White House Won’t Say Whether Kamala Secretly Running for Governor

Luis Cornelio
-
0
White House Won’t Say Whether Kamala Secretly Running for Governor

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) The White House did not explicitly deny rumors that Vice President Kamala Harris is secretly planning to run for California governor, possibly anticipating a defeat in the 2024 election. 

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre sidestepped questions regarding a Politico report suggesting Harris has shared her political plans with friends, should former President Donald Trump return to office. 

“That is news to me,” Jean-Pierre replied when Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy inquired about the Politico story.

“I’d say this, the vice president has been a great partner to this president,” she added, without directly addressing Politico’s allegations. 

Jean-Pierre insisted that President Joe Biden is “appreciative” of Harris, contradicting reports claiming the president had grown disappointed with his running mate’s mounting failures.

Despite polls indicating that many Americans disapprove of Harris, Jean-Pierre stated, “It is impressive what she’s been able to do on these tours that she has done on reproductive rights.” 

Jean-Pierre’s non-denial of the Politico report followed the outlet’s claim that Harris has “joked” about potentially returning to California to govern the leftist state. 

This scenario is reminiscent of former President Richard Nixon, who unsuccessfully ran for California governor after losing the 1960 presidential election to John F. Kennedy. 

In response to the rumors, Harris’s Communications Director Kirsten Allen refuted Politico’s claims. 

“That did not happen,” Allen said, contradicting the two sources cited by Politico. “This November, the vice president will be preparing to be inaugurated for the second term of the Biden-Harris administration.” 

Despite the White House’s confidence in Harris’s 2024 prospects, several polls show Trump leading. 

For the first time, legacy media polls indicate the former president ahead, even more so than in 2016 when he defeated Hillary Clinton, the infamous former secretary of state, now an election denier and conspiracy theorist. 

According to FiveThirtyEight, Trump holds a 41.3% average to Biden’s 40.3%. 

The New York Times released a poll earlier this week showing Trump leading in five out of six swing states: Nevada (12 points), Arizona (7 points), Michigan (5 points), Pennsylvania (3 points) and Georgia (10 points). 

Biden ‘Anxious’ that Hunter Will Be Sentenced to Prison

Contributing Author
-
0
Biden ‘Anxious’ that Hunter Will Be Sentenced to Prison

(Headline USA) President Joe Biden is reportedly “anxious” that his son Hunter will be sentenced to prison in his felony gun case.

Hunter Biden is facing three felony charges for allegedly lying on a firearm purchase form about his drug addiction in October 2018—two counts of making false statements and one count of firearm possession by an unlawful substance abuser.

If convicted, the felonies carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Because they are a violation of state law, Biden does not have presidential pardon authority, although it is possible that Delaware Gov. John Carney would help out the Democrat president’s son.

The case goes to trial on June 3 and has been a source of worry for the 81-year-old Biden, according to Politico.

“He worries about Hunter every single day, from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to sleep,” a Biden adviser told the outlet. “That will only pick up during a trial.”

The president has “expressed fears” to at least three advisers about a potential prison sentence for Hunter, leading his team to worry about how the case might affect the president “psychologically.” 

However, his aides know better than to bring up the subject of Hunter and his legal woes to the president “for fear of an angry rebuke or an icy stare,” the outlet added.

And although Joe Biden continues to express his concerns privately, his White House will not be setting up any “war room” to react to the trial, leaving it up to Hunter’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, to defend the first son in both the courtroom and in the press. 

“People are reluctant to become involved in this case,” Lowell admitted.

Hunter Biden is also facing nine counts related to tax fraud filed against him by special counsel David Weiss. That case is scheduled to go to trial on June 20.

Just a week later, Joe Biden is scheduled to face off against former President Donald Trump in the first presidential debate, which will take place on June 27 on CNN.

