Obama, Pelosi, Waters, Squad of 4 Said Today - Trump In Jail - No Bail - A Gag Order

First Federal Rule. Alvin Bragg, Manhattan district attorney In My Opinion Is President Donald Trump a Flight Risk and More Charges To Be Filed & Trump In Jail 20 Years "If Not May He Rest In Peace" Did Obama really say, "they bring a knife we bring a gun" without getting impeached? Yes, and even crazier, Teddy Roosevelt was never impeached for carrying a big a stick. Most people, even now, know the difference between literal and figurative speech. KATHY Griffin has re-tweeted her controversial Donald Trump severed head photo after the president claimed victory in the election. The ongoing row between US President Donald Trump and four non-white Democratic congresswomen has continued to escalate following a controversial campaign rally. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan will return to their seats in the US Congress. The four women of color, who championed ambitious climate action, healthcare for all Americans and other progressive causes while enduring frequent racism and derision from Donald Trump, will no longer be newcomers to Capitol Hill. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is under fire for saying that members of the Trump administration should be heckled when out in public.

Show more

Multidistrict Litigation Could Have First Federal Rule. Alvin Bragg, Manhattan district attorney In My Opinion Is President Donald Trump a Flight Risk ? When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brings Donald Trump to court for arraignment next week, he should ask the judge to hold the former president without bail and keep in jail un-tell the trial is over as trump is a flight risk to me. (”Donald Trump to be arraigned Tuesday after New York indictment in hush money case, Based on personality traits such as impulsivity and impulsivity, it can be concluded that President Donald Trump is a flight risk due to his importance as a national security risk. This is further supported by the fact that he has full-time Secret Secret Service protection, making it difficult for him to slip away even if he tried. Additionally, social media users began labeling former President Donald Trump a "flight risk" after he said that the FBI seized three of his passports during their raid at his Mar-a-Lago home. And, I went wherever the facts took me, prosecuting two mayors, a city council member, an FBI agent, a former Senate Majority Leader, a District Attorney, and business executives. · Indeed, litigation involving the former president himself is not foreign to me. As the Chief Deputy at the New York State Attorney General’s Office, I oversaw the successful litigation against the former president, his family, and the Trump Foundation. Trump has predicted “death and destruction” for New York City and perhaps throughout the nation because of the indictment. And Bragg has received death threats and been labeled radical, vicious, a psychopath, a racist, and an animal by Trump. Given his behavior before the whole world on Jan. 6, 2021, and today April 04-2023 Trump presumably has in mind another insurrection that would force the recall of the indictment and rescue him from those who sanely take him for a constitutional criminal of the first order.

In my view, the judge would be perfectly justified in taking Trump into custody and dispatching him to Rikers forthwith, though something less dramatic before Trump is brought to trial might suffice. How about a mid-priced New York City hotel, neither the Plaza nor Motel 6, for Trump and his Secret Service babysitters? Deny Trump his passport and all means of social media — smartphone, laptop, carrier pigeon. Let him watch all the TV he wants. But shut him down as rigorously as any other mob boss under indictment.

Let his MAGA morons and their acolytes in Congress fulminate and even redouble their threats. No judge, no mayor, no governor worth their office need knuckle under. Security measures surrounding Trump’s place of detention would be unusual but doable. Let New York City bill the Trump Organization for Trump’s housing and the security his own threats have incurred. Let him live under these restrictions until his legal challenges are exhausted. Let him petition for a speedy trial or plead guilty.

Anyone paying attention to major events of the day in the United States and around the world would know that the basic social fabric is fraying from a toxic mix of ills — inequality, dislocation, polarization, environmental distress, scarce resources, and more. Signs abound that after decades of uneven but steady human progress, we are digging a deeper and muddier hole for ourselves. The principal reason for this pessimism is not the material facts of decline — we have lived through worse times before — but the crumbling consensus around how to overcome such crises. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is fast becoming the latest stress test for whether the social contract can hold. Unfortunately, as documented by the latest findings of the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, the rule of law is declining around the world for the third year in a row. The trends are widespread and persistent: The majority of countries that declined in the 2020 rule of law scores also deteriorated in the previous year, and weaker or stagnating performance occurred in the majority of countries in every region and across every income group. The graph below illustrates that a plurality of countries (28) declined both in the past year and over the past five years, as measured in average annual percentage terms.

