Republicans Have No Idea What Happened in That Trump Meeting Either
Hafiz Rashid – June 13, 2024
Donald Trump’s trip to Capitol Hill on Tuesday was supposed to be about his agenda if he wins the election in November. Instead, his meeting with House Republicans was about as coherent as one of his rally speeches.
“Like talking to your drunk uncle at the family reunion,” one source at the meeting said, while another said that the convicted felon and presumptive Republican presidential nominee was “rambling.”
Almost every Republican in the House attended the meeting, which was full of praise for Trump, including singing “Happy Birthday” to him and presenting him with the baseball from Wednesday’s Congressional Baseball Game. But after that, Trump’s remarks went in various directions, from praising Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Steve Scalise to bashing the site of this year’s Republican national convention, Milwaukee.
Trump also told the audience that he met with Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and claimed he’s leading polls in the state by two points, despite the fact that a Republican hasn’t won there since 2004. Bizarrely, he also brought up Taylor Swift, asking why the pop singer would “endorse this dope,” referring to Biden, and referenced Hannibal Lecter again, calling him a “nice guy.”
“He even had a friend over for dinner,” Trump said.
His comments on abortion to the group were puzzling, claiming that it only became an issue 10 years before.
Twitter screenshot Jake Sherman: ����TRUMP on abortion to House Republicans: “Roe v Wade, everyone was against it because they wanted it to be decided by the states, there was no 10 weeks, 12 weeks, every person said it’s got to be back to the states. “It became a complex issue 10 years ago, everyone wanted it back in the states, and we got it back in the states, sometimes good sometimes not good, some states went one way and some states went a different way “But like Ronald Reagan, you have to have three choices: life of mother, rape and incest you have to do, but you have to follow your own heart “Republicans are so afraid of the issue, we would have had 40 seats”More
Weirdly, he also said that one of Representative Nancy Pelosi’s daughters told him, “If things were different, Nancy and I would be perfect together,” which prompted an immediate denial from Pelosi’s daughter Christine.
Trump’s meandering rants didn’t hold the attention of everyone in the room, though, as Representative Chip Roy, who has often fought with his Republican colleagues, was at one point reportedly watching golf on an iPad while Trump spoke.
Trump’s F-Bomb Rant to Mike Johnson Sparks Desperate GOP Moves
Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling – June 13, 2024
After a jury found him guilty on 34 felony counts, Donald Trump knew exactly who to call for a solution: House Speaker Mike Johnson.
In a conversation reportedly laced with F-bombs, Trump urged the Louisiana Republican to find a political solution for his legal comeuppance, Politico reported Thursday.
“We have to overturn this,” Trump told a sympathetic Johnson, according to Politico.
Johnson already believed that the House had a role to play in overturning Trump’s conviction, but since that call, he’s practically done backflips to make it happen. During an interview on Fox and Friends last month, Johnson urged the Supreme Court to “step in” and overturn the jury’s verdict.
“I think that the justices on the court—I know many of them personally—I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight,” Johnson said, before effectively promising to viewers that the nation’s highest court would step in to make the ruling go away. “This will be overturned, guys, there’s no question about it; it’s just going to take some time to do it.”
The House Speaker is looking to unravel Trump’s other criminal charges, as well. Johnson is reportedly examining using the appropriations process to target special counsel Jack Smith’s probe, and is already in talks with Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan to do so. It’s a near reversal of a position he took early last month, when Johnson told Politico that a similar idea proposed by Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be “unworkable.”
“That country certainly sees what’s going on, and they don’t want Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg and these kinds of folks to be able to continue to use grant dollars for targeting people in a political lawfare type of way,” Jordan told the publication.
But other Republicans aren’t exactly on board with the idea of defunding the special counsel—even if they disagree with the case against Trump.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea unless you can show that [the prosecutors] acted in bad faith or fraud or something like that,” Idaho Representative Mike Simpson told Politico. “They’re just doing their job—even though I disagree with what they did.”
Another, unnamed Republican went even further in torching the effort, claiming that attacking Smith’s case would completely undermine their calls against Democrats for “weaponizing” the justice system to their political benefit.