Chuck Todd Admits Biden Must Debate Trump Because He’s Losing

Contributing Author
-
0
Chuck Todd Admits Biden Must Debate Trump Because He’s Losing

(Headline USA) NBC’s Chuck Todd admitted on Wednesday that President Joe Biden had no choice but to agree to debate former President Donald Trump because he was “losing” November’s election.

The Biden campaign confirmed this week that the 81-year-old would participate in two scheduled debates against Trump, with the first taking place next month on CNN. 

While the agreement actually backpedaled on official plans to hold more debate nearer to the election—including the first one at a historically black university—Wednesday’s negotiation marked the firmest commitment from Biden, who had previously hedged on the possibility of debating his GOP rival at all.

Despite the exceedingly favorable conditions Biden insisted upon, Todd acknowledged that the debates were a risk, given the public’s opinions on his age and his frequent gaffes.

“You don’t do this if you’re ahead, obviously,” Todd said. “The eagerness with which Trump accepted, I think the Biden campaign is lucky because I think the Biden campaign really needs this right now.”

A New York Times poll released the day before Biden accepted Trump’s debate challenge showed the president trailing behind Trump in six of the seven major swing states—in some of the states by as much as double digits.

“They are smart to do this because they need to change the direction of the campaign,” Todd explained.

“This campaign as it is going now is losing,” he added. “You have to change the trajectory. You need something different to happen.”

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell agreed with Todd that Biden was acting more like a “challenger” than an incumbent.

Some conservatives cautioned that Trump appeared to be walking into a trap given the hostile territory—with the debates to be aired on notoriously biased networks with hostile moderators and with all of the terms dictated by the Democrats.

Among the list of demands issued by the Biden campaign: no audience, mic cut-offs when each candidate’s allotted time is up and no third-party-candidate participation. Biden’s campaign also limited the number of news outlets that could host the debates.

Regardless, Trump responded to the challenge enthusiastically.

“I’m ready to go,” Trump said. “The dates that they proposed are fine. Anywhere. Anytime. Any place. Let’s see if Joe can make it to the stand-up podium.”

Dems Join House GOP to Block D.C.’s Lax Laws amid Crime Wave

Contributing Author
-
0
Dems Join House GOP to Block D.C.’s Lax Laws amid Crime Wave

(Headline USA) More than a dozen Democrats joined House Republicans this week in voting for a bill overhauling Washington, D.C.’s lax criminal policies.

The D.C. Criminal Reform to Immediately Make Everyone Safer (D.C. CRIMES) Act, introduced by Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., would prevent the D.C. courts and the leftist D.C. City Council from loosening sentencing requirements for juveniles and young adults. The bill would also require the D.C. attorney general to create a public website to track youth and juvenile crime rates.

It comes as the nation’s capital experiences a massive uptick in violent crime, such as armed carjackings, being largely committed by underage suspects.

Even lawmakers have fallen victim to the crime wave. Last October, for example, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, was carjacked at gunpoint by three robbers near his Capitol Hill home.

Cuellar was one of 18 Democrats who voted for Donalds’s bill.

Some of the others include: Reps. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.; Pat Ryan, D-N.Y.; Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas; Jared Golden, D-Maine; Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio; Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.; and Angie Craig, D-Minn.

“Our nation’s capital is experiencing a historic crime wave as a result of progressive, soft-on-crime policy,” Donalds said in a statement after the bill passed the House this week.

“This man-made public safety crisis is unacceptable,” he continued. “Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia and it is imperative that we act quickly to assert our control when local government fails to do its job.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., specifically blasted Democratic city leaders for the crime crisis.

“Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies have significantly changed policing across the country—and some of the worst consequences can been seen in our nation’s capital,” he said in a statement. “Congress has a responsibility to act in the interest of the District of Columbia.”

Houston-Area Judge Orders Election Redo in 2022 Race Due to 1,430 Illegal Votes

Jacob Bruns
-
0
Houston-Area Judge Orders Election Redo in 2022 Race Due to 1,430 Illegal Votes

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) A Houston-area judge ordered an election redo after 1,430 illegal votes were cast in a 2022 judicial race in the 180th District Court, the Texas Tribune reported.