Of particular concern is that countries experienced the biggest declines over the past year in the areas of fundamental rights (54 countries declined, 29 improved), constraints on government powers (52 declined, 28 improved), and absence of corruption (51 declined, 26 improved). These three factors of the World Justice Project (WJP) Index saw the worst performance globally over a five-year time period as well. In short, the key rule of law elements that undergird accountable governance, and relatedly, citizens’ trust in their leaders, are in retreat, in both established democracies like the United States, and in entrenched autocracies, from Russia to China to Venezuela. In this context, the rise of populist anger and social protests should come as little surprise.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," Waters, who has called for President Donald Trump to be impeached, told supporters over the weekend. Trump responded, calling Waters "an extraordinarily low IQ person" and saying that she was calling for harm to his supporters.

The 4 major criminal probes into Donald Trump, explained - Keeping track of all the criminal investigations of Trump isn’t easy, so we did it for you. If all the criminal investigations into former President Donald Trump end in conviction, then Trump will be a true renaissance man of crime.

The FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida residence because, as federal prosecutors said in a fiery court filing in August, they believed not only did the former president possess “dozens” of boxes “likely to contain classified information” but also that “efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.” In that search, the FBI said it did remove over 100 classified documents, some of which reportedly contained information about nuclear weapons. That’s all part of just one investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act, the improper handling of federal records, and obstruction of a federal investigation.

Meanwhile, a second federal investigation is looking into the January 6 attack on the Capitol and broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election, an issue that obviously could implicate the man who spent most of the 2020 lame-duck period trying to erase his loss to President Joe Biden.

In November, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran prosecutor who previously oversaw war crimes prosecutions from an office in The Hague, as a special counsel in charge of these two Justice Department investigations into Trump.

In Georgia, a number of Trump allies were subpoenaed as part of a state criminal investigation into interference with the 2020 election in their state specifically. Trump consigliere Rudy Giuliani is a target of the investigation. Trump could also be implicated, and even criminally charged, before this Georgia investigation concludes. In a post-election call with Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump told the state’s top election official that he wants “to find 11,780 votes.” Biden defeated Trump in Georgia by 11,779 votes.

(On February 16, a Georgia judge released extremely limited excerpts from a report laying out this investigation’s conclusions. These brief excerpts, however, give very little insight into whether anyone will be charged with a crime, beyond a vague assertion that a majority of the grand jury overseeing the investigation “believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it.”)

Then there are two separate New York investigations into the Trump Organization and Trump’s web of surrounding businesses, which are investigating allegations that Trump misrepresented his companies’ finances in order to obtain bank loans or to reduce taxes.

New York Attorney General Letitia James’s investigation into these allegations is primarily civil (as in, non-criminal), and in September led her to file a civil suit against Trump alleging “astounding” fraud and deception.

Meanwhile, a parallel investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg already led to convictions. Both the Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg were indicted in July 2021, and both have now been convicted of financial crimes. Weisselberg pleaded guilty to more than a dozen different counts in August. He also agreed to testify against the Trump Organization — but not against Trump himself.

That testimony helped New York prosecutors convict the Trump Organization of 17 counts of tax fraud and other crimes on December 6.

Nevertheless, Bragg is reluctant to indict Trump, according to an interview earlier in the summer with former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz.

Trump’s staff did not respond to an inquiry seeking comment on these investigations, but the former president routinely posts statements on social media denying allegations against him, often using hyperbolic rhetoric such as comparing the United States to “broken, Third-World Countries.”

Of course, all the standard disclaimers should apply. Many of these investigations are ongoing and have not led to charges against Donald Trump. They may never lead to such charges. If Trump is charged, the courts must afford him a presumption of innocence until he is convicted. And even if prosecutors are convinced that they have an airtight case, they may be reluctant to file charges against a former president whose supporters have already threatened violence against people and institutions associated with the investigations into Trump — and, in at least one case, engaged in actual violence.

Nevertheless, the sheer diversity of the state and federal statutes that Trump may have violated is astounding. All told, it’s four criminal investigations — two federal and two state-based — which together scrutinize Trump’s conduct before, during, and after his presidency. Even if only one of these investigations leads to a conviction against the former president, the elderly Trump could potentially spend the rest of his life behind bars. While some of the criminal statutes Trump may have violated carry penalties of only a few years in prison, others carry maximum sentences of up to 20 years.

