First Lady Jill Biden's extensive travels between France and Delaware have raised concerns over taxpayer costs.
First Lady Jill Biden undertook a series of international flights between Wilmington, Delaware, and France to support her son, Hunter Biden, during his federal gun trial and to fulfill her duties in France.
Daily Mail reported that although the Democratic Party will cover some of the costs, taxpayers will bear the majority of the flight expenses.
The estimated flight costs amounted to an eye-watering $345,400. According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, taxpayers will shoulder a significant portion of these expenses.
Jill Biden's travel, separate from President Joe Biden’s international agenda, has raised eyebrows. She used a Boeing C-32, accruing an hourly operational rate of $13,816 as per Air Force reports.
Every leg of the trip from Paris to Wilmington was estimated to cost about $110,528, raising questions about the efficiency of these travels. Her journey spanned roughly 24 hours over three days, splitting her time between courthouse appearances in Delaware and official duties in France.
While the Democratic National Committee plans to reimburse the government for the equivalent of first-class fares, the coverage might seem minimal to some. A one-way first-class fare from Philadelphia to Paris runs around $6,655.
Jill Biden’s office told DailyMail.com, "In accordance with relevant regulations utilized across administrations, the government is reimbursed the value of a first-class fare for these flights to Wilmington and back to Paris." This calculation, however, leaves a substantial amount uncovered by the government.
Her security detail, along with several aides, accompanied her, further inflating the costs. Events attended in France included D-Day commemorations and a state dinner with French First Lady Brigitte Macron.
Demian Brady, vice president of research for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, called for more transparency from the White House. "The White House should be more transparent about these costs so taxpayers aren't taken for a ride," he said.
David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, showed empathy but also raised a point on financial responsibility, "While I appreciate that the First Lady wants to support her son during this difficult trial, travel to the trial should be a personal, not a taxpayer expense."
Elizabeth Alexander, communications director for the first lady, defended her travels stating, "She's his mother, and he's on trial, so of course she wants to be there as much as humanly possible." She added, "It's something that a lot of parents, and maybe mothers especially feel, that when your children need you, it doesn't matter how old they get, they're always your children and you always want to be there to support them."
In conclusion, First Lady Jill Biden’s recent travels between Wilmington, Delaware, and France raised significant concerns regarding taxpayer expenses. With the Democratic National Committee covering only a fraction of the costs, taxpayers are set to bear a large portion of the $345,400 flight expenses. The high operational costs of the Boeing C-32 and the presence of her security detail added further financial strain.
A former Assistant City Attorney for Atlanta has been sentenced for stealing millions intended for pandemic relief and living lavishly on the proceeds.
Shelitha Robertson, a former Georgia attorney and City of Atlanta police officer was convicted and sentenced for fraudulently obtaining approximately $15 million in loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
According to the Gateway Pundit, a federal jury in the Northern District of Georgia found Robertson guilty of a massive scheme to misuse COVID-19 relief funds. Instead of aiding needy businesses, she used the funds to buy luxury items, including a Rolls-Royce and a 10-carat diamond ring valued at $148,000.
The 62-year-old was convicted of multiple fraud counts, such as conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud itself, and money laundering. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Grimberg sentenced Robertson to seven years and three months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced Robertson's sentencing. They emphasized the serious nature of her crimes, given that the funds were authorized under the CARES Act to support struggling small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Motivated by greed, Robertson deceptively obtained funds that were designated to provide emergency financial relief to struggling small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic,” stated U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan. He promised ongoing efforts to work with law enforcement to investigate and prosecute similar crimes.
Robertson further compromised the integrity of the Paycheck Protection Program by transferring substantial amounts to her relatives and accomplices. Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Inspector General, Atlanta Region, Kyle A. Myles, condemned her actions.
"Today the defendant in this case was held accountable for fraudulently obtaining millions of dollars through the Paycheck Protection Program and using those stolen funds to enrich herself,” Myles said. He noted the importance of upholding the integrity of these federal programs.
