Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
EXCLUSIVE: Newsmax staffers were just hit with subpoenas in the Smartmatic lawsuithttps://t.co/CL3pSnLiJD
— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) June 25, 2023
Has FOX blamed Buttigieg yet?
What is the appeal of Russia to MAGA crowd? They see Russia as a country run by white heterosexual men, no women in power, discrimination against LGBT is state policy, a formal alliance between church & state, a strongman leader in sham democracy. That is their vision of America
— Stuart Stevens (@stuartpstevens) June 24, 2023
Jack has been busy
Here are the govt's new filings tonight in USA v Trump. First, is a motion for a pretrial CIPA conference. https://t.co/nHtEBaOxLb
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) June 24, 2023
/1
CENTER OF MOSCOW NOW
— Jason Jay Smart (@officejjsmart) June 23, 2023
Prigozhin has called on the Russian National Guard to join his side to fight against the Russian Army. pic.twitter.com/lljOXj3NvH
He is definitely avoiding something.
I had to look up what a supersedeas bond is:
A supersedeas bond also known as a defendant's appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over. This is a feature of common law, and in particular the American legal system.
Context: Trump was required to post a supersedeas bond when taking an appeal of the verdict from the @ejeancarroll trial (Carroll 2).
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) June 23, 2023
The fact that Trump is asking the court to bless a cash deposit instead suggests Trump couldn’t obtain a supersedeas bond…😳 https://t.co/R4NTrFMwjG
Infowars Host Owen Shroyer Pleads Guilty To Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Charge
The longtime sidekick of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones pleaded guilty to entering and remaining on restricted grounds.
By
Sebastian Murdock
Jun 23, 2023, 11:56 AM EDT
|Updated an hour ago
A host of the conspiracy network Infowars pleaded guilty Friday to one misdemeanor charge related to his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
Owen Shroyer changed his plea to guilty in a Washington, D.C., courtroom Friday morning for a charge of entering and remaining on restricted grounds. Prosecutors agreed to drop three other misdemeanor charges against him in exchange for the plea, according to court records.
“Your client agrees and acknowledges that the charges to be dismissed at the time of sentencing were based in fact,” the plea agreement addressed to Shroyer’s attorney, Norm Pattis, reads.
His change-of-plea decision was first reported Tuesday. As part of his plea, Shroyer has also agreed to cooperate with authorities on an “additional investigation.”
The plea agreement reads: “Your client agrees to allow law enforcement agents to review any social media accounts operated by your client for statements and postings in and around January 6, 2021, prior to sentencing.”
Shroyer, a longtime host at Infowars and sidekick to the platform’s owner, Alex Jones, was charged in August 2021 for his involvement in the Capitol riot. Shroyer was seen on video that was later posted to Infowars showing him in restricted areas of the Capitol grounds, according to charging documents.
Shroyer also called into an Infowars live broadcast while on the Capitol grounds and said “probably about 100,000 people” had surrounded the Capitol.
“We literally own these streets right now,” Shroyer said on the broadcast.
After being charged, Shroyer took to Infowars to claim he was innocent.
“There’s a lot of questions — some I have answers to, some I don’t,” Shroyer told viewers at the time. “I plan on declaring innocence of these charges because I am.”
Shroyer faces up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $9,500, according to court records. His sentencing date has been set to Sep. 12.
Shroyer’s attorney, Pattis, did not return a request for comment
It’s Friday! 😂 pic.twitter.com/B07A7iwFxC
— Buitengebieden (@buitengebieden) June 23, 2023
Another gem by Randy!
If anyone’s looking for our most sensitive national security secrets… Donald’s in the 🚽 with 📦. #DonaldInTheJohnWithBoxes #SongParody #NewVideo pic.twitter.com/mSBr45ExCW
— Randy Rainbow (@RandyRainbow) June 23, 2023
Hmmm, now that I think about it, it could very well be a joke. I kinda thought it was odd that a make a wish kid would choose fishing.
Alito is still a POS.
If this is true, Alito is a bigger POS than I thought
Justice Alito justified his estimated $100k ride on a billionaire’s plane for a luxury fishing trip to Alaska, saying the seat was vacant. Turns out the seat was intended for an eight year-old Make-a-Wish Foundation who always wanted to catch a halibut.
— Al Franken (@alfranken) June 23, 2023
Actually my mail carrier is so nice that maybe she would post bail for me!