It’s a lot to keep track of, and many important details about these investigations are not publicly known and may never be revealed to the public unless Trump is eventually indicted. The US Department of Justice, in particular, has very strong rules and norms against speaking about ongoing criminal investigations — especially when those investigations involve major political figures.

Worse, while DOJ is reluctant to speak about its investigations into Trump, Trump certainly is not. And that means that many initial reports about these investigations may be based on dubiously accurate social media posts by Trump himself.

With these caveats in mind, here is our best attempt to explain what we do know about the criminal investigations into Trump.

The DOJ’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation
The investigation into Trumpworld that most dominated headlines this year is, perhaps at first glance, the most banal: a federal investigation into possible mishandling of classified documents.

In early August, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. According to a property receipt that these agents gave a Trump lawyer at the end of the search, they seized several boxes of documents, many of which they say are classified.

The FBI characterized some of these documents as “classified/TS/SCI,” a designation that refers to “sensitive compartmented information” — information “concerning or derived from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes” that the government typically treats with extraordinary caution. Documents containing this kind of information are normally stored in specialized facilities designed to prevent the information from getting out — and not in the personal residence of a former government official.

For obvious reasons, the FBI hasn’t been especially forthcoming about what was in the documents seized from Trump; on August 26 the Justice Department released an affidavit filed as part of the investigation, but it was heavily redacted and offered only a few new bits of information.

But the Washington Post reported that the documents seized in the search include “classified documents relating to nuclear weapons.”

An attachment to the search warrant, which a federal court made public in August, also identifies three federal criminal statutes that the FBI believes Trump may have violated, all of which involve the destruction, concealment, or mishandling of certain government documents.

Most notably, the FBI believes that Trump may have violated a provision of the Espionage Act that makes it a crime to “willfully” retain certain national security information that “the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” rather than turning that information over to an “officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”

The Justice Department reportedly tried to negotiate with Trump for the return of these documents, and sought to retrieve them via a subpoena. DOJ sought a search warrant after an informant tipped them off that Trump still had classified documents at his private residence, despite the fact that one of Trump’s lawyers had signed a written statement claiming that Trump had returned all the material marked as classified that he’d stored at Mar-a-Lago. Federal prosecutors detailed that history in a court filing at the end of August.

Violations of the relevant provision of the Espionage Act can lead to a prison sentence of up to 10 years, but it is still unclear whether Trump will face criminal charges for allegedly stealing these documents — or whether those charges will come anytime soon. And there are several reasons to believe that the Justice Department will move cautiously before indicting a former president whose supporters violently attacked the US Capitol less than two years ago.

One is a recent Wall Street Journal report stating that “Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida home.” Another is longstanding DOJ policies and traditions counseling against actions that could influence an upcoming election. Trump has already announced he’s running for president again in 2024; it’s not impossible to imagine him being indicted before that election, but that would be an extraordinary step from a historically cautious Justice Department.

What we can say is there are signs that this investigation remains active, and that it could eventually lead to criminal charges. The Justice Department in December won the final step in a protracted legal battle over whether a “special master” needed to review the seized documents before the FBI could use them — freeing them up to use them in an investigation. And that’s not to mention Jack Smith’s November appointment as special counsel overseeing this Justice Department investigation — and another.

The Justice Department investigation into January 6
Last January, Garland announced that the Justice Department has “no higher priority” than its investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and that his department “remains committed to holding all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law.”

According to the Justice Department, more than 830 individuals have been charged for alleged criminal activity relating to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. And, if anything, DOJ appears to be stepping up these prosecutions. Last May, as part of its annual budget proposal, the Justice Department sought to hire 131 more lawyers to prosecute cases related to this attack.

Garland’s appointment of Smith won’t affect those investigations into the rioters. But Smith will be looking into “whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, or with the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.”

It remains unclear just how closely that investigation is actively investigating Trump’s own role, however — and, if so, how close it is to an indictment against the former president. And the Justice Department is likely to keep an even tighter hold on any information regarding such an investigation into Trump than it has on the Mar-a-Lago investigation. Bear in mind that virtually no one outside of the Justice Department, including purportedly the White House, knew about the FBI’s impending search of Mar-a-Lago until after it had begun.

There is, however, at least one outward sign that Trump is under investigation. Last May, prosecutors subpoenaed the National Archives for the same Trump administration documents that the Archives already turned over to the US House committee investigating the January 6 attack.