Amaleka McCall-Braithwaite, Special Agent in Charge of SBA OIG’s Eastern Region, criticized Robertson’s scheme, highlighting how it undermined support for legitimate businesses. She praised the collaborative efforts of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and other law enforcement partners.
In addition to her fraudulent activities, Robertson made a $1,000 donation to the primary election campaign of corrupt Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis around the time she misappropriated the COVID funds, adding another layer to her unethical conduct.
The misuse of the Paycheck Protection Program funds is a striking example of how some individuals saw the pandemic as an opportunity to enrich themselves illegally. The funds were intended to be a lifeline for small businesses struggling to survive the economic hardships imposed by Covid-19.
This conviction and sentencing are part of a broader effort by federal authorities to crack down on fraud related to pandemic relief programs. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia and their partners remain committed to investigating and prosecuting those who exploit federal programs for personal gain.
Shelitha Robertson's conviction is a pivotal example of the legal system's dedication to pursuing justice for those who exploit federal relief funds. Her misuse of the Paycheck Protection Program funds for personal luxury stands as a deterrent for others who might consider similar actions in the future.
A controversial Facebook post has led to allegations that a juror in former President Donald Trump's trial discussed the guilty verdict before it was officially announced.
Judge Juan Merchan informed Trump’s defense about a Facebook comment suggesting a juror leaked the guilty verdict before it was delivered, as Fox 5 reports.
The information was disclosed to Trump's defense team on Friday.
The alleged comment, posted on May 29, suggested a juror indicated a guilty verdict before it was formally issued.
Fox News obtained a letter that detailed the problematic comment. According to the now-deleted post, a user named "Michael Anderson" claimed to have a cousin on the jury who falsely implicated Trump.
The social media profile of "Michael Anderson" is sparse, listing the user as "Transabled & professional sh-- poster." Due to the limited information, the authenticity and credibility of the comment remain unclear.
On learning about the post, court officials felt it necessary to inform both parties involved in the trial.
A spokesperson for the court stated, "As appropriate, the Court informed the parties once it learned of this online content."
Judge Juan Merchan addressed the matter by informing Trump's legal team without delay. He cited the comment where the user described, "My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted! Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!"
The very next day after the comment surfaced, Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The trial, which spanned six weeks, was initiated by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Throughout the trial, Trump maintained his innocence by pleading not guilty to all charges. Despite his persistent avowals, the jury returned a guilty verdict on every count.
A Trump campaign official is currently probing the matter. The timing of the comment and subsequent verdict has raised questions about potential jury bias.
The Trump campaign stated they are "Investigating the matter" to gather more details about the social media claim and its implications on the fairness of the trial.
Judge Merchan's decision to relay the information demonstrates a commitment to maintaining transparency and fairness in the judiciary process.
The discovery of such an allegation throws a spotlight on the integrity of the judicial system. The implications of juror misconduct, if proven true, could impact public perception and proceedings.
Trump's legal team is yet to issue a formal response addressing the specific details of the Facebook controversy. The unfolding developments will likely be closely monitored by both legal analysts and the general public.
To summarize, Judge Juan Merchan informed Trump's defense about a potentially prejudicial Facebook post that suggested a juror leaked a guilty verdict, leading to significant inquiries.
The trial, prosecuted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, found Trump guilty of falsifying business records. A Trump campaign official confirmed an investigation into the alleged misconduct.
In a heated exchange on CNN, Dr. Phil McGraw sparred with host Abby Phillip over the due process in former President Donald Trump's trial.
The debate between McGraw and Phillip centered on Michael Cohen's testimony and its impact on Trump’s recent conviction in New York City, as Fox News reports.
McGraw, widely known for his daytime television advice show, engaged in a contentious discussion with Phillip late Thursday night. Their debate arose after McGraw's earlier interview with Trump and quickly moved to the topic of the former president's trial and its fairness.
The discussion became especially tense when McGraw challenged the role of Cohen in the trial's outcome, Trump's former lawyer and the prosecution's star witness. McGraw questioned Cohen's credibility and the implications of his testimony on the verdict.