Judge David Peeples ordered Harris County to hold a new election after Republican candidate Tami Pierce lost by a narrow margin, 449 votes, to Democrat Judge DaSean Jones.

According to Peeples, because of the narrow margin and the 1,430 illegal votes, the true victor could not be determined.

He wrote that the illegitimate votes were caused by “an official mistake” made by the Harris County Elections Administration Office.

However, the county has long been plagued with concerns over its election mismanagement and has faced several vote-fraud scandals in recent election cycles.

“The 2022 election in Harris County was one of the most disastrous elections in the country, probably only bested by the rigged election in Maricopa County, Arizona,” tweeted conservative activist George Behizy. “Voters were disenfranchised on election day and many illegal democrat votes were counted.”

Jones, who is currently running for the state Supreme Court, was the incumbent in the disputed 2022 race. He has been a controversial figure due to his long history of releasing dangerous felons on bond.

It is unclear how the do-over for his current position might impact his November election, in which he hopes to topple Republican incumbent Jimmy Blacklock. Currently, all nine of the justices on the high court are Republican.

Jones’s lawyer, Oliver Brown, said that he expected to appeal the ruling because he believes it “will be overturned.” According to Brown, Pierce failed to “meet the legal standard.”

Brown also issued a statement castigating the state of Texas for allowing the election challenge, thereby “failing to protect democracy.”

Pierce’s lawyer, however, expressed hope that Jones and Brown might allow the voters to decide who the judge should be in a free and fair election.

“We are gratified by the court’s judgment that Tami Pierce deserves a new election,” said Paul Simpson, Pierce’s lawyer, adding that “voluminous, detailed evidence” pointed to “many problems” with Harris County’s “troubled November 2022 election.”

For Pierce, the ruling presented an opportunity to right the wrong of 2022.

Naturally, Republicans in the area celebrated Peeples’s ruling, with Harris County Republican Party Chair Cindy Siegel issuing a statement in response.

“Judge Peeples’s decision to order a new election confirms what the Harris County GOP has been saying since 2022—The previous election administrations’ handling of our elections was beyond negligent, resulting in voters’ confidence in our elections being damaged,” Siegel wrote.

The ruling may, however, have implications beyond just the judicial race alone, as Harris County was one of the messiest elections in America in 2022, with numerous problems coming to the fore, including mismanaged voter rolls and election data.

At least one other race from the 2022 cycle has been subjected to a do-over due to invalid ballots. In Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a judge voided the sheriff’s election after the Democrat candidate won by a single vote after it was revealed that several people had double voted.

However, Sheriff Henry Whitehorn would go on to defeat his Republican challenger in a more decisive win in their March rematch, garnering a 4,000 vote victory the second time around.

As Poll Numbers Tank, Biden Suddenly Rediscovers Authority to Close Border

Jacob Bruns
-
0
As Poll Numbers Tank, Biden Suddenly Rediscovers Authority to Close Border

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) As President Joe Biden’s poll numbers continue to plummet ahead of his 2024 presidential election rematch against former President Donald Trump, the open-borders Democrat has suddenly rediscovered his executive power to mitigate the immigration crisis, the New York Post reported.

According to a White House insider, Biden and his administration are planning to issue an executive order that will, in effect, limit the number of possible immigrants across the border on any given day to 4,000.

The insider did not say when the order would likely go into effect.

The order remarkably resembles a failed border-security bill that the House rejected in April because it gave too much discretion to Homeland Security officials who were the root cause of the open-border crisis in the first place and were likely acting in bad faith to allow illegals to enter the country with impunity.

The bill was tied to other major spending packages for foreign aid to Ukraine and elsewhere.