While the Justice Department is unlikely to say much about whether Trump could be indicted for January 6-related crimes until after such an indictment takes place, both congressional and judicial officials have indicated that Trump most likely violated at least two federal criminal statutes during his efforts to overturn the 2020 election — one protects Congress from interference, and the other prohibits conspiracies to defraud the nation.

We know that from a lawsuit Trump lawyer John Eastman filed last January in a federal court in California, seeking to prevent the House January 6 committee from obtaining certain emails sent or received by Eastman. Among other things, Eastman claimed that the emails were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Ordinarily, communications between a lawyer and their client are protected from disclosure. But, as a federal appeals court has explained, “communications are not privileged when the client ‘consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud’ or crime.” And the January 6 committee argued that Trump may have consulted Eastman in order to violate two criminal federal laws.

One of these laws makes it a crime to obstruct Congress’s official business, while the other makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the United States. The first carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, while the other calls for a maximum sentence of five years.

Ultimately, Judge David Carter agreed that Trump most likely violated both laws. Among other things, Carter wrote, “Trump attempted to obstruct an official proceeding by launching a pressure campaign to convince Vice President Pence to disrupt the Joint Session on January 6.” The judge added that “the illegality of this plan was obvious.”

Of course, if Trump is eventually indicted for violating either statute, the Justice Department will carry a heavier burden than the January 6 committee had to overcome in order to convince Judge Carter that some of Eastman’s emails were not privileged. Trump, like any criminal defendant, will be entitled to a jury trial. And the Justice Department will have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But Carter’s opinion suggests that there is at least some low-hanging fruit that the Justice Department can pick if it decides to bring criminal charges against Trump.

The Georgia election investigation Last January, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s office asked a Georgia court to convene a special grand jury “for the purpose of investigating the facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to possible attempts to disrupt the lawful administration of the 2020 elections in the State of Georgia.” That includes the Trump campaign’s attempt to create a slate of fake members of the Electoral College who would fraudulently tell Congress that the state’s electoral votes were cast for Trump. Willis informed these 16 fake electors that they are targets of the investigation — meaning that they are at risk of criminal charges.

Willis’s investigation is also targeting at least one person in Trump’s inner circle. Less than two years ago, Rudy Giuliani was a central figure in Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election — known for his clownish lawyering in a November 2020 lawsuit and for an equally clownish press conference held in the parking lot of a Philadelphia landscaping company. He testified before the special grand jury this summer and has also been informed that he is a target of the investigation.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit involving an even more prominent Trump ally offers another limited window into what matters Willis’s office may be investigating. In July, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was subpoenaed to testify before the Georgia grand jury. Shortly thereafter, he asked a federal court to quash the subpoena. His strongest argument is that the Constitution’s speech and debate clause, which prohibits sitting members of Congress from being questioned about their “legislative” activity but not their “political” activity, applies to this investigation.

In rejecting Graham’s attempt to quash the subpoena in its entirety — because Willis’s investigation seeks at least some information that is unrelated to Graham’s legislative duties — Judge Leigh Martin May’s opinion lays out several topics that the grand jury is likely to ask Graham about, including Graham’s “potential communications and coordination with the Trump Campaign and its post-election efforts in Georgia.”

Additionally, Willis’s inquiry wishes to explore two phone calls between Graham and Secretary Raffensperger, where Graham allegedly “questioned Secretary Raffensperger and his staff about reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump.”

(In November, the Supreme Court upheld May’s ruling, and Graham testified later that month.)

Of course, even if Giuliani, Graham, or others are eventually charged or convicted of a crime, it remains an open question whether any of their actions could also implicate Trump. But there are a few Georgia criminal statutes that Trump’s broad efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and specifically his “find 11,780 votes” phone call with Raffensperger, might violate.

One such law makes it a crime to willfully tamper “with any electors list, voter’s certificate, numbered list of voters, ballot box, voting machine, direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment, or tabulating machine.” And while no evidence has yet emerged that Trump personally tampered with any of these items, Georgia law also makes it a crime to, “with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony,” solicit another person to commit such a felony. Meanwhile, another state law specifically makes it a crime to engage in “criminal solicitation to commit election fraud.”

If convicted of either crime, Trump “shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years.”

The New York investigations into the Trump Organization
Finally, Trump — or, at least, his businesses — are the subject of two related financial fraud investigations, at least one of which has a small chance of ending in criminal charges against Trump.