Legal analysts, including CNN's Elie Honig, have also expressed reservations about Cohen's reliability, despite the significance of his testimony. Phillip defended the use of Cohen as a witness, pointing out that plea deals are common in prosecutions concerning organized crime.
McGraw remained firm, arguing that Cohen’s plea deal prejudiced the jury against Trump. "I think the fact that he made an agreement to say that he is guilty of the crime that the defendant is being tried for prejudices the jury," he said. Phillip countered that this practice is standard, particularly in cases involving intricate schemes. She emphasized that Cohen, despite his plea deal, was intrinsic to the alleged criminal activities.
McGraw and Phillip's debate highlighted the divergent views on using testimony from individuals who have taken plea bargains. McGraw worried that Cohen’s admission of guilt could unfairly influence the jury’s perception, regardless of its legality.
Phillip, however, indicated that excluding such testimony would be inappropriate, especially if the witness played a crucial role in the alleged crime. This divergence underscored the complexities and contentious nature of the trial.
Besides addressing procedural concerns, McGraw criticized what he views as the justice system’s "weaponization." He previously remarked that such actions could lead to retaliatory measures from the opposing political side, which might not serve the country's best interests.
McGraw cautioned against the "weaponization" of justice institutions, warning that it could instigate a cycle of revenge-driven actions among political entities. "Look, this is not going to help this country," McGraw asserted, urging for a more measured approach.
He argued that political actors seeking retribution compromise America's foundational values and end up detracting from the broader goal of justice. Such actions, he noted, ultimately harm the nation as a whole. McGraw's stance reflects his concern that the judicial process must remain fair and impartial, irrespective of political affiliations, to maintain the integrity of the legal system.
In conclusion, Dr. Phil McGraw's debate with CNN's Abby Phillip on Trump’s trial highlighted contrasting views on legal fairness and the use of witness testimony. While McGraw asserted that Michael Cohen’s testimony prejudiced the trial, Phillip defended its legitimacy, citing common prosecutorial practices.
McGraw also voiced broader concerns about the political weaponization of justice institutions, warning against a retaliatory cycle that could damage the nation’s core values. His perspective underscores the ongoing debate over maintaining judicial integrity in highly politicized cases. This discussion points to the larger conversation about justice, fairness, and the appropriate use of legal strategies in high-profile prosecutions.
Vice President Kamala Harris recently expressed astonishment upon discovering a marijuana strain bearing her name while underscoring her support for decriminalizing cannabis use.
The Vice President, despite overseeing numerous marijuana convictions during her tenure as a District Attorney, has since advocated for cannabis legalization, Daily Mail reported.
During a segment on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, the Vice President was informed about the existence of 'Kamala Kush,' a cannabis strain described as 'earthy and grounding' by Alibi Cannabis in Oregon. Responding with laughter, Harris exclaimed, "Really? Seriously? I did not know that."
Harris, who has overseen over 1,900 marijuana-related convictions as the District Attorney in San Francisco, notably expressed her lack of interest in using the strain, saying, "I'm not touching that." Despite her judicial history, Harris has since expressed evolving views on marijuana policies.
Addressing her stance, Harris reiterated, "Look, I think we both agree, people shouldn't have to go to jail for smoking weed." This statement underscores a significant pivot from her earlier prosecutorial stance, reflecting broader societal changes.
In the early stages of her career, specifically in 2010, Harris opposed a California ballot measure aimed at legalizing recreational marijuana for adults. Her opposition during that period aligned with the broader sentiment labeling marijuana as a ‘gateway drug’, a notion she now denounces.
Highlighting the change in her perspective, Harris remarked, "There was a time people would say, marijuana is a gateway drug. These are failed policies, right?" Emphasizing the need for a strategic allocation of resources, she advocated for law enforcement focus to shift towards tackling opioid addiction and improving mental health care.
Harris’s current advocacy includes redirecting efforts away from penalizing marijuana usage to addressing more pressing issues like fentanyl and other opioids. She stated, "The resources should be better directed and will be better directed to deal with opioid addiction and what we need to do around fentanyl."