— Venus (@mikafalla) June 22, 2023
Whoa. The House Ethics Committee just said the subcommittee investigating George Santos has issued more than *30* subpoenas & *40& voluntary requests for information. They're also talking to DOJ & looking to expand the investigation. George Santos messed around & will find out.
— Victor Shi (@Victorshi2020) June 22, 2023
I am sure my mail carrier would post bail for me too! Geez.
So a house painter and a letter carrier posted a $500K bond for Santos. Time to follow the money. The public deserves to know the source of a $500K gift to a member of Congress.
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) June 22, 2023
So much for him saying he would go to jail rather than reveal the names.
The questions are numerous.
Is it really his father and/or a relative?
Where did they get the money?
To the Republicans it is much more important to censure Schiff than talk about Santos.
Ex-FBI analyst who kept classified info in bathroom like Trump going to prison in KC case
BY JONATHAN SHORMAN UPDATED JUNE 21, 2023 4:37 PM
A former FBI intelligence analyst from Dodge City, Kansas, who kept hundreds of classified documents at her home, including in her bathroom, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison by a federal judge in Kansas City on Wednesday for violating the same part of the Espionage Act that former President Donald Trump is accused of breaking. The sentencing for willful retention of national defense information was the first since a federal grand jury indicted Trump earlier this month, accusing him of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, keeping boxes of documents not only in a storage room but in a ballroom and bathroom as well.
The sentence, handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen R. Bough, offered the first courtroom clue since Trump’s indictment about what the former president can expect if he is found guilty. “I cannot fathom why you would jeopardize our nation by leaving these types of documents in your bathtub,” Bough said. Bough, an Obama appointee, ordered the former analyst, Kendra Kingsbury, to spend three years and 10 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He ordered her to surrender to federal authorities to begin her prison sentence on July 21. Kingsbury, who had no plea agreement with prosecutors, pleaded guilty to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) last October. Trump has been indicted on 31 counts, in addition to counts of obstruction of justice and conspiracy.
A FBI special agent who helped investigate Kingsbury testified Wednesday that she had kept classified information, in both electronic and paper form throughout her home, including in a home office and bathroom. Her defense attorney, assistant public defender Marc Ermine, emphasized that some of the documents were electronic and that her home wasn’t full of “banker’s boxes” strewn about.
Kingsbury, who worked for the FBI’s Kansas City Division, unlawfully retained about 386 classified documents in total over the course of more than a dozen years at the agency. While prosecutors didn’t allege a motive, a sentencing memo filed this month says Kingsbury’s phone made and received calls with phone numbers associated with the subjects of counterterrorism investigations. Kingsbury, who has been on pretrial release while the case has progressed, delivered an emotional statement before Bough announced the sentence that attacked the FBI and portrayed herself as the victim of a toxic work environment. During the hearing, her defense attorney emphasized that Kingsbury had self-disclosed the classified documents in her home and asked for probation. “I am guilty of being too honest without a safety net,” Kingsbury said. She also said that she was “working in a system that was never going to allow me to succeed.” Prosecutors said Kingsbury had kept secret documents — on hard drives, CDs and other formats — describing intelligence sources and methods related to U.S. government efforts to defend against counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber threats.
The documents included information on open FBI investigations. Kingsbury was also alleged to have retained documents with information about Al Qaeda members in Africa, including a suspected associate of Osama bin Laden. Other documents focused on the activities of emerging terrorists and their efforts to establish themselves in support of Al Qaeda in Africa.
On Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Edwards and FBI Special Agent Joel Feekes cast Kingsbury’s phone calls with the subjects of counterterrorism investigations in a suspicious light, though Feekes acknowledged during his testimony that the FBI has never been able to establish why Kingsbury made the calls. “There is no explanation that can justify her actions,” Edwards said.
Feekes said Kingsbury decided to voluntarily admit she had stored classified documents at her home after coming to believe she was under FBI surveillance. Feekes testified Kingsbury wasn’t under FBI surveillance at the time, however. Trump’s case was never directly mentioned during the sentencing, though Edwards elicited the detail about Kingsbury storing documents in her bathroom from Feekes on the stand.
Ermine cautioned Bough against sentencing her based on any other cases. “I imagine every case along these lines is going to be extremely specific,” Ermine said. Ermine had previously alluded to the Trump case in his sentencing memo, writing that Kingsbury’s case had garnered mention alongside prominent political figures whose conduct appears uncannily analogous to Ms. Kingsbury’s.” While Trump and his supporters have cast the case against him as a political witch hunt, Kingsbury’s case and others underscore how aggressively federal prosecutors take security issues related to classification and information security.