Letitia James, the New York attorney general, has spent the better part of three years investigating whether the Trump Organization, Trump’s flagship company, misled either banks or tax officials about the value of its assets — allegedly inflating their value when seeking a loan from a bank, or minimizing their value in order to reduce taxes. James even deposed Trump as part of this investigation, although Trump spent that interview repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

James’s investigation is civil and not criminal, but it could potentially lead to an extraordinary sanction against Trump and his businesses. In a civil lawsuit filed against Trump in September, James seeks to bar Trump from serving as an officer in any New York business, ban the Trump Organization from buying commercial real estate in New York for five years, and force Trump’s business to give up $250 million in money that was allegedly obtained by fraud.

Additionally, James announced that she would file a criminal referral with federal prosecutors, which could lead to a new federal investigation being opened against the former president.

James’s investigation parallels a similar criminal investigation that is currently led by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. Like the state-level investigation, this Manhattan investigation has been going on for a few years. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, even had to fight off an effort to sabotage this investigation in a 2020 Supreme Court case.

There are some reasons to believe that Bragg’s investigation is unlikely to lead to charges against Trump. While former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to allegations that he did not pay taxes on $1.7 million in compensation — including an apartment, two cars, and private school tuition for family members — he agreed only to testify against the Trump Organization, and is not expected to assist a broader inquiry into Trump himself.

In December, Weisselberg’s testimony did allow New York prosecutors to convict the Trump Organization of 17 different counts of tax fraud and other financial crimes. While that’s obviously an embarrassment for Trump, the direct consequences of this conviction are likely to be minimal. At most, the company can be fined $1.6 million for these violations — which should be a small amount for Trump, who has long claimed to be a billionaire.

Meanwhile, the transition from Vance to Bragg appears to have injected more caution into the Manhattan DA’s office. Shortly after Bragg took office at the beginning of this year, a senior lawyer who played a significant role in the Trump investigation resigned from the DA’s office. “I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations,” attorney Mark Pomerantz wrote in his resignation letter, which protested Bragg’s decision “not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time.”

In a July interview, Pomerantz said that he thought that Bragg “and the new team were focused on the risk that we could lose the case” against Trump. Again, to win a criminal case against Trump, prosecutors would have to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In any event, it is possible that either James’s investigation or Bragg’s office will uncover new evidence that will change Bragg’s mind, or that federal prosecutors may pursue her referral. For the moment, however, the New York investigations appear unlikely to lead to criminal charges against Trump.

The three other investigations, by contrast, appear to be more likely to end in Trump’s indictment and possible conviction.

So what should we take away from all of this?
The purpose of a criminal investigation, and ultimately of a prosecution, is to convince a jury to convict a defendant after a full criminal trial has taken place. It is not to provide the media or the public with regular updates about what law enforcement knows about potential suspects.

Especially within the context of federal investigations, these norms exist both to protect the investigation itself — if a suspect learns too much about what information law enforcement is seeking, they could destroy evidence or tamper with witnesses — and to protect potential suspects. When someone is formally charged with a crime, they have an opportunity to vindicate themselves at trial. If they are merely the subject of accusations tossed off by government officials, they have no real way to protect or rehabilitate their reputation.

For these reasons, anyone eager to see how the investigations into Trump will end must have patience.

One other factor that voters — and, especially, journalists — should bear in mind as they evaluate what is going on with these investigations is that while the Justice Department will ordinarily be very tight-lipped about an ongoing investigation (and responsible state-level prosecutors will also not be especially forthcoming), Trump will not. And he is likely to tell lies and half-truths to mislead the public and rile up his supporters.

Here’s an example: During its search of Mar-a-Lago, the FBI took three passports from Trump’s residence. A team of investigators tasked with screening the searched materials for extraneous documents quickly discovered that they had the passports, and they were returned to Trump. In a statement, the FBI said that it “follows search and seizure procedures ordered by courts, then returns items that we do not need to be retained for law enforcement purposes.” Compare that narrative to how Trump characterized the FBI’s brief acquisition of these passports: A third caveat to bear in mind is that Trump, who famously confessed on video to committing sexual assault, has a history of avoiding legal consequences even when his guilt is difficult to deny. There’s also never been an indictment of a former president, at least in part because political leaders want to avoid the risk that they will face retaliatory prosecutions if their opposition takes power. Top Republicans are already trying to intimidate Attorney General Garland with threats of retaliatory investigations. And some of Trump’s supporters have turned to violence or threats of violence.