Clarence Thomas took additional undisclosed trips paid for by GOP megadonor, Senate committee says
Zoë Richards and Lawrence Hurley – June 13, 2024
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was given additional undisclosed trips by a GOP megadonor that were not included in his financial disclosure forms, according to documents the Senate Judiciary Committee released Thursday.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, released records about gifts of private jet travel provided by Thomas’ billionaire friend, Harlan Crow, that included plane trips in 2017, 2019 and 2021.
“As a result of our investigation and subpoena authorization, we are providing the American public greater clarity on the extent of ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices and the need for ethics reform,” Durbin said in a statement.
The documents were released a day after Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the committee advanced nearly a year ago.
In a statement Thursday, Crow’s office said he had reached an agreement with the Judiciary Committee to provide information dating back seven years.
“Despite his serious and continued concerns about the legality and necessity of the inquiry, Mr. Crow engaged in good faith with the Committee,” his office said. “As a condition of this agreement, the Committee agreed to end its probe with respect to Mr. Crow.”
A spokesperson for Durbin told NBC News in a statement that the committee “reached an agreement with Mr. Crow for information and materials that was sufficient for compliance with the Committee’s request and subpoena authorization.”
An attorney for Thomas defended his disclosure practices.
“The information that Harlan Crow provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee fell under the ‘personal hospitality exemption’ and was not required to be disclosed by Justice Thomas,” attorney Elliot S. Berke said in a statement Thursday, adding that the Judicial Conference — the administrative office of the U.S. courts — “changed this provision last year, and Justice Thomas has fully complied with the new disclosure requirement.”
The response from Berke echoed Thomas’ statement last year that referred to the undisclosed travel as “personal hospitality from close personal friends,” not business.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee cited a statute Thursday detailing financial disclosure requirements for federal personnel, which says that “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported,” while contending that the law requires disclosing travel given as gifts. They said they planned to release a report on their investigation of Supreme Court ethics this summer.
A Supreme Court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday about the travel records the committee released.
Trump Rants About Sharks, and Everyone Just Pretends It’s Normal
Par for the course. Trump is Trump. But imagine the response if Joe Biden had said it.
By Brian Klaas – June 12, 2024
Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Justin Sullivan / Getty.
Hours before meeting with his probation officer about his recent felony convictions, a leading candidate for U.S. president went on a bizarre rant about sharks.
Sharks, Donald Trump claimed, were attacking more frequently than usual (not true) and posed a newfound risk because boats were being required to use batteries (not true), which would cause them to sink because they were too heavy (really, really not true—the world’s heaviest cruise ship, the Icon of the Seas, managed to stay afloat because of the laws of physics despite weighing more than 550 million pounds).
Trump, undeterred by truth or science, invoked his intellectual credentials by mentioning his “relationship to MIT.” (Trump’s uncle was a professor at the university, pioneering rotational radiation therapy, which seems a somewhat tenuous connection for conferring shark- or battery-related expertise to his nephew.) If Trump had been able to ask his uncle about the risks of being electrocuted by a boat battery because, as Trump put it, “there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water,” perhaps the professor would have informed him that high-capacity batteries would rapidly discharge in seawater and pose minuscule risk to humans because the water conducts electricity far better than human bodies do.
Sharks appear to have troubled Trump’s mind for years. On July 4, 2013, Trump twice tweeted about them, saying, “Sorry folks, I’m just not a fan of sharks—and don’t worry, they will be around long after we are gone.” Two minutes later, he followed that nugget of wisdom with: “Sharks are last on my list—other than perhaps the losers and haters of the World!”
These deranged rants are tempting to laugh off. They’re par for the course. Trump is Trump. But Trump may also soon be the president of the United States. Imagine the response if Joe Biden had made the same rambling remarks, word for word. Consider this excerpt:
“I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery’s underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’ By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately. Do you notice that? A lot of shark … I watched some guys justifying it today: ‘Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry, but they misunderstood who she was.’ These people are crazy.”