Biden claimed during the debate over the legislation that he lacked the authority to act on his own, despite the fact that he, on his first day in office, asserted the authority to repeal the executive orders that Trump had put in place to close the border.

The new order would continue to grant some discretion to the Department of Homeland Security, but it would force more deportations when illegal crossings surpass 5,000 per day for a one-week span.

For reference, in April nearly 6,000 illegal immigrants were allowed across the border on a daily basis.

As recently as last summer, Biden administration officials were preaching the most radical immigration platitudes imaginable, going so far as to hire people who wanted to eliminate all border enforcement whatsoever.

Yet, in recent months, the Left’s shift towards border enforcement has been more apparent as Democrats across the country have distanced themselves—at least in their rhetoric— from their party’s open-border stance.

Polling suggests, for instance, that Americans across the political spectrum–even some people sympathetic to immigration–are concerned with the state of the border.

A Marquette Law School poll of registered voters taken last September gave Trump, a 24-point advantage over Biden on handling immigration and border security issues—52% to 28%.

Some on Twitter mocked Biden for his rearguard, which may be too little, too late.

“This is what panic looks like,” Vince Langman, a Trump supporter, wrote.

Others suggested that Biden had already achieved his desired outcome of replacing Americans with foreigners, and that now he has the luxury of playing politics.

“What’s he going to do about the 7 million who crashed the border of the past few years?” another Twitter user asked.

By some estimates, around 11 million illegals have entered the country on Biden’s watch.

The executive order, however, is not the only example of Biden appearing to pivot away from his fringe leftist position with the election looming.

Despite having taken a notoriously soft stance on China—where his family has considerable private business interests—Biden recently borrowed another move from the Trump playbook by announcing a raft of new tariffs—$18 billion in total—to prevent the Asian rival from exploiting a U.S. trade imbalance.

Dems Seek New Role for Gov’t in Women’s Uteruses via Menopause Bill

Molly Bruns
-
0
Dems Seek New Role for Gov’t in Women’s Uteruses via Menopause Bill

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. announced a new bill that would dedicate taxpayer funds to provide healthcare for women going through menopause, according to Twitchy.

“Menopause is not a bad word. It’s not something to be ashamed of and its not something that Congress or the federal government should ignore,” Murray, 73, said in a press conference announcing the bill.

“Menopause is something that every woman goes through, so there’s no reason that any woman should feel like she’s going through it alone or like she can’t find reliable information or the health care answer and options she needs,” she added.

Murray’s advocacy stood in stark contrast with her steadfast opposition when it came to any federal government regulation of abortion.

“My position on the right to abortion is not complicated: I don’t believe politicians at any level of government should be making reproductive health care decisions for women,” she previously tweeted.

Despite the clearly contradictory messaging regarding the Left’s usual opposition to government oversight of women’s bodies, the bill enjoyed a bipartisan support from a bevy of postmenopausal female lawmakers.

Sens. Murray; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V.; co-authored the “historic, comprehensive” legislation proposing the allocation of federal funds into menopause research.

“There is no excuse for shortchanging this issue when it comes to federal dollars,” Murray said at the conference.

Several other female senators co-sponsored the bill, many of them Democrats.

Actress Halle Berry spoke at the press conference as well, expressing her excitement over the bipartisan action on this bill.

“This is probably, I think, in our lifetime, ladies, one of the most important things that we’ll do for ourselves,” she said. “It’s really important that we all stand together and lock arms, and I am beyond honored to be a part of this movement.”

The bill demanded $275 million in funding over five years for the National Institutes of Health to dispense in the form of grants, allocate to research, “strengthen coordination” within the group and other health agencies and establish a public outreach program.

People responded to the announcement by begging Murray not to get involved.

“Menopause, like puberty and pregnancy, are natural conditions of the female body,” Twitter user @CattledogMeg said. “If we have issues, we see our physician. Stop selling out women to fund raise.”