Those aren’t reasons to let a man who tried to overturn the result of a presidential election off the hook if he committed a crime, but they are likely to inspire prosecutors to tread cautiously. It is likely, in other words, that a cloud of uncertainty will loom over Trump’s fate for quite a while.

KATHY Griffin has re-tweeted her controversial Donald Trump severed head photo after the president claimed victory in the election.

The picture shows a stony-faced Griffin holding an effigy of Trump’s decapitated, bloodied head and came soon after his extraordinary early morning White House statement. The comedian was fired from CNN in 2017 after the gory stunt provoked an angry response from Trump supporters.

In a press conference just after 2am, Trump claimed he had won the election and promised to go to the Supreme Court.

A few minutes later Griffin re-shared the photo to her Twitter feed without comment it has so far has being liked nearly 43,000 times.

The picture was taken by photographer Tyler Shields, who is known for his “edgy, shocking” but reports at the time alleged Trump’s son Baron was frightened by it.The 11-year-old was watching TV with mum Melania when the comedian's photo appeared on the screen holding his dad's fake severed head, gossip site TMZ reported.

Barron panicked and screamed, "Mommy, Mommy!", Trump family sources told the site.

"He's 11. He doesn't know who Kathy Griffin is and the head she was holding resembled his dad", the insider said.

President Trump branded Griffin “sick” and said she “should be ashamed of herself”. He wrote: “Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!” Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Hillary and Bill, also condemned the pictures, writing on Twitter: "This is vile and wrong. It is never funny to joke about killing a president."

Even Kathy's longtime friend and CNN New Year's Eve show co-host Anderson Cooper blasted the images.

He wrote: "For the record, I am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in. It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate." She initially apologised saying that she understood why the image offended but later retracted it saying “the whole outrage was BS”.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she does not regret threatening to punch then-President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021, if he came to the Capitol, but “he wouldn’t have had the courage to come to the Hill. He is all talk.”

“That’s right,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell when asked to address her comments about Trump on January 6. “I would have punched him out. I said I would have punched him out. I would have gone to jail. And I would have been happy to do so.”

When Mitchell followed up to ask if she would have punched Trump, Pelosi said: “He wouldn’t have had the courage to come to the Hill. He is all talk.”

Last week, CNN revealed previously unseen documentary footage of Pelosi captured by her daughter on January 6 showing the speaker reacting to her staff sharing reports that Trump was trying to come to the Capitol.

“If he comes, I’m going to punch him out. I’ve been waiting for this. For trespassing on the Capitol grounds, I’m going to punch him out. And I’m going to go to jail, and I’m going to be happy,” Pelosi said in the footage.

When asked if she would a support a criminal referral of Trump if he refuses to comply with the committee’s subpoena, Pelosi said, “That’s going to be up to the committee. Again, I keep my distance.”

In the footage that aired on CNN last week, Pelosi’s chief of staff notifies her that the Secret Service “dissuaded (Trump) from coming to Capitol Hill.” It’s unclear how the aide learned this. But the footage backs up the testimony of  Trump White House official Cassidy Hutchinson, who told the January 6 committee about Trump’s attempts to force his security detail to take him to the Capitol, but they overruled him. 

The footage was captured by Alexandra Pelosi, a documentary filmmaker and daughter of the Democratic speaker of the House. Alexandra Pelosi has released documentaries on HBO for decades. CNN and HBO are both owned by the same parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.

Nancy Pelosi was also asked in the Tuesday interview with MSNBC to address members of her own party who are calling for a new generation of Democratic leadership as they campaign ahead of the November midterms.

“I say, just win baby. Just win. If that’s what you have to say to win, fine. And we will not, in any way, do anything but totally supportive, mobilization-wise, message-wise, money-wise, for those people to win their races,” she said. “Yes, we need generational change, of course we do. But, in some cases, there’s no substitute for experience” Pelosi added. Nancy Pelosi said no is above the law. To understand just how shoddy the FBI’s work was in securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting the Trump campaign, you only need to read an obscure attachment to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report.

Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is true.

The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page starting in October 2016.

A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: “Supporting document shows that the factual assertion is
inaccurate.”

For those who don’t speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official file.