Former Air Force intelligence officer Robert L. Birchum earlier this month was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay $25,000 for unlawfully retaining classified documents. Birchum, of Tampa, Florida, took more than 300 classified files or documents, including 30 Top Secret items, and kept them at his home, his overseas officer’s quarters, and in a storage pod in his driveway. And in 2021, former U.S. Air Force contractor Izaak Vincent Kemp pleaded guilty to taking 112 classified documents from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio to his home. He was sentenced to a year in prison.
This story was originally published June 21, 2023, 4:10 PM.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article276608961.html
Good point!
Will Trump be able to keep his mouth shut and his thumbs from posting identities on Truth Social?
New: Special Counsel Jack Smith informs Judge Cannon that the Justice Department has made its first production of unclassified evidence available for review by Trump’s defense team.
— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) June 22, 2023
Among other things, includes some grand jury testimony, statements by Trump/Nauta, CCTV footage. pic.twitter.com/wqpIEMOMN5
Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’ on the House Floor
‘WE’RE THROUGH’
A feud has been boiling between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert for months. It finally reached a new level on Wednesday.
Zachary Petrizzo
Politics Reporter
Sam Brodey
Deputy Politics Editor
Updated Jun. 21, 2023 5:37PM ET / Published Jun. 21, 2023 5:07PM ET
EXCLUSIVE
The messy feud between two of MAGA world’s biggest stars burst into public view on Wednesday, when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) called Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) a “little bitch” to her face on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The angry exchange came as the two lawmakers have been swiping at each other over their competing resolutions to impeach President Joe Biden. But tensions came to a head on Wednesday after Boebert leveraged a procedural tool to force a vote on her own impeachment resolution within days—undercutting Greene, who had offered her own resolution, but not with the procedural advantages of forcing a vote.
Greene apparently cursed out Boebert while the House was voting Wednesday afternoon, as the two spoke in a center aisle of the House floor; part of their interaction was captured on C-SPAN’s cameras.
According to two sources that saw the exchange and a third familiar with the matter, the back and forth began when Boebert approached Greene—then seated in the chamber—and confronted her over “statements you made about me publicly.” All three of the sources said Greene called Boebert a “bitch.” One of the sources said Greene called her “a little bitch.”
According to two of the sources, Greene then stood up and alleged that Boebert “copied my articles of impeachment,” to which the Colorado lawmaker fired back that she hadn’t even read Greene’s resolution.
“I’ve donated to you, I’ve defended you. But you’ve been nothing but a little bitch to me,” Greene told Boebert, according to a source who witnessed the exchange. “And you copied my articles of impeachment after I asked you to cosponsor them.”
The name-calling was confirmed by another GOP lawmaker and another source who witnessed the exchange.
“I heard Marjorie call Boebert a bitch right to her face,” one GOP lawmaker said, granted anonymity by The Daily Beast to speak freely about the argument.
“OK, Marjorie, we’re through,” Boebert then said, shrugging her shoulders.
With Boebert’s back turned, ??Greene responded: “We were never together.”
Reached for comment about the exchange, Boebert didn’t deny the back and forth.
“Marjorie is not my enemy. I came here to protect our children and their posterity. Joe Biden and the Democrats are destroying our country,” she told The Daily Beast. “My priorities are to correct their bad policies and save America.”
As for her part, when asked about their exchange, Greene told The Daily Beast: “Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.”
Earlier in the day, Greene said she has long championed articles of impeachment against Biden—and strongly suggested Boebert is late to a push that she herself already owns.
“Lauren Boebert never addressed the conference,” Greene said. “I made it clear to the conference that I have introduced articles of impeachment, literally since Joe Biden’s first day in office.”
“I have been talking about it with everybody forever,” Greene continued. “Literally, everyone. Forever, ‘til I’m blue in the face. You see me? I’m blue in the face.”
Boebert declined to speak to the GOP conference on Wednesday about her fast-tracked impeachment resolution, after Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) invited her to do so ahead of a Wednesday morning, closed-door conference meeting. McCarthy has already come out against the impeachment resolution.
It’s not just McCarthy, however, who has spoken out against Boebert’s impeachment articles. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL)—a fellow House Freedom Caucus member—disagreed with Boebert’s decision to force a vote so quickly on such a weighty matter.