“As a menopausal woman the idea that I need the government to pay attention to this is flat out insulting, intrusive and just plain nuts,” said user @sasso333.

“If the federal government gets involved in menopause it’ll just mean that everything a woman needs to get through it is going to cost 100x more than it would otherwise and absolutely NONE of it will be covered by any insurance policy,” @1WitchyChick said.

Many users expressed shock that Murray appeared to admit that only women, not men attempting to be women, go through menopause—an issue that caused Murray confusion in the past.

RED-PILLED: Another Blue-City Mayor Embraces Conservative Policies after Inheriting ‘Mess’

Editor 1
-
0
RED-PILLED: Another Blue-City Mayor Embraces Conservative Policies after Inheriting ‘Mess’

(Bethany Blankley, The Center Square) Houston’s new Democratic mayor, John Whitmire, is continuing to reverse the actions of his woke predecessor, from prioritizing fighting crime to ensuring no new taxes or fees are included in his first proposed budget.

Whitmire proposed a $6.7 billion budget Tuesday that includes no new taxes or fees, doesn’t reduce services and closes a $160 million deficit. It is larger than some state budgets.

“I have only been mayor for five months, and I inherited a mess, which at the time was a projected budget gap of $160 million heading into FY’25,” Whitmire said at a news conference with city council members.

“The Fiscal Year 2025 Proposed Budget is my first budget, and a large financial challenge is ahead,” he continued. “While we were able to close the budgetary gap using a combination of recurring expenditure reductions and a draw on fund balance, we know there is much more work to do ahead of us.”

Whitmire addressed “years of the city’s financial deficits” he says he inherited. His plan includes implementing city-wide efficiencies and a cost savings review.

Like his Democratic counterpart in Dallas, Mayor Eric Johnson, Whitmire is prioritizing efficiency and limiting increasing taxes.

Unlike Whitmire, Johnson was unsuccessful at convincing his city council to not raise taxes and switched parties to become a Republican.

But regardless of the label, Whitmire is one of a growing number of Democrat city officials who have seen the writing on the wall and are attempting to pivot to a more conservative style of governance following several years in which far-left policies have resulted in urban decay and misery for many fed-up residents.

New York Mayor Eric Adams and San Francisco Mayor London Breed have both taken baby steps in this direction, although it remains unclear whether either of the leftist leaders is truly committed to following conservative principles or just trying to confuse constituents about where they actually stand on the issues.

Other cities, like Chicago, appear to be following suit, despite still having radical city officials in power at the moment, as crime, immigration, cost of living and other quality-of-life issues create growing discontent.

Johnson and Whitmire both argue city governments can be more efficient and the answer to budget problems isn’t always increasing taxes.

The majority of the largest cities in Texas with the greatest taxpayer burdens are run by Democrats, led by Dallas and Houston.

While Whitmire’s budget doesn’t create new taxes or fees, it also doesn’t cut spending. His proposed $6.73 billion budget for all funds is $442 million more than fiscal 2024, a 7% increase.

The budget increases account for prioritizing funding for public safety staffing—including paying for five cadet classes for the Houston fire and police departments that have suffered from staffing shortages.

It also follows through on a campaign pledge to residents in Texas’s largest city plagued by crime and limited or failing public services.

His proposed fiscal 2025 general fund budget of $3.03 billion represents a 2.1% increase from the fiscal 2024 budget of $2.97 billion. The increase accounts for covering a 3.5% pay increase for Houston police officers and increases associated with the collective bargaining agreement he reached with the Houston Fire Department. The agreement was reached after Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that Whitmire sponsored while he was in the state legislature.

Within less than two months of being in office, Whitmire reversed an 8-year battle between his predecessor and HPD’s union by negotiating an historic agreement.

After learning of Houston Police Department’s failure to investigate more than 264,00 crime reports, Whitmire appointed an independent panel to oversee HPD’s internal investigation. Within two months of doing so, HPD’s chief was forced to resign.