To put that in perspective, former Trump aides Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos were convicted of making single false statements to the bureau. One went to jail already, and the other awaits sentencing.

The FBI made nine false statements to the court.

And the appendix shows the FBI made another nine factual assertions that did not match the supporting evidence in the file. In another words, the bureau was misleading on nine other occasions.

The vast majority of remaining Woods violations — 33 in total — involved failing to provide any evidence in the Woods procedure backing up assertion in the FISA warrant application. That’s serious too since the sole purpose of the Wood procedures is to ensure all evidence cited in a FISA application is documented as accurate and reliable so it can be trusted by the courts.

The ongoing row between US President Donald Trump and four non-white Democratic congresswomen has continued to escalate following a controversial campaign rally.

During a speech in North Carolina, Mr Trump took aim at Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley as well as Ilhan Omar, a Somali-born lawmaker who he focused much of his criticism on.

His rhetoric prompted a chant of "send her back" from his supporters, which Mr Trump on Thursday claimed he disagreed with.

The rally fallout follows debate over a series of vitriolic tweets and statements by the president that have been widely condemned as racist.

All the women are US citizens. So what else do we know of the lawmakers known as "the Squad"?

All four were elected to the House of Representatives in last November's mid-term elections, each making history as a result.

Known to be progressive, they have clashed in recent weeks with the more pragmatic Speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi - divisions with racial overtones that Mr Trump has tried to exploit with his tweets. First-term congresswoman Ilhan Omar won a Minnesota seat in the House of Representatives last November, becoming the first Somali-American legislator in the US.

Her family first came to the US as refugees from Somalia, settling in Minneapolis in 1997 after fleeing the country's civil war. She became a citizen in 2000.

The 37-year-old mother of three is one of the first two Muslim women ever elected to the US Congress.

Before her election to Congress, she served in Minnesota's state legislature, making her the then highest elected Somali-American public official in the US.

Ms Omar's precedent-setting tenure has earned both adoration and criticism.

Shortly after her election, she drew praise for fighting to change a 181-year ban on headwear in the House, allowing her to wear a hijab for her oath of office.

But Ms Omar has also faced repeated accusations of anti-Semitism.

She was forced to apologise for a series of tweets in February that suggested that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) was buying influence for pro-Israel policies.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said the tweets stoked anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and money.

Ms Omar later released a statement "unequivocally" apologising for her tweets.

"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Ms Omar wrote.

She came under fire from conservatives again in April for comments on 9/11 that Democrats said were taken out of context.

A clip of Ms Omar apparently describing 9/11 as "some people did something" began circulating online, and the president tweeted a video showing footage of the terrorist attacks spliced with Ms Omar's speech.

The quote was from a speech Ms Omar gave to a civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), in March. The comments in Mr Trump's video were taken from a point she made about the treatment of US Muslims in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks:

"For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and, frankly, I'm tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. Cair was founded after 9/11 because they recognised that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

In recent weeks, Mr Trump has focused his attacks on Ms Omar saying she "hates Israel" and "hates Jews", and suggesting she supports the jihadist group al-Qaeda.

US media reported that Mr Trump's accusations probably reference a 2013 interview where Ms Omar was discussing a college terrorism class.

She did not praise al-Quaeda in the interview. Ms Omar remarked that a professor said the names of terrorist groups with a different kind of "intensity" compared with the tone he used when he said "America" or "England".

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, often referred to as AOC, made waves in the Democratic Party last June when she defeated political veteran and establishment favourite Joe Crowley in their party's primary in a new York district.

The 29-year-old went on to beat Republican candidate Anthony Pappas in the November mid-terms, becoming the youngest ever US congresswoman.

The freshman lawmaker was born in the Bronx, New York to parents of Puerto Rican descent. She has a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University, and worked as a community organizer, educator and bartender before deciding to run for office.

Since her election, the self-described democratic socialist has become a lightning rod for the political right.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez has not shied away from the spotlight, frequently taking to social media to hit back at Republicans, members of the media and other critics on a range of issues including immigration, poverty and race.

She has earned a reputation for her impassioned testimonies at congressional hearings, which are often re-circulated among her nearly five million Twitter followers.

She has been particularly vocal in her push for environmental policy, serving as one of the sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution, which calls upon the US to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions along with other goals.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez has also been outspoken in her criticism of the president, saying there is "no question" that Mr Trump is racist.

