Jury Orders Trump To Pay $83 Million In E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case

Jury Orders Trump To Pay $83 Million In E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case

Donald Trump will have to pay journalist E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in total damages in her defamation case, after nine jurors – seven men and two women – deliberated for just under three hours in a lower Manhattan federal courthouse Friday afternoon.

This is the second civil defamation and sexual abuse case Carroll brought against the ex-president, who is facing 91 state and federal criminal felony charges. Hen is also facing a civil business fraud case in New York, which has the potential to cost him hundreds of millions and bar him from doing business in the Empire State.

E. Jean Carroll’s case surrounded defamatory statements Trump made in June of 2019, and jurors were required to determine compensatory and punitive damages Trump owes for those statements. In the first case a jury determined Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The judge in both cases, senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan determined those facts would hold over for this case. He also had noted after the first case that Trump had effectively been found liable for rape, making the ex-president an adjudicated rapist.

Initially Carroll’s attorney asked for $10 million in compensatory damages in the current case, but expert testimony revealed it would cost the journalist, author, and advice columnist at least $12 million to repair her damaged reputation, and millions more in lost wages and other injuries.

Just Security last week described that as, “economic loss (lost income, career opportunities, or business deals due to damaged reputation) as well as for emotional distress (mental anguish, humiliation, and reputational harm).”

Carroll’s attorneys on Friday asked the jury for $24 million in compensatory damages. During closing arguments Carroll’s attorneys told the jury Trump’s claims of high net worth should be taken in to account when deciding how much to award Carroll in punitive damages.

Throughout the trial, and as recently as 11:30 AM Friday, Donald Trump continued his attacks, calling the trial the “E. Jean Carroll False Accusation Case,” and falsely claiming, “This is another Biden Demanded Witch Hunt against his Political Opponent, funded and managed by Radical Left Democrats. The Courts are totally stacked against me, have never been used against a Political Opponent, like this.”

The jury was required to answer these three “yes” or “no” questions:

“Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ms. Carroll suffered more than nominal damages as a result of Mr. Trump’s publication of the June 21 and June 22, 2019 statements?”

“In making the June 21, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?”

“In making the June 22, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?”

During the final day of trial, Donald Trump stormed out of the courtroom when he was criticized by Carroll’s attorney, the highly-respected Roberta Kaplan. Judge Kaplan (no relation) announced that would become part of the trial record.

Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, repeatedly ignored Judge Kaplan’s directions to not question the facts of the case, that Trump had been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, yet she repeatedly ignored his warnings.

Judge Kaplan was forced repeatedly to warn and rebuke Habba, and at one point during closing arguments, he threatened Habba with jail if she continued.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

At Colorado Trial, Trump Calls 'Expert' Who Wrote Infamous Torture Memo

At Colorado Trial, Trump Calls 'Expert' Who Wrote Infamous Torture Memo

The final day of a weeklong trial in a challenge to former President Donald Trump’s constitutional eligibility to seek office again began with a protracted dispute over how much expertise an expert witness called by Trump’s legal team really had.

Robert Delahunty, a retired law professor and legal commentator who acknowledged he’d never before given expert testimony on any subject in court, took the stand Friday morning in a case brought by six Colorado voters who allege that Trump must be barred from the 2024 presidential ballot by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War-era clause prohibits anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office in the United States. Plaintiffs argue Trump “engaged” in insurrection as part of the January 6 attack.

Trump’s attorneys called on Delahunty, they told Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace, as a witness with expertise in “interpreting legal historical documents,” and to rebut testimony earlier in the week from Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca, an expert on 19th-century constitutional history who has written multiple law review articles on Section 3’s application.