Coming from Biden, that exact statement might have prompted calls from across the political spectrum for him to drop out of the race. From Trump, it was a blip that barely registered. I’ve previously called this dynamic “the banality of crazy”: Trump’s ludicrous statements are ignored precisely because they’re so routine—and routine occurrences don’t drive the news. They are the proverbial “dog bites man” stories that get ignored by the press. Except that even this truism breaks down when it comes to the asymmetry between coverage of Trump and Biden: Based on Google News tallies, the news story about Biden’s dog biting a Secret Service agent spurred far more press coverage than Trump saying that he would order shoplifters to be shot without a trial if he became president.
Still, Trump appears to be benefiting from the sheer superfluity of crazy. At rallies, the former president makes stream-of-consciousness statements that would raise questions about the mental acuity of anyone who said them at, say, the tail end of a night at a neighborhood bar, but that somehow don’t generate the same level of concern within the press or the Republican Party when Trump says them in front of a cheering crowd. By contrast, when Biden makes a gaffe—mixing up a name or a date rather than, for example, suggesting that boats sink because they’re heavy—questions arise about his mental fitness to be president. A president who occasionally misspeaks is far less worrying than one who purveys delusional fantasies and conspiracy theories. Biden may gaffe, but he lives in reality; Trump often doesn’t.
Today, a prominent New York Times columnist called on one of the two candidates to drop out. Astonishingly, it wasn’t the authoritarian felon who inspired a violent mob to attack the Capitol, tried to overturn a democratic election, has been banned from doing business in New York due to fraud—and yet again showcased his loose grip on reality by ranting about sharks.
Brian Klaas is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and an associate professor of global politics at University College London.
What the former president’s shark tirade says about American politics and media
By Tom Nichols – June 12, 2024
Eric Thayer / The Washington Post / Getty
Perhaps the greatest trick Donald Trump ever pulled was convincing millions of people—and the American media—to treat his lapses into fantasies and gibberish as a normal, meaningful form of oratory. But Trump is not a normal person, and his speeches are not normal political events.
For too long, Trump has gotten away with pretending that his emotional issues are just part of some offbeat New York charm or an expression of his enthusiasm for public performance. But Trump is obviously unfit—and something is profoundly wrong with a political environment in which he can now say almost anything, no matter how weird, and his comments will get a couple of days of coverage and then a shrug, as if to say: Another day, another Trump rantabout sharks.
Wait, what?
Yes, sharks. In Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump went off-script—I have to assume that no competent speechwriter would have drafted this—and riffed on the important question of how to electrocute a shark while one attacks. He had been talking, he claims, to someone about electric boats: “I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery’s now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’”
As usual, Trump noted how much he impressed his interlocutor with his very smart hypothetical: “And he said, ‘Nobody ever asks this question,’ and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT. Very smart.” (MIT? Trump’s uncle taught there and retired over a half century ago, when Trump was in his 20s, and died in 1985. Trump often implies that his uncle passed on MIT’s brainpower by genetic osmosis or something.)
This ramble went on for a bit longer, until Trump made it clear that given his choice, he’d rather be zapped instead of eaten: “But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted? I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that, we’re going to end it for boats, we’re going to end it for trucks.”
Hopefully, this puts to rest any pressing questions among Americans about the presumptive Republican nominee’s feelings on electric vehicles and their relationship to at least two gruesome ways to die.
Sure, it seems funny—Haha! Uncle Don is telling that crazy shark story again!—until we remember that this man wants to return to a position where he would hold America’s secrets, be responsible for the execution of our laws, and preside as the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world. A moment that seems like oddball humor should, in fact, terrify any American voter, because this behavior in anyone else would be an instant disqualification for any political office, let alone the presidency. (Actually, a delusional, rambling felon known to have owned weapons would likely fail a security check for even a visit to the Oval Office.)
Nor was the Vegas monologue the first time: Trump for years has fallen off one verbal cliff after another, with barely a ripple in the national consciousness. I am not a psychiatrist, and I am not diagnosing Trump with anything. I am, however, a man who has lived on this Earth for more than 60 years, and I know someone who has serious emotional problems when I see them played out in front of me, over and over. The 45th president is a disturbed person. He cannot be trusted with any position of responsibility—and especially not with a nuclear arsenal of more than 1,500 weapons. One wrong move could lead to global incineration.
