prosecuting Trump further only serves to bolster his electoral chances by energizing his base.