Despite her current endorsement of marijuana legalization, advocates have criticized Harris for her perceived delayed support. Veteran marijuana legal reform advocate Steve DeAngelo voiced his disapproval: "She absolutely has no moral authority to speak on this issue whatsoever."
In contrast, Harris has developed a more positive outlook on marijuana’s social impact. Reflecting on the joy it brings to users, she commented, "Listen, I think it gives a lot of people joy. And we need more joy." This statement in 2019 signifies her evolved beliefs on the substance’s cultural role.
In alignment with her reformed stance, Harris has even engaged with public figures such as rapper Fat Joe to discuss the implications of marijuana-related incarcerations. This move underscores her commitment to addressing outdated policies and promoting reform.
Harris’s personal history with marijuana also came to light during her campaign. In an interview with Charlemagne tha God on The Breakfast Club, she admitted, "I have. And I inhaled. I did inhale," referring to her own college experiences with the substance.
To summarize, Vice President Kamala Harris's stance on marijuana has shifted dramatically from her days of prosecuting marijuana-related offenses to now advocating for its decriminalization and legalization. Her reaction to the 'Kamala Kush' strain emphasizes her evolving views despite drawing some criticism from reform advocates. Harris has engaged with celebrities on cannabis laws and has focused on reallocating law enforcement resources to more pressing issues.
Participants, all past supporters of Trump, Biden, or Clinton, discussed how the verdict influenced their voting decisions for November.
Fox News reported that many participants expressed uncertainty about how the conviction would affect their vote. Some were still "torn," while others said the verdict swayed their decision, but not decisively. They emphasized other issues like inflation, the economy, immigration, and abortion as more critical factors in their decision-making process.
James, a 53-year-old from Iowa, voiced skepticism about the fairness of Trump's prosecution. He argued that the efforts to prosecute Trump were politically motivated rather than being about justice.
"They’ve been going after Trump since he was elected in 2016. Democracy is supposed to be about the will of the people. I don’t really think the majority of the people in this country wanted to see him prosecuted on these charges," James said.
Jonathan, a 37-year-old from Florida, echoed a similar sentiment, defending Trump as an "antihero" and drawing comparisons to characters like Tony Soprano and Walter White. He suggested that Trump's actions, though controversial, were seen by many of his supporters as being in their best interest.
Hilary, 55, a social worker from California, stated that she could not vote for a convicted felon but was also hesitant to support Biden. Her dilemma was shared by others in the group, reflecting a broader sense of disillusionment with the current political options.
"Despite my absolute concerns about the mental fitness and policy disagreements that I have with Joe Biden, I cannot envision casting a vote for Donald Trump," she said, noting her internal conflict over the decision.
Frank, a 65-year-old from Arizona, expressed doubts about Trump's integrity and ethics, indicating a potential shift toward Biden despite his reservations about the current president. He emphasized the importance of a president having a higher standard of ethics and integrity.
The group was more unified in their concerns about the state of American democracy following the verdict. Jorge, a 52-year-old from California, described the situation as "dangerous," while Logan, a 31-year-old lawyer from Oklahoma, called it "absolute hyperbolic chaos."
Despite his defense of Trump, Jonathan highlighted the economic factors as the most critical for his voting decision. He said:
As an independent, my No. 1 factor is economics. Full disclosure: Under Biden, I make more money. But under Trump, my money was worth more. And so that’s why I’m undecided. I don’t know who is the better side of the coin. Right now, I’m waiting to see who Trump chooses as his vice president.
John, 58, from Pennsylvania, expressed disappointment with Biden following Trump's conviction, suggesting it made Biden appear ungracious and weak. He speculated that undecided voters might turn to independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as an alternative.
Jorge shared a similar view, suggesting that Biden's involvement in the prosecution made him look weaker. He believed the verdict might energize Trump's supporters and those previously apathetic. "This verdict is going to energize people toward Trump. Maybe if they were apathetic or weren’t sure…it kind of lights a fire in them," said Shantel, a 33-year-old from California.