And she recently accused Ms Pelosi of "singling out" new congresswomen of colour following a number of clashes over their policy stances.

Social media savvy, Ms Ocasio-Cortez inadvertently coined the term "the squad" after suggesting they hashtag a photoshoot image of the four of them #squadgoals.

Much like the other congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib's election this November made history.

The Michigan Democrat is the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress. Born and raised in Detroit, Michigan, Ms Tlaib is the daughter of Palestinian immigrant parents. Her grandmother still lives in the West Bank.

She was sworn into office wearing a traditional Palestinian garment stitched by her mother.

Ms Tlaib also joined Ms Omar as one of the first two Muslim women ever elected to serve in Congress.

The eldest of 14 siblings, Ms Tlaib became the first member of her family to graduate from high school, and then from college and law school.

Since assuming office, Ms Tlaib has been an outspoken critic of the president. She courted controversy when she used explicit language when calling for the president's impeachment.

Ms Tlaib was unapologetic about the furore incited by her remark, tweeting that she would "always speak truth to power".

After his twitter storm, she said Mr Trump was "biggest bully I've ever had to deal with in my lifetime", and said his attacks were a "distraction" from her job of representing people in her congressional district.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, 45, is the first African-American woman to be elected to the US Congress from Massachusetts.

Born in Cincinnati and raised in Ohio, Ms Pressley is the only child of a single mother.

After attending Boston University, she served as a senior aide to Congressman Joseph P Kennedy II, and worked for Senator John Kerry for 13 years.

Her own political career began in 2009 when she waged a successful bid for a seat on Boston City Council, becoming the first woman of colour elected to the council in its 100-year history.

Similar to Ms Ocasio-Cortez, Ms Pressley's election to the US Congress involved a major political upset: she unseated 10-term Democratic congressman Michael Capuano in their party's primary.

Since assuming office in January, Ms Pressley has been a vocal advocate of abortion rights, pushing to repeal an amendment that prevents Medicaid from covering abortions for low-income Americans.

A survivor of sexual violence, Ms Pressley has also spoken up for better protections for assault victims, writing on her website that "the people closest to the pain should be closest to the power".

She said she could not call Mr Trump the president, only the "occupant" of the White House. "He does not embody the principles, the responsibility, the grace, the integrity of a true president," she told CBS.

Executive Orders Can’t Save The U.S.A. ? It's “WE THE PEOPLE” Who Own America ? https://rumble.com/v2cgic2-executive-orders-cant-save-the-u.s.a.-its-we-the-people-who-own-america-.html
Executive orders are a powerful tool for presidents when they can’t come to an agreement with Congress. However, there are limitations on what a president can do, especially when it comes to the economy. After all, Congress appropriates spending and the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy. Still, a number of executive orders have influenced the economy in both positive and negative ways. Watch the video to learn more about some of Presidents.

These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

The FBI has said Williams was recorded on closed-circuit cameras in the Capitol going into and coming out of Pelosi’s office.

An FBI affidavit said a cellphone video likely shot by Williams showed a man’s gloved hand lifting an HP laptop from a table, and the caption read, “they got the laptop.”

That is how it is going to go down, the timeline might be a bit off. You will have one world faith, which is what the ecumenical movement is about. One world government, and all under control of the New World Order by July 4th 2026 on this the day of America’s up coming 250nd year of independence, unveiled a new updated flag which better reflects the nation in its present form, signaling the aspirations it has for its ever bright future.

Confiscating Entire Wealth of All The Billionaires and Kill Them and Family Too! There are 724 (billionaires) in the U.S., and more overseas according to the 2021 Forbes billionaires list, released in April,” the Journal reports. “At that point their collective net worth was $4.4 trillion, although that figure has presumably since risen along with the stock market. So Per 60% Death taxes are taxes imposed by the federal and some state governments on someone's estate upon their death - Death taxes are also called death duties, estate taxes, or inheritance taxes. After getting the money maybe in 20 weeks or so - Own Government plan's are to kill rest of the family member for more estate taxes, or inheritance taxes.

Also Government Plan's are to Kill and or Black Mail for Lot's of Money All Epstein’s and Maxwell Private Pedophile Islands Visitor Log's including video equipment and sex tape's of rich people and with DNA Sample Testing and secret video tapes and missing body in underground lairs and a bizarre teen sex temple from Pedophile Islands Guestbook and Visitor List They Do Not Want You to See Ever!

Show less