Why hasn’t there been more sustained and serious attention paid to Trump’s emotional state?
First, Trump’s target audience is used to him. Watch the silence that descends over the crowds at such moments; when Trump wanders off into the recesses of his own mind, they chit-chat or check their phones or look around, waiting for him to come back and offer them an applause line. For them, it’s all just part of the show.
Second, Trump’s staff tries to put just enough policy fiber into Trump’s nutty verbal soufflés that they can always sell a talking point later, as if his off-ramps from reality are merely tiny bumps in otherwise sensible speeches. Trump himself occasionally seems surprised when these policy nuggets pop up in a speech; when reading the teleprompter, he sometimes adds comments such as “so true, so true,” perhaps because he’s encountering someone else’s words for the first time and agreeing with them. Thus, they will later claim that questions about sharks or long-dead uncles are just bad-faith distractions from substance. (These are the same Republicans who claim that every verbal stumble from Joe Biden indicates full-blown dementia.)
Third, and perhaps most concerning in terms of public discussion, many people in the media have fallen under the spell of the Jedi hand-waves from Trump and his people that none of this is as disturbing and weird as it sounds. The refs have been worked: A significant segment of the media—and even the Democratic Party—has bought into a Republican narrative that asking whether Trump is mentally unstable is somehow biased and elitist, the kind of thing that could only occur to Beltway mandarins who don’t understand how the candidate talks to normal people.
Such objections are mendacious nonsense and represent a massive double standard. As Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post wrote today: “It is irresponsible to obsess over President Biden’s tendency to mangle a couple of words in a speech while Donald Trump is out there sounding detached from reality.” Biden’s mush-mouthed moments fall well within the range of normal gaffes. Had he or any other American politician said anything even remotely like one of Trump’s bizarre digressions, we’d be flooded with front-page stories about it. Pundits would be solemnly calling for a Much Needed National Conversation about the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
It is long past time for anyone who isn’t in the Trump base to admit, and to keep talking about, something that has been obvious for years: Donald Trump is unstable. Some of these problems were evident when he first ran, and we now know from revelations by many of his former staff that his problems processing information and staying tethered to reality are not part of some hammy act.
Worse, the people who once managed Trump’s cognitive and emotional issues are gone, never to return. A second Trump White House will be staffed with the bottom of the barrel—the opportunists and hangers-on willing to work for a reprehensible man. His Oval Office will be empty of responsible and experienced public servants if the day comes when someone has to explain to him why war might be about to erupt on the Korean peninsula or why the Russian or Chinese nuclear forces have gone on alert, and he starts talking about frying sharks with boat batteries.
The 45th president is deeply unwell. It is long past time for Americans, including those in public life, to recognize his inability to serve as the 47th.
The US House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress.
The Republican-controlled chamber passed its resolution by a 216-207 vote, with only one Republican siding with the united Democratic opposition.
Mr Garland refused to turn over interview tapes from a justice department probe of President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.
Reacting to the contempt vote, he said House Republicans had “turned a serious congressional authority into a partisan weapon”.
“Today’s vote disregards the constitutional separation of powers, the Justice Department’s need to protect its investigations, and the substantial amount of information we have provided to the Committees,” he wrote in a statement.
America’s top law enforcement officer now becomes only the third attorney general in US history, and fourth sitting cabinet member overall, to be held in contempt of Congress.
The contempt resolution recommends that the justice department make a decision on whether or not to criminally prosecute Mr Garland.
Under federal law, contempt is a misdemeanour charge punishable by up to one year in jail and a $100,000 (£78,000) fine. Steve Bannon, an ally of former President Donald Trump, faces four months behind bars over a contempt citation, while former Trump aide Peter Navarro is already serving time on his own charge.
But Wednesday’s vote functions as a partisan exercise given that a justice department prosecutor would almost certainly not pursue criminal charges against the head of their own agency.