Friday’s trial proceedings began with several hours of direct testimony from Delahunty, whose loquacious answers had to be interrupted repeatedly by Wallace and Trump attorney Scott Gessler. Wallace overruled strong objections from plaintiffs’ attorneys to the admission of Delahunty as an expert witness on the subject of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, which Trump’s team justified on the basis of Delahunty’s 16 years of teaching constitutional law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

“Teaching a first-year law school course does not mean that he’s made scholarly contributions” to research on the history and interpretation of Section 3, said Jason Murray, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

“Professor Delahunty has expertise in reviewing historical documents and applying them to constitutional provisions,” Wallace said in denying a motion to exclude the testimony. “His lack of scholarly contribution to Section 3 in particular, I don’t think excludes him from testifying on the opinions that he’s testifying to today.”

In his testimony on Wednesday, Magliocca cited multiple definitions of “engaging in insurrection” that were detailed in legal opinions from the 1860s, including any “overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering” an insurrection, as well as an act “by speech or by writing (that) incited others to engage in rebellion.”

But Delahunty, while conceding that some of those opinions were “certainly good evidence” for the plaintiffs’ interpretation, said his interpretation of the historical record differed from Magliocca’s.

“I think ‘engage in insurrection’ has a more restricted meaning than he supposes,” Delahunty said.

An ’officer of the United States’?

Under cross-examination by plaintiffs’ attorneys, Delahunty acknowledged that the 14th Amendment had never been the primary focus of his scholarship, and that in preparing his report on the subject for the court, he had not done any original research to consult primary sources from the time period in which the amendment was ratified.

While serving as a lawyer for United States Homeland Security Council in 2002, Delahunty was a co-author with attorney John Yoo of the so-called “torture memos,” legal opinions advising that detainees in the War on Terror were not entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. He is currently a fellow at the Claremont Institute, which has been described as an “anti-democracy think tank” and a “nerve center for the American right” under Trump.

Among the many prominent Trump allies affiliated with the Claremont Institute is attorney John Eastman, a key architect of the former president’s scheme to block congressional certification of the results of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. Eastman has been indicted alongside Trump for an alleged conspiracy to overturn the election by prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia.

In addition to disputing the definition of “engaging in insurrection,” Delahunty also appeared to an endorse an argument made by Trump supporters that Section 3’s reference to “officers of the United States” does not include the president.

“What’s your opinion on Professor Magliocca’s conclusion that the phrase ‘officer of the United States,’ as used in Section 3, includes the president and vice president of the United States?” Gessler asked.

“I disagree with that conclusion,” Delahunty answered. “I looked into that question more, and I was persuaded that he was really wrong. I think that term is, in essence, a term of art and had a specialized meaning.”

But under questioning from Murray, Delahunty maintained that he “took no position” on the question, which he called “disputed among scholars.”

Murray pointed to a commentary written by Delahunty for The Federalist, a conservative website, in August. In that article, Delahunty wrote of Section 3: “Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to ‘officer(s)’ supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”

“You wrote that article in August of this year, before you were hired by Donald Trump as a paid expert in this case, right?” asked Murray. “Since the time you wrote that article in The Federalist, you’ve been paid about $60,000 by Donald Trump for your work in this case?”

“Yes,” Delahunty replied.

Concluding testimony

Delahunty also questioned whether the clause’s ban on office-holding is, as supporters of the plaintiffs’ case maintain, “self-executing,” meaning that congressional action is not required to bar a candidate from office.

The lack of specific federal legislation implementing Section 3’s provisions, Delahunty said, “should, if only for reasons of prudence … lead a court to abstain from deciding what that phrase means, and toss the ball over to Congress.”

Delahunty’s testimony drew a pointed question from Wallace.

“Do you have examples of situations in which a court has basically said, ‘The Constitution is too hard for me to interpret, therefore I’m going to let Congress tell me what it means?’” she asked. “In general, I think that’s exactly the job of the court, to interpret the Constitution.”

“No, I don’t have case law to cite,” Delahunty said. “It approaches the question of whether Section 3 is self-executing. It goes more to that.”