“We do have a process of doing things,” he told The Daily Beast. “Impeachment is at such a high level that you know there should be some process for that.”
The bitter impeachment spat is just the latest in a string of deteriorations that have turned a once warm relationship between Boebert and Greene ice cold.
After beginning their respective congressional careers in 2021 as MAGA rabble-rousers fighting a Democratic majority, Greene and Boebert’s paths began to diverge as the GOP zeroed in on control of the chamber.
Once a pariah in the Republican ranks, Greene made herself an indispensable ally to McCarthy, boosting his credibility with the far-right while she began to win over some former detractors in the party mainstream.
Despite winning re-election in 2022 by just 500 votes, Boebert has tacked even harder to the right. She has aligned herself with a small faction of conservatives who opposed McCarthy’s speakership, and appears determined to undermine him wherever possible.
In January, The Daily Beast reported that Greene confronted Boebert in the women’s bathroom off the House floor, accusing her of being disloyal to McCarthy, whom Boebert was refusing to support for Speaker.
“You were OK taking millions of dollars from McCarthy but you refuse to vote for him for Speaker, Lauren?” Greene asked, according to a source familiar with the interaction.
Both Greene and Boebert have since become vocal proponents of impeaching Biden and other Democrats—to the delight of the MAGA base—but their jostling to be the first and loudest Republicans to own the push has resulted in a major escalation of their feud.
Last month, Greene kicked off what she called an “impeachment week,” filing articles of impeachment against Biden and several of his cabinet officials.
Not to be outdone, Boebert filed her own articles of impeachment against Biden, and she leveraged a parliamentary tool on Tuesday—called a privileged resolution—to force an impeachment vote on the House floor.
Despite her alliance with McCarthy, Greene told Politico on Tuesday that she would be doing the same thing, pointedly noting that her plans were laid “before this weekend.”
That indirect back-and-forth, conducted through press releases and quotes to media outlets, seems to have provided the kindling for Greene and Boebert’s tense exchange on Wednesday.
In the broader GOP conference, many members believe it is hardly the right time to push for Biden’s impeachment, and they worry that Boebert and Greene’s tactics will expose Republican disunity on the issue.
But to Republicans who are supportive of the impeachment push, the obvious infighting between two of the most vocal and influential conservatives was met with concern.
A GOP lawmaker warned The Daily Beast about “bad blood” stemming from the impeachment fight.
“I personally don’t think it’s helpful in any way,” this lawmaker said
https://www.thedailybeast.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-boebert-a-little-bitch-on-the-house-floor
Goldman: One of my Republican colleagues says “we will hold members accountable.”
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 21, 2023
You are the party of George Santos! Who are you holding accountable?!? Don’t lecture us with your projection.. It’s pathetic pic.twitter.com/NSurATpadC
Looks like the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for prominent #traitor and #criminal Donald Trump, who is still somehow at large, has received some recent enhancements. pic.twitter.com/LPtNdxoTcW
— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) June 21, 2023
Schiff is so good
Now it’s getting good. Durham circumvented a court order to get a private citizen’s communications. He was told NO by the court. He ignored that order. https://t.co/DD2h5IeFTa
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) June 21, 2023
There’s more
This is embarrassing. "I really don't read the newspapers." https://t.co/ahz1WS3Gtl
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) June 21, 2023
BREAKING: the insurrectionist that drove a stun gun into the neck of Officer Fanone has been sentenced to 12.5 years in prison. https://t.co/RsfnpV2DVe
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) June 21, 2023
Watch and share this clip below. Now we know why so many Republicans are so committed to censuring him from the House. He's smart. He's effective. He's everything Republicans wish to be, but can't. Luckily, @AdamSchiff is not going anywhere. https://t.co/kx4dpbF3Iy
— Victor Shi (@Victorshi2020) June 21, 2023
Lordy there are pictures!
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip to Alaska with billionaire Paul Singer, whose hedge fund then had repeated business before SCOTUS over the years that followed.
— ProPublica (@propublica) June 21, 2023
Alito never disclosed the trip or recused himself from Singer's cases. (THREAD) pic.twitter.com/mVWEInOUfa
Huh?
— Michael Steele (@MichaelSteele) June 21, 2023
Say what?
Who me?
Noooooo.
Really?
Ummm.
Ok, yes, but starting now.
Yeah, yeah. That's it. https://t.co/qfyVSpeaic
This was my favorite part:
Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer.