Going forward, Houston is facing many challenges, Whitmire said. “While we are looking for efficiencies and cost savings, we cannot discount the fact that we are under strict limitations on our revenues.”

Houston has three revenue constraints “that do not exist in other large cities in Texas,” he said. They include a locally imposed revenue cap in addition to the state cap, no dedicated revenues to support solid waste operations, and no support from a city-owned utility.

His plan also includes working with “other levels of government” and “adjust[ing] how we deliver services and the costs required to do so and discuss reasonable potential modifications to our revenue model.”

The city council must approve the budget before July 1, when the new fiscal year begins.

Weaponization Witnesses Confirm Troubling Corruption on Display in Leftist Lawfare

Editor 1
-
0
Weaponization Witnesses Confirm Troubling Corruption on Display in Leftist Lawfare

(Casey Harper, The Center Square) A congressional committee on Wednesday examined the Department of Justice’s treatment of former President Donald Trump under the Biden administration.

Trump faces a myriad of legal troubles at the state and federal level, but the federal prosecution of Trump has been under special scrutiny since it has been carried out by the DOJ under the supervision of President Joe Biden, Trump’s political rival.

Trump’s prosecution is uncharted political and legal territory for the U.S., and witnesses at a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government raised concerns about its implications.

Gene Hamilton, a lawyer and leader at the Trump-connected America First Legal Foundation, blasted the DOJ, saying it has become politicized, and not just for its prosecution of Trump.

“Prosecution and charging decisions are infused with racial and partisan political double standards,” he said in prepared testimony.

“Immigration laws are ignored,” he continued. “The Federal Bureau of Investigation harasses protesting parents (branded ‘domestic terrorists’ by some partisans) while working diligently to shut down politically disfavored speech on the pretext of its being ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation.’”

Hamilton went on to highlight additional instances of the brazen double standard at the DOJ.

“A department that prosecutes numerous FACE Act cases while ignoring dozens of violent attacks on pregnancy care centers and/or the coordinated violation of laws that prohibit attempts to intimidate Supreme Court Justices by parading outside of their homes has clearly lost its way,” he said.

“A department that has twice engaged in covert domestic election interference and propaganda operations—the Russian collusion hoax in 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop suppression in 2020—is a threat to the Republic,” he added.

Democrats panned the committee’s work as overly politicized, alleging it was simply doing Trump’s bidding, and sought to deflect from the criticisms of their ethical lapses using diversionary tactics.

“We’re here at the beck and call of Trump fanatics,” claimed Rep. Stacey Plaskett, D-N.Y.

Leftists attempted to stir up a frenzy on social media surrounding Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s framework for government reform in an incoming Trump administration, in which Hamilton had a role.

Bombastic Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, suggested that the plan to drain the Swamp and restore some semblance of government accountability to the corrupt bureaucracy was a “playbook for authoritarianism as well as the next dictator to come in.”

Longtime New York lawyer Robert J. Costello also testified at the hearing, echoing Trump’s complaint that the cases against him were unusual and politically motivated.

“I have been a lawyer for 51 years,” Costello said in his prepared testimony.

“During that time, I have been involved in many different types of cases, but I have never seen the types of politically motivated cases that have been brought in this presidential election season,” he continued. “These political cases are being used as a weapon of war to damage, defeat or impede political adversaries and their allies.”

Costello made an apparent reference to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who promised during her 2018 campaign to go after Trump if elected to the office.

“Prosecutors are supposed to investigate crimes and prosecute those who commit them—not announce targets first and investigate until they can bring some charge, no matter how tenuous,” Costello continued. “But these days, you see individuals running for prospective office who claim that if you elect me, I will bring down this public figure or that public figure who disagrees with my political philosophy.”

Trump’s criminal charges for holding on to classified documents has been under particular scrutiny since Biden was not charged in what was arguably a more egregious offense.