Other concluding testimony on Friday included the questioning of Tim Heaphy, the former chief investigating counsel for the nine-member House of Representatives select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack. The admission of many of that committee’s findings as evidence in the 14th Amendment case has been disputed at length by Trump’s legal team, who allege that the panel was politically motivated and didn’t allow for an “adversarial” process through which evidence could be presented and challenged.

Under questioning, Heaphy defended the committee’s work as “fair and impartial,” repeatedly dismissing Gessler’s implications that it was compromised by the fact that its members, who included seven Democrats and two Republicans, had been highly critical of Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6 and voted to impeach him over “incitement” of the attack a week later.

“It was the hypothesis that began the investigation, in the form of the impeachment proceedings,” Heaphy said. “We tested it, as you always do in an investigation, against other facts as they emerged, and it never changed.”

Following the conclusion of witness testimony, the trial ended shortly before 5 p.m. on Friday. The court will reconvene to hear closing arguments on November 15, with Wallace expected to issue her ruling by November 17.

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

Pro-Trump Influencer Gets Seven Months In Election Tampering Scheme

Pro-Trump Influencer Gets Seven Months In Election Tampering Scheme

Pro-Trump influencer Douglass Mackey is now headed to federal prison to serve a seven-month sentence after being convicted by a federal jury in March. Prosecutors asked for Mackey, who was arrested in 2021, to serve between six months and a year behind bars.

Mackey, a West Palm Beach, Florida resident who went by the name "Ricky Vaughn," was found guilty on one count of conspiracy against rights for trying to defraud Hillary Clinton supporters in the 2016 election. According to the New York Times, Judge Ann M. Donnelly, of the Eastern District of New York, said while sentencing Mackey that he was "one of the leading members" of the conspiracy to prevent Clinton supporters from voting, adding that it was "nothing short of an assault on our democracy."

The conspiracy in question stemmed from a series of posts, meant to look like they were from the former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, encouraging Black and Latino supporters to vote by text message or through social media, knowing that those votes would not actually be counted. One of those posts showed a Black woman holding a sign, and another post was in Spanish, and included the Clinton campaign logo with fine print attached that read "Hillary for President."

At the time of the conspiracy, Mackey's "Ricky Vaughn" Twitter account had approximately 58,000 followers, and was labeled by the M.I.T. Media Lab in February of 2016 as the 107th most powerful influencer of the then-upcoming presidential election. While Mackey's attorney argued during the trial that his client's actions accounted to just a few clicks on a computer, prosecutors countered that Mackey's "true power was his ability to spread messages to convert his clicks into tens of thousands more."

Notably, former President Donald Trump is also facing the same charge of of conspiracy against rights that Mackey was just sentenced under. Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on that charge, among several others, in his August indictment pertaining to Trump's role in the January 6 insurrection. Trump is scheduled to stand trial on those charges on March 4, 2024, just before the pivotal Super Tuesday primaries.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Sarah Sanders Snaps At Reporter Over 'Lecterngate' Scandal

Arkansas Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is continuing to be haunted by questions concerning a $19,000 lectern purchased by her office using taxpayer dollars. At a Tuesday press conference, Gov. Sanders snapped at a local reporter for asking why she wasn't using the expensive lectern despite the purchase.

"I figure if I do [use the lectern] then you would talk about nothing else instead of the important actions that we're taking today, which unfortunately is not surprising," Sanders quipped. "While we are focused on things that actually impact our state and impact Arkansas, the media wants to spend all of their time focused on things that frankly don't."

The purchase of the lectern wasn't initially known to the public until September, when Arkansas attorney and blogger Matt Campbell discovered it after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Following Campbell's FOIA that disclosed the purchase, Sanders convened a special legislative session to curtail Arkansas' FOIA guidelines. After blowback from both Democrats and Republicans, the FOIA legislation was ultimately pared back, with only security and travel records restricted under the new FOIA law.

Aside from the lectern itself, Sanders has also been dogged by a whistleblower's allegations of altering documents relating to the purchase of the lectern. Earlier this month, Arkansas attorney Tom Mars told CBS affiliate THV 11 that he was representing an anonymous client who "can provide clear and convincing evidence" that the governor's office "altered" and "withheld" documents pertaining to the lectern.