Here is the full op ed
Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers
The publication levels false charges about Supreme Court recusal, financial disclosures and a 2008 fishing trip.
Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:
ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.
• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.
Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. To ensure that I am not required to recuse, multiple members of my staff carefully check the names of the parties in each case and any other entities listed in the corporate disclosure statement required by our rules. See Supreme Court Rule 29.6. Mr. Singer was not listed as a party in any of the cases listed by ProPublica. Nor did his name appear in any of the corporate disclosure statements or the certiorari petitions or briefs in opposition to certiorari. In the one case in which review was granted, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs. Because his name did not appear in these filings, I was unaware of his connection with any of the listed entities, and I had no good reason to be aware of that. The entities that ProPublica claims are connected to Mr. Singer all appear to be either limited liability corporations or limited liability partnerships. It would be utterly impossible for my staff or any other Supreme Court employees to search filings with the SEC or other government bodies to find the names of all individuals with a financial interest in every such entity named as a party in the thousands of cases that are brought to us each year.
• Reporting. Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” and “hospitality” was defined to include “hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, . . . on property or facilities owned by [a] person . . .” Section 109(14). The term “facilities” was not defined, but both in ordinary and legal usage, the term encompasses means of transportation. See, e.g., Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 690 (2001) (defining a “facility” as “something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function affording a convenience or service: transportation facilities” and “something that permits the easier performance of an action”). Legal usage is similar. Black’s Law Dictionary has explained that the term “facilities” may mean “everything necessary for the convenience of passengers.” Federal statutory law is similar. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C §1958(b) (“ ‘facility of interstate commerce’ includes means of transportation”); 18 U.S.C §2251(a) (referring to an item that has been “transported using any means or facility of interstate commerce”); Kevin F. O’Malley, Jay E. Grenig, Hon. William C. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §54.04 (February 2023) (“the term ‘uses any facility in interstate commerce’ means employing or utilizing any method of . . . transportation between one state and another”).
This understanding of the requirement to report gifts reflected the expert judgment of the body that the Ethics in Government Act entrusts with the responsibility to administer compliance with the Act, see 5 U.S.C. App. §111(3). When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of “hospitality” to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice.
For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska.
In brief, the relevant facts relating to the fishing trip 15 years ago are as follows. I stayed for three nights in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge, which was a comfortable but rustic facility. As I recall, the meals were homestyle fare. I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000. Since my visit 15 years ago, the lodge has been sold and, I believe, renovated, but an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading.
As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer. Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.
Justice Alito is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?st=tjctwxr871hcgzm&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
Justice Alito appears to be trying to get out ahead of a new ProPublica report that will address a trip he went on with billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer.
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) June 20, 2023
Weirdly, it is published as an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal:https://t.co/vHYrGjWVBS
Mar a Lago?
Breaking—
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) June 20, 2023
An order to unseal the identities of the co-signers of Rep. George Santos's bond has been AFFIRMED by a federal judge.
The identities will remained sealed until Thursday at noon EST, in case the suretors seek to withdraw. @LawCrimeNews pic.twitter.com/Md5RduoUS1
US Attorney David Weiss — appointed by Trump and retained by Merrick Garland to maintain the independence of the Hunter Biden probe — confirmed in a letter to Jim Jordan this month that he was “granted ultimate authority” on the Hunter Biden probe. (Via @ryanobles) pic.twitter.com/TsxXlQLHdG
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) June 20, 2023
🚨NEW: Team Trump Suspects His Former Chief of Staff Is a ‘Rat’ in Federal Investigation
— Spiro’s Ghost (@AntiToxicPeople) June 20, 2023
Trump is sending his attorneys and allies on 'fact-finding' missions about what Mark Meadows is up to. They've returned with no answers but lots of suspicions.
😎 https://t.co/H5dxhA82sI
Judge Cannon has issued her first scheduling order in secret documents case
— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) June 20, 2023
with trial date in August. Good to see her jumping into
action, but see paragraph 10, regarding complexity, clearances, etc
The real trial date remains many months away.
Trump's legal team tonight pic.twitter.com/10Bav6PBqL
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 20, 2023
THIS JUST IN—
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) June 19, 2023
Jack Smith’s motion for a protective order on discovery material in the Trump criminal case has been GRANTED by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart.
The motion had been filed without objection from Trump and Nauta's lawyers.
The order requires that Trump and Nauta… pic.twitter.com/ubidvPDTko
Agree!