The focus group highlighted swing voters' complex and varied reactions to Trump's conviction, with many still undecided about their vote in the upcoming election. While some expressed unwavering support for Trump, others were swayed by broader issues such as the economy and integrity in leadership. The discussions also underscored significant concerns about the state of American democracy, reflecting the turbulent political landscape leading up to November.
Dr. Phil McGraw has publicly urged President Joe Biden to dismiss Donald Trump's conviction, arguing that it would prevent further political chaos and help maintain the integrity of the justice system.
Daily Mail reported that Dr. Phil McGraw expressed deep concerns over former President Donald Trump's conviction. McGraw, known for his direct approach, called for Biden to intervene and dismiss the conviction, which he believes undermines the justice system.
Trump, who was recently convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying documents, faces sentencing on July 11. The charges stem from a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election. This conviction has thrown the 2024 election into disarray and could significantly impact the U.S. political landscape.
Dr. Phil accused the justice system of being weaponized against Trump, describing the situation as "craziness" that threatens America's collective soul and sanity. He urged the Biden administration to do the "right thing" by dismissing the charges, even post-conviction.
The conviction, handed down in a Manhattan courthouse last Thursday, has drawn significant attention. Trump was found guilty of falsifying documents related to the hush money payments, which prosecutors allege were intended to corrupt the 2016 election.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg led the prosecution, arguing that Trump's reimbursements to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, were falsely labeled as legal expenses to conceal their true purpose.
These charges could theoretically result in up to 136 years in prison, though legal experts suggest Trump may face probation or a steep fine instead.
As the presumptive Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential election, Trump's conviction has significant implications. Dr. Phil warned that the weaponization of the justice system could turn America into a "banana republic" similar to Russia.
During his monologue, McGraw speculated on the potential extreme measures that could follow if such practices continue. He expressed fear of political opponents being targeted in ways reminiscent of Russian tactics, including mysterious poisonings.
Dr. Phil emphasized that his call for action was not an endorsement of any political candidate. Rather, he aimed to help "right this ship" of America, urging a return to an impartial justice system that is not influenced by political agendas.
Trump’s legal team plans to appeal his conviction, but they are facing unique challenges due to his Secret Service protection. Addressing the politically charged atmosphere ahead of the 2024 election, Dr. Phil criticized both political sides for compromising their morals and using the justice system for political gain.
He urged a return to an impartial justice system to avoid a dystopian future. Dr. Phil's call for Biden to dismiss Trump's conviction and warning against political retribution add depth to the ongoing debate over the justice system's role in politics.
In conclusion, Dr. Phil urged President Biden to dismiss Trump's conviction to prevent political chaos and maintain the integrity of the justice system. Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying documents linked to a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels could impact the 2024 election. Dr. Phil criticized the justice system's "weaponization" against Trump and warned that it could lead to a dystopian future, emphasizing the need for an impartial justice system.
In a voicemail obtained by DailyMail, Joe Biden urged his son to seek help just three days after Hunter purchased the gun.
Hunter Biden is currently on trial for allegedly lying about his drug addiction on a federal form to purchase a firearm. Prosecutors argue that evidence from Hunter's laptop and memoir indicates his awareness of his addiction at the time of the purchase.
The voicemail, recorded in October 2018, reveals Joe Biden's awareness of his son's struggle with addiction. Hunter Biden is accused of falsely stating he was not a drug addict on a Firearms Transaction Record to buy a Colt Cobra .38 handgun.
Prosecutors argue that Hunter committed three felonies by lying about his sobriety on the federal form. Jury selection began Monday for Hunter's trial, where he faces charges for this alleged false statement.
A picture from Hunter's laptop, showing him posing nude with a firearm, emphasizes his history of drug abuse. Additionally, Hunter's memoir "Beautiful Things" reveals he was a 'full-blown' crack addict at the time of the gun purchase. The book is being used as evidence in the trial to support the prosecution's case.