At the request of Republican State Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr., the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee is now conducting an official audit relating to the purchase. Gov. Sanders has welcomed the audit, saying to "Let [the committee] do the audit and get it done as quickly as possible."

Sanders claims the use of taxpayer funds was an "accounting error," and that the purchase has since been reimbursed by the Arkansas Republican Party. However, that reimbursement only came three months after the initial purchase.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Kevin McCarthy

McCarthy Bluntly Dispels Right-Wing Chatter About Biden 'Dementia'

By Sarah K. Burris

"He's got dementia," claims radio host Joe Rogan about President Joe Biden.

Donald Trump joined in the attacks, crafting a whole new conspiracy theory: "Joe Biden's second bout of Covid, sometimes referred to as the China Virus, was sadly misdiagnosed by his doctors. He instead has Dementia, but is happily recovering well," Trump wrote. "Joe is thinking of moving, part time, to one of those beautiful Wisconsin Nursing Homes, where almost 100% of the residents miraculously, and for the first time in history, had the strength and energy to vote — even if those votes were cast illegally."

For years, Trump called Biden "sleepy Joe."

Trump aide Stephen Miller said Biden should be in “assisted living” and “is not cognitively present.”

But it seems Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) isn't on message.

Asked about Biden, McCarthy said: "I thought his team was very professional, very smart, very tough, at the same time, so...." The fact that McCarthy said "team" threw reporters off. They asked again, specifically about Biden. "What I was referring to was the president. I was talking about President Biden, yes."

Listening to a few Biden speeches, namely his big Warsaw speech in February 2023, Desert News columnist Jacob Hess, said that there's evidence of Biden's stutter and some slurred words. Folks are forgetting Biden's decades of gaffes. It became an ongoing joke during Barack Obama's administration, where Biden would tell a crowd "The problem isn't I mean what I say, it's that sometimes I say what I mean." It's a joke about politicians holding back their thoughts or being calculated. Biden, Hess explained, could never be that guy.

"Often catches himself and turns it into a joke, like when he said'saloon' instead of salon, or offered $100K for citizens to get vaccinated. You might have also missed how the president handled hecklers with notable grace and patience at the recent State of the Union," Hess said.

See the McCarthy comments in the video below or at the link here.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump and DeSantis

Trump Blasts Plutocratic 'Club For No Growth' Over Backing Of DeSantis

Donald Trump late Saturday leveled an attack against the "Club for Growth," a conservative advocacy group that recently criticized the former president in an ad, for supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).

Trump posted on Truth Social, his own social media platform that he created after being banned from most other platforms in the wake of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection attempt, that the group is attempting to counter DeSantis' own policy decisions.

"The very stupid, China loving 'Club for No Growth,' which has been backing Ron De Sanctimonious as his poll numbers have been absolutely CRASHING, has just spent some of the RINO money they have accumulated on an ad campaign hoping to counter the fact that Desanctus, just off the worst Presidential 'Launch' in history, opted three times to cut & destroy Social Security, even lifting the minimum age to 70," Trump wrote. "He also voted to cut Medicare & institute a 23% National Sales Tax. Ron is a loser!"

It was previously reported that the war between Trump and the Club for Growth was threatening to undermine the Republican Party's plans for the 2024 election and that could blow up endorsement plans.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

John Roberts

Whistleblower Urges Probe Of Law Firms' Huge Payments To Chief Justice's Wife

By Gideon Rubin

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife earned $10.3 million in commissions for her work for elite law firms, one of which argued a case before her husband, Business Insider reports.

Jane Sullivan Roberts stepped away from her career as a prominent lawyer two years after her husband’s confirmation to the Supreme Court to become a legal recruiter, matching job-seeking lawyers with employers in what turned out to be a lucrative career change.