Attorneys General William Barr and Eric Holder, who respectively served the preceding Republican and Democratic administrations, also were held in contempt of Congress along partisan lines. Neither faced criminal charges.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, described the vote as “a significant step in maintaining the integrity of our oversight processes and responsibilities”.
Moderate Ohio lawmaker David Joyce was the lone Republican to oppose the resolution, as did all 206 Democrats present for the vote.
“As a former prosecutor, I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that would further politicize our judicial system to score political points,” he said in a statement.
The push to hold Mr Garland in contempt follows a year-long inquiry by Special Counsel Robert Hur into Mr Biden’s retention of classified documents after he served as vice-president.
Mr Biden was vice-president from 2009-17 in Barack Obama’s administration.
In a lengthy report released in February, Mr Hur concluded that no criminal charges were warranted, though Mr Biden appeared to have “willfully” retained classified materials as a private citizen.
The Garland-appointed prosecutor noted he believed prosecutors would struggle to secure a conviction against Mr Biden, as jurors likely would view him as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.
That characterisation came after the president sat for five hours of interviews, spanning two days last October, with Mr Hur’s team.
He said that Mr Biden was unable to recall certain details relevant to the investigation, as well as milestones in his own life such as the years of his vice-presidency and when his oldest son, Beau, died from cancer.
The report’s release sparked a political firestorm, highlighting for critics one of the president’s biggest weaknesses – voter concerns about his age and lucidity – in the midst of his bid for re-election.
Lawyers for Mr Biden disputed descriptions of the interview, accusing Mr Hur of using “highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events”.
In March, Mr Garland provided congressional Republicans with a full transcript of the interview – but he has resisted their subpoenas demanding audio recordings of the conversation.
On his advice, the president last month invoked “executive privilege” to block congressional Republicans from accessing tapes of the interview. The legal doctrine grants presidents the right to withhold executive branch information from the other two branches of government.
Mr Garland argued that turning them over could “chill cooperation with the department in future investigations”.
In testimony before Congress last week, he slammed Republicans’ contempt measure as “only the most recent in a long line of attacks” on his agency’s work.
Republicans claim the Biden administration has “weaponised” the justice department against its political opponents – largely a reference to the criminal prosecutions of former President Donald Trump.
This is despite the fact Mr Garland’s justice department has also prosecuted Mr Biden’s son, Hunter, and two sitting Democratic members of Congress.
In a Washington Post opinion piece on Tuesday, the attorney general wrote that “the Justice Department is under attack like never before”.
He cited a rise in “conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and threats of violence” towards department officials by Republican critics”.
“The short-term political benefits of those tactics will never make up for the long-term cost to our country,” he said.
Lone Republican to oppose Garland contempt: ‘Enough is enough’
Rebecca Beitsch – June 12, 2024
Lone Republican to oppose Garland contempt: ‘Enough is enough’
Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), the lone Republican to vote against a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, says his colleagues’ move only serves to “further politicize our judicial system.”
“As a former prosecutor, I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that would further politicize our judicial system to score political points. The American people expect Congress to work for them, solve policy problems, and prioritize good governance,” Joyce said in a statement after the vote.
House Republicans filed a contempt resolution after Garland refused to turn over audio of President Biden’s conversation with special counsel Robert Hur.
Although House impeachment investigators claimed it could prove useful for their impeachment investigation, they already have the transcript of the conversation, which shows their lines of inquiry were not discussed.
Biden also claimed executive privilege over the tapes, a move that limits prosecution of those who fail to provide information sought by subpoena.
Garland resisted turning over the tapes, arguing it could harm the Justice Department’s ability to score cooperation from witnesses who may not want their conversations shared with Congress.
CNN anchor Boris Sanchez came prepared Wednesday during an interview with Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI), fact-checking several false claims relating to the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and at one point holding up a blown-up copy of a check that the congressman was referencing to try to make his case.
On CNN News Central, Tiffany called for Biden to be held “accountable,” even as House Republicans have struggled to name any specific illicit actions worthy of impeaching the Democratic president.