Biden—who lacked any presidential declassification authority when he removed documents, some of which dated back to his time as a U.S. senator, prior to 2008—also maintained them in several far less secure environments than Trump, including his home garage, and offered to grant access to a biographer who lacked the appropriate security clearance.

Former DOJ attorney Jim Trusty said in prepared testimony Wednesday that Trump’s handling of the documents was not that different from past presidents of both parties. However, the federal response certainly “took a distinct departure from history,” he noted.

While the National Archives had given other presidents free rein to decide what documents to keep at their own discretion, a radicalized librarian instead colluded with the Justice Department to wage the lawfare attack on Trump—likely at the behest of the White House or its puppet-masters with the predetermined outcome of an FBI raid and special-counsel investigation in mind.

“DOJ’s decision to use criminal enforcement tools in an exaggerated dispute about document retention was unique and simply wrong,” Trusty said. “I have personally seen the Sept. 11, 2018 letter from representatives of the Barack Obama Foundation to the director of NARA in which President Obama’s representatives casually refer to their post-presidency possession of a vast quantity of documents—specifically including classified ones.”

The witnesses raised a range of problems with the DOJ’s handling of Trump’s legal problems, but for now they remain in place and Trump faces an array of court proceedings.

“When individuals entrusted with power believe that the ends justify the means, we are left with a weaponized political agent, cheered on by partisans and those blinded by dislike of candidate Trump,” Trusty said in his prepared testimony, alluding to a notorious Marxist slogan that seemed equally apropos to the modern era.

“If they succeed, we begin a new age where even old hands at criminal justice like me will not recognize the perversion of justice and … will descend into attacks and counterattacks launched by power-hungry politicians masquerading as agents of fairness.”

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Stormy Daniels’s Husband Says They Will ‘Flee’ U.S. If Trump Is Acquitted

Contributing Author
-
0
Stormy Daniels’s Husband Says They Will ‘Flee’ U.S. If Trump Is Acquitted

(Headline USA) Porn star Stormy Daniels’s husband claimed this week that the couple would likely “flee” the U.S. if former President Donald Trump were acquitted of the charges filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

“If Trump is found not guilty … I don’t think it gets better for her, you know?” Blade, who is also an adult film star, told CNN on Tuesday.

“I think if it’s not guilty, we got to decide what to do,” he added. “Good chance we’ll probably vacate this country.”

During her testimony last week, Daniels admitted that she still owes Trump about $660,000 in attorneys fees from a previous judgment against her related to a failed defamation lawsuit but that she had no intention of paying it.

Trump has pleaded not guilty in the current criminal case brought by Bragg, who charged the former president with more than 30 felony counts for the alleged falsification of business records related to a payment he made to Daniels during his 2016 campaign.

Daniels’s testimony offered details of an alleged tryst with the former Manhattan real-estate mogul and reality-television star a decade before he ran for president, during the early days of his marriage to future first lady Melania Trump. However, her salacious account had little to do with the charges that Bragg is attempting to prove.

Despite the massive media attention his wife has benefited from, Blade claimed the case would not result in a net positive outcome for Daniels either way. Nonetheless, he argued it would still be better for her if Trump was convicted.

“If he is found guilty, then she’s still going to have to deal with all the hate,” Blade said.

“I don’t see it as a ‘win’ situation either way,” he continued. “We would like to get on with our lives… She wants to move past this.” 

Daniels admitted during cross-examination last week that she initially hoped to make money off of Trump and that she was happy she was part of the reason Trump was indicted by Bragg.

Her legal team, however, has since tried to portray her as a victim.

For example, her attorney, Clark Brewster, claimed this week that Daniels wore a bulletproof vest to her testimony because she was “paralyzed by fear” of what “some nut might do to her.”

Brewster also claimed Daniels “cried herself to sleep” the night before taking the stand against Trump.

1...1,2931,2941,295...3,861Page 1,294 of 3,861