She made $10.3 million in commissions from 2007 to 2014, according to a whistleblower complaint, which cites internal records that were obtained from her employer by a disgruntled former colleague of Jane Roberts.

Kendal B. Price, the whistleblower who worked with Roberts at the firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, said as the chief justice’s wife, income Jane Roberts earns from law firms who try cases before the court should be subject to scrutiny.

"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong,” Price told Business Insider.

"During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."

Price in an affidavit that accompanied the complaint alleged that Jane Roberts benefited from her proximity to the chief justice.

"She restructured her career to benefit from his [John Roberts'] position," Price wrote.

"I believe that at least some of her remarkable success as a recruiter has come because of her spouse's position."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Hillary Clinton

Trump Troll Mackey Convicted In 2016 Election Rigging Plot

A social media influencer was convicted Friday in connection with a plot to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department said.

Douglass Mackey, also known as “Ricky Vaughn,” was convicted of conspiracy against rights for a “scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote,” the agency said.

Mackey faces up to 10 years in prison.

“Mackey has been found guilty by a jury of his peers of attempting to deprive individuals from exercising their sacred right to vote for the candidate of their choice in the 2016 Presidential Election,” U.S. Attorney Breon Peace of the Eastern District of New York said in a news release.

“Today’s verdict proves that the defendant’s fraudulent actions crossed a line into criminality and flatly rejects his cynical attempt to use the constitutional right of free speech as a shield for his scheme to subvert the ballot box and suppress the vote.”

Mackey amassed some 58,000 Twitter followers and was ranked as the 107th most important influencer ahead of the presidential election in February, 2016, by the MIT Media Lab.

Prosecutors alleged that Mackey in the months leading up to the 2016 election conspired with other influential Twitter users, among others, to spread disinformation encouraging Clinton supporters to cast invalid votes via text message or social media, the DOJ said.

In the days leading up to the election, Mackey sent tweets suggesting the importance of limiting “black turnout,” tweeting an image depicting an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for Hillary” sign.

The ad stated: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home,” “Text ‘Hillary’ to 59925,” and “Vote for Hillary and be a part of history.”

The fine print at the bottom of the deceptive image stated: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by Hillary For President 2016.”

The tweet included the “#ImWithHer” hashtag.

At least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “Hillary” or some variant of the 59925 text number, which had been used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by Mackey and his co-conspirators.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump

WATCH: Leaked Footage Reveals Trump Allies Planning To Harvest Ballots

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Leaked footage from a right-wing organization reportedly shows multiple allies of President Donald Trump advocating for ballot harvesting despite the president constantly accusing Democratic voters of doing so.

With less than 25 days to Election Day, Republican activist Charlie Kirk spoke during a closed-door gathering of conservatives hosted by the Council for National Policy (CNP) where he appeared to praise the impact coronavirus will have on the election. According to Kirk, COVID may prohibit many liberal college students from voting in the upcoming election.

Read NowShow less

USPS Special Agents Find Massive Amount Of Undelivered Mail At QAnon Postal Worker's Home

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

United States Postal Service (USPS) special agents reportedly discovered large amounts of undelivered mail after raiding the home of a mail carrier who aligns with the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon.

A total of eight large garbage bags—believed to be filled with undelivered mail—were confiscated from the home of USPS mail carrier, Sean J. Troesch, according to KDKA. Following the raid, the USPS Office of Inspector General confirmed agents had retrieved "several classes of mail," some of which were first class mail pieces.

"Special Agents recovered several different classes of mail, including business mail, flats, and small amount of first class mail. We expect to perform a piece count of the mail tomorrow, and make arrangements to have the mail delivered to customers as soon as feasible," the statement said.

Troesch's neighbors also revealed this was not the first time they had seen a large number of garbage bags in front of the home. Screenshots have also surfaced from a Facebook page belonging to someone who identifies as Sean J. Troesch. Many of the Facebook posts shared on that page highlighted far-right conspiracy theories, per the Pittsburgh City Paper.