When Sanchez asked what specific charges he would like to see brought, Tiffany referenced Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings, but declined to mention that the time period he cited came after the elder Biden was vice president—and when he did not hold government office at all.
Tiffany insisted that Biden “has a check in the amount of $40,000 that has his name on it.”
“You’ve got another $200,000 check that came from Jim and Sarah Biden to him,” he said, as Sanchez held up a copy of that very check from 2018.
“Sir, I have that check right here,” Sanchez said, noting the year. “And it actually says that this was a reimbursement. This was a loan repayment from his brother.”
Tiffany then shifted gears.
“So, you can make the case that the Bidens did not do this while Joe Biden was vice president, but I think it’s contrary to record,” he asserted, despite having just been shown the date on the check.
Tiffany then claimed incorrectly that when Biden was vice president, he “called off the prosecutor in Ukraine in regards to the Burisma investigation”—a reference to the Ukrainian energy company that his son Hunter was once a board member on.
“Oh, sir, that has been debunked,” he said. “That prosecutor was unanimously disliked by both Republicans and Democrats. And even EU officials said that he was corrupt and they wanted him out.”
“So rude of you”: Republican snaps after Democratic lawmaker reminds him that a jury convicted Trump
Marin Scotten – June 12, 2024
Ralph Norman Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., snapped at a Democratic colleague Tuesday after being interrupted during a meeting of the the House Rules Committee.
“Listening to these smokescreens that my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, they bring up the trial of Donald Trump, convicted felon. Really? By a judge that is a known anti-Trumper?” Norman said before Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., interrupted him.
“A jury, a jury, not by a judge,” Nadler corrected.
“Mr. Nadler, I’ve got the floor!” Norman shouted. “If you gonna interrupt — Mr. Chairman, calm him down when he interrupts. It’s my time and I’ll let you respond, but I’m tired of this. You talk over everybody. It’s so rude of you!”
After Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsying of business records last month, Democrats have been quick to remind everyone that Trump is, in their words, a “convicted felon.”
Republicans, however, have criticized the judge who oversaw Trump’s trial for donating a total of $35 to the Democratic Party in 2020, including $15 to the Biden-Harris campaign.
In the meeting, Norman brought up Hunter Biden, who was found guilty of three felony counts on Tuesday and faces up to 25 years in prison for lying about his drug addiction when he purchased a firearm. Norman said it was “strange” Biden was prosecuted for those charges but not some of Biden’s business dealings; despite months of investigations, Republicans have failed to uncover any evidence of criminality.
“I’m tired of these smokescreens, you’re talking about miscarriage of justice, it really is,” Norman said.
In the same meeting, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., slammed Republicans for similar accusations, namely that Democrats have “weaponized” the justice system after Trump’s felony convictions. Some Republicans have gone so far as to claim Biden orchestrated his son’s guilty verdict to create an “equal illusion of justice,” MSNBC reported.
“That is how you think when you’re in a cult,” McGovern said of the GOP conspiracy theories. He also contrasted Republican leaders’ reaction to Trump’s conviction with Biden’s reaction to his son’s conviction; the president has said he accepts the outcome of his son’s trial and “will continue to respect the judicial process.”
“It’s a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law and the other doesn’t,” McGovern said.
Rachel Maddow Shows Donald Trump’s Shift From ‘Incoherent’ To ‘Pornographically Violent’
Lee Moran – June 12, 2024
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday slammed Donald Trump, saying the former president is now “really, really, frequently incoherent.”
“And when he’s not incoherent, he’s speaking in terms that are pornographically violent when he is trying to rile up his audience,” Maddow told network colleague Nicolle Wallace on the latter’s “Deadline: White House” show.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vbf7oH3of5M%3Frel%3D0
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee “speaks in ways that I think would be shocking to a lot of the public if people could stand to listen to him for longer than they do and if news organizations could responsibly broadcast him more than we do, but we responsibly often can’t because of the lies and threats that he’s floating,” Maddow noted.
Talking about Trump’s ramblings on sharks and electrocution during a campaign rally in Las Vegas last weekend, Maddow said he’ll now double down on them and Republicans will fall in line.