Prosecutors plan to use texts and photos from Hunter's laptop to demonstrate his addiction when he signed the federal form. Joe Biden's voicemails, though not listed in court filings, are in the possession of prosecutors and may bolster their case.
Joe Biden left another voicemail for Hunter on October 19, 2018, checking on his son's well-being. In these messages, Joe Biden expresses his love and concern, urging Hunter to get help and letting him know he is there for him.
According to texts Hunter sent to family members, Joe Biden paid tens of thousands of dollars for Hunter's rehab stints. This financial support underscores Joe Biden's ongoing concern for his son's well-being.
Special Prosecutor David Weiss' deputies have hinted at using messages with family members if Hunter's defense claims he didn't know he was an addict. Including Joe Biden's messages in the trial could be controversial, given the Bidens' influence in Delaware.
Hunter Biden bought a .38 revolver from Starquest Shooters in Delaware on October 12, 2018, which was later thrown away by Hallie Biden, his then-lover and brother's widow, in a supermarket trash bin near a Wilmington high school. The incident led to a police investigation after the firearm was discovered.
This event is part of pre-trial filings that highlight the potential dangers associated with Hunter's actions. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, who has advocated for stricter gun regulation and signed a related bill in 2022, faces a stark contrast with this family incident involving firearm mishandling.
Prosecutors will use material from Hunter's laptop to prove he was knowingly addicted to crack cocaine at the time he signed the federal form. They argue that Hunter's false statement on the firearm report constitutes a federal offense. In a pre-trial filing, prosecutors stated that they may use messages with family members to counter any defense claims that Hunter did not know he was an addict.
Hunter Biden's trial for allegedly lying about his drug addiction on a federal form to purchase a gun brings to light complex family dynamics and legal challenges. Joe Biden's voicemails, expressing concern for his son's well-being, highlight the personal struggles within the Biden family. As the trial progresses, evidence from Hunter's laptop and memoir will play a crucial role in the prosecution's case.
The Associated Press reported that Donald Trump has joined TikTok two days after being found guilty on 34 felony charges related to his 2016 election campaign.
Despite his previous efforts to outlaw TikTok during his presidency, Trump launched his account with a video from a UFC event in Newark, New Jersey. The video depicted him waving to fans, posing for selfies, and concluding with the statement, "That was a good walk-on, right?"
The TikTok debut, which happened on Saturday night, quickly went viral. By Sunday morning, Trump's account boasted over 1.1 million followers, 1 million likes, and 24 million views. This surge in popularity underscores his ongoing influence and appeal among a broad audience, including younger demographics.
Trump’s entry into TikTok comes amidst serious legal complications. Just two days prior, Trump was found guilty of 34 felony charges related to falsifying business records tied to his 2016 campaign. He maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal the decision, with sentencing anticipated for July 11.
A spokesman for Trump, Steven Cheung, explained that the TikTok presence is a strategic move to connect with a younger audience. "We will leave no front undefended, and this represents the continued outreach to a younger audience consuming pro-Trump and anti-Biden content," Cheung stated.
Adding to the intrigue is the backdrop of Democrat-led legislative efforts to ban TikTok if its parent company, ByteDance, does not divest it within 9 to 12 months. This legislative act, signed by President Joe Biden in April, reflects bipartisan concerns over the app's security risks tied to Chinese ownership.
Trump received an enthusiastic reception at the UFC event. Fans chanted "We love Trump!" while others directed critical remarks towards President Joe Biden. Cheung highlighted the strategic importance of the event, stating, "There’s no place better than a UFC event to launch President Trump’s TikTok, where he received a hero’s welcome and thousands of fans cheered him on."
Notably, as President, Trump tried to ban TikTok through an executive order citing national security concerns, but the courts blocked this move. Federal agencies such as the FBI and FCC have repeatedly warned about ByteDance's potential to share user data with the Chinese government.
Despite his past attempts to ban the app, Trump has acknowledged its popularity, particularly among younger users. "Frankly, there are a lot of people on TikTok that love it. There are a lot of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without it," Trump said in an interview with CNBC.