Allegheny County voter registration records also indicate that a Sean J. Troesch resides at the residence that was raided by USPS special agents. The Inspector General office's findings are now being turned over to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.

"Once USPS OIG special agents conclude their investigation, the case will be presented for federal prosecution to the U.S. Attorney's Office," Special Agent Scott Balfour told CNN.

No criminal charges have been filed against Troesch yet.

Trump’s Wacky Babble Will Make You Forget Biden’s ‘Gaffes’

Trump’s Wacky Babble Will Make You Forget Biden’s ‘Gaffes’

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

President Donald Trump's antics have gotten progressively worse over the last week, and his interviews have been littered with epic blunders that have raised more questions about his mental capacity amid his battle with COVID-19.

1. The Nonexistent 'Second Debate' Victory

When Trump appeared on Fox News Thursday morning, he claimed to have beaten Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in the first and second debates. However, there is one glaring problem with Trump's remarks: the second debate has not occurred yet and likely will not because the president refuses to commit to participating virtually despite being COVID-positive.

Read NowShow less
Amy Coney Barrett

Hashtag ’Superspreader’ Pinned To Trump’s Reckless Supreme Court Nominee

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

As more White House staffers and Republican lawmakers test positive for COVID-19, there is speculation that several people may have contracted coronavirus while attending President Donald Trump's Rose Garden event last Saturday announcing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Now, Twitter users are highlighting Trump and Barrett's recklessness under the hashtag, "SuperSpreader," which appears to describe the nature of the event. In addition to Trump being blamed for his own battle with COVID-19, photos from the Rose Garden event are now being used to argue that Barrett's alleged irresponsibility proves she is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Read NowShow less
Mike Reese

Portland Sheriff: Hell No, l Don’t Support Trump

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese of Portland, OR. quickly shut down President Donald Trump's claim that he endorsed him for the upcoming presidential election.

During the first presidential debate on Tuesday night, Reese took to Twitter with his reaction to Trump's remarks as he confirmed he has never supported Trump. In addition, he also made it clear he has no intent on supporting the president going forward.

Read NowShow less
Donald Trump

’Sick Of Him’: Trump Losing Key Voter Bloc In Florida

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Florida senior residents have been reliable Republican voters for decades, but it looks like their political impact could shift in the upcoming 2020 election.

As Election Day approaches, Florida is becoming a major focal point. President Donald Trump is facing more of an uphill battle with maintaining the support of senior voters due to his handling of critical issues over the last several months. Several seniors, including some who voted for Trump in 2016, have explained why he will not receive their support in the November election.

Read NowShow less
early voting

Early Voting Is Already Shattering Past Election Records

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

The American public is showing a heightened interest in early voting practices ahead of the November election.

Over 28 million Americans have already requested ballots and an additional 43 million are automatically scheduled to be mailed to registered voters, according to a survey of election offices conducted by CNN. The states surveyed include a total of 42 states in addition to Washington D.C.

Read NowShow less
Bernie Sanders

Sanders Says ‘Plans Will Be Made’ To Remove Trump If Necessary

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made it clear that plans will be made to remove President Donald Trump from the White House if he loses the election and refuses to leave office.

Sanders spoke with HBO host Bill Maher, where he discussed the importance of the upcoming election as he urged liberal voters to cast their ballot for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Read NowShow less
Mary Trump

Mary Trump’s New Lawsuit Claims Fraud By President And His Siblings

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

President Donald Trump is facing a new legal battle with his niece Mary Trump who insists she was duped into forfeiting her inheritance following the death of her grandfather, Fred Trump, Sr., and her father, Fred Trump, Jr.

In the New York State Supreme Court lawsuit, filed in Manhattan on Thursday morning, Mary Trump named the president, her aunt, Maryanne Barry Trump, and her late uncle, Robert Trump — who passed away in August of this year. She outlined claims of fraudulent representation, fraudulent inducement, negligent representation, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment dating back to the "beginning of the 1980s."

Read NowShow less