This development puts Trump and Biden on the same platform. Both are attempting to leverage TikTok for their political campaigns. The Biden campaign has also recognized the app’s significance, emphasizing its role in reaching voters across multiple digital platforms.
Melania Trump did not attend court during Trump's trial, a fact that added to the trial’s emotional toll. Trump mentioned the difficulty she faced, stating, “She’s fine. But I think it’s very hard for her. I mean, she’s fine. But, you know, she has to read all this crap.”
During a Fox News interview, Trump also discussed his legal pressures, where he expressed doubts about public tolerance for his potential criminal punishment. “I don’t know that the public would stand it, you know. I’m not sure the public would stand for it,” he remarked.
In conclusion, Donald Trump's TikTok debut marks a significant shift, especially given his earlier attempts to ban the app. His legal troubles continue as he awaits sentencing for felony charges related to his 2016 campaign. Meanwhile, both political camps strive to capture the attention of young voters on digital platforms, highlighting the ongoing strategic importance of social media in modern campaigns.
Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota has made a surprising appeal, calling on New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to pardon Donald Trump, arguing that his conviction boosts his 2024 campaign.
The Democratic lawmaker, known for his brief primary challenge to President Joe Biden, expressed his concerns on social media regarding the potential political fallout from Trump’s conviction, and he described pardoning Trump as something that should be done for the "good of the country," as Fox News reports.
Phillips criticized Trump, highlighting his past behaviors and legal troubles, encompassing everything from being a “serial liar” to his conviction. This outspoken critique comes at a time when the Trump campaign announced a record-setting fundraising milestone. The conviction resulted in almost $53 million raised within 24 hours, doubling the campaign’s previous fundraising efforts.
Phillips expressed his opinion that the conviction is bolstering Trump’s image among his supporters. In his view, the portrayal of Trump as a victim is motivating his base, significantly increasing campaign contributions, and potentially improving his electoral chances.
Trump’s campaign noted that $34.8 million was raised in the immediate hours following the conviction verdict, emphasizing the surge in activity within the MAGA movement.
During a recent interview with CNN, Phillips elaborated on his viewpoint, suggesting the New York legal actions might have backfired against the Democrats. He posited that the conviction related to the payment to a porn star was especially damaging, arguing that election-related charges are different and should be considered separately.
Phillips officially entered the primary race against Biden in October but stepped down in March, pledging support for Biden. He emphasized the necessity of Democrats rallying behind President Biden, whom he advocated for as a figure of decency and integrity.
Phillips’ concern extended to the implications of the legal proceedings on Trump’s current campaign. Despite the controversies and legal battles, Trump’s campaign and the RNC successfully out-raised Biden’s campaign and the DNC in April for the first time. However, Biden’s campaign maintained a financial edge with $84 million in cash on hand versus Trump’s $49 million by the end of April.
As of now, no response has been issued by Hochul’s office in direct response to Phillips’s request. The Democratic representative’s plea is an unusual occurrence in the political sphere, showing a significant divide in the Democratic Party’s strategy toward Trump’s legal battles.
In one of his social media posts, Phillips commented, “Making him a martyr over a payment to a porn star is stupid. (Election charges are entirely different.)” This statement underscored his belief that the current situation was giving Trump unnecessary political leverage.
Phillips remains steadfast in his support for Biden, urging Democratic efforts to mobilize and maintain a unified front against Trump’s rising campaign momentum. “I ask you to join me in mobilizing, energizing, and doing everything you can to help keep a man of decency and integrity in the White House. That’s Joe Biden,” Phillips implored.
Phillips’ call for Hochul to pardon Trump has highlighted a rift within the Democratic Party concerning how to best handle Trump’s legal and electoral strategies. His comments reflect a deeper strategic concern that pursuing certain legal cases may unintentionally fortify Trump’s campaign.
Despite the controversies surrounding Trump, Phillips argued that focusing on making Trump a martyr over specific charges may not serve the intended purpose of weakening his electoral strength. His nuanced stance suggests a strategic reconsideration within the Democratic ranks.