Join

The National Memo - Latest News Tracking & Analysis

Latest News Politics , Business , Finance , Technology , World News & Opinion & Tracking & Analysis.

United States of America
Website
🇺🇸 english
World
#763
The National Memo

The National Memo

Primary focus: World

Recent Reportage

Latest coverage from The National Memo
Texas GOP Just Voted To Impose Life In Prison Or Death For Women Who Get Abortions

Texas GOP Just Voted To Impose Life In Prison Or Death For Women Who Get Abortions

Texas Republicans don’t care much for children in their state.Almost 14 percent of all Texas kids are uninsured. That’s the highest rate of any state in the country.And the number of uninsured children in Texas has risen by 29 percent in recent years - again, the highest increase of in any state of the country.That adds up to 1.1 million children in Texas without health insurance meaning that almost one quarter of all American children without health insurance live in Texas.But to put it in plain words - Texas Republican lawmakers who control the state , don’t give a sht!What Republican politicians in Texas DO care one hell of a lot about the ‘preborn’ in Texas. Yes, - the ‘preborn’.The fertilized eggs from the moment of conception. The embroys and fetuses. They really, really care about those.And now, just four years after the end of Roe, the Texas Republican party cares sooo much about the ‘preborn’ that they are ready to throw women who get abortions into jail or to potentially execute them for murder.GOP Officially Calls Abortion 'Homicide'The Texas Republican party has officially declared that “abortion is not healthcare, it is homicide.”Texas Republicans have already proved that they care soo much about the preborn that they became the first state to ban abortion in the country, in 2021, a full year before Roe V Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.But that wasn’t enough for this extremist anti abortion party.At the Texas Republican Party’s convention last week - June 11 to 13 - it declared that its 2nd most important principle is “The sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be equally protected from fertilization to natural death.”Then it added a plank into it’s party platform calling for criminal penalties against “any person or entity” involved in conducting an illegal abortion.Do you catch that language - ‘any person or entity’ involved? Yes, that could include pregnant women.In other words, Texas Republican lawmakers are so determined to stamp out abortions in Texas, that just 4 years after the Supreme court did away with Roe, they are prepared to criminally charge women and lock them up if they are involved in any way in an abortion situation that isn’t so dire that it’s deemed medically necessary.Since the penalty in Texas for premeditated or intentional homicide/ murder in Texas is life without parole or the death penalty, a woman convicted of abortion in Texas could face capital punishment as if they had murdered a police officer.And they would deserve it, according to Abolish Abortion president Bradley Pierce who insists that the ‘loophole’ protecting mothers in Texas from being criminally charged with murder for having a abortion, needs to be ‘closed.’“There's still over 30,000 children being aborted on Texas soil every year, in addition to those being taken out of state to be murdered in other states,” he rages.Pierce is an abortion ‘abolitionist”, a leader of an extreme anti abortion movement that calls for the punishment of everyone involved in abortion procurement, including pregnant women.Terrifyingly, abortion abolitionists are winning the day and getting their way. They pushed hard for theTexas Republican platform supporting criminally punishing the state’s women for getting abortions. And they won.Lock Up Women For Life‘Lock them up’ might as well be the party’s new anti woman battle cry.And don’t forget that any doctor or other medical provider in Texas already faces 99 years in prison for performing a ‘medically unnecessary’ abortion.But if Texas Republicans keep their dominant control in the state legislature in this year’s midterms and hold on to the governorship, then doctors could also face the prospect of being charged with murder, just like women.Just in case, Texas Republicans weren’t utterly clear on where their priorities lie - with the preborn versus living women - they adopted Plank 23 in their 20206 party platform which calls for ‘Equal Protection for the Preborn’.Here’s Plank 23: “We urge lawmakers to enact legislation to abolish abortion by immediately securing the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization, because abortion violates the United States Constitution by denying such persons the equal protection of the law.”They are all in on giving rights and protections to preborn fertilized eggs that are equal to the rights of their own mothers.That means that even if their mothers become desperately ill from a pregnancy, the mother must continue the pregnancy, unless her life becomes endangered.The preborn have rights in Texas at least until they are born.Then Texas preborns be warned. They better not be born transgender or ‘homosexual’The new Texas GOP platform also attacks trans and LGBTQ people including trans kids in multiple places.Their 6 principle is that: .”Self-sufficient families are founded on the traditional marriage of a ‘natural man’ and a ‘natural woman’.Got that - ‘natural man and natural woman’ - no trans men or women belong in ‘traditional marriages’ in the Republican party’s Texas. Neither do homosexual people, according to the Texas GOP party platform.In fact, the Texas GOP platform demands that the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges - be nullified.The GOP platform also declares that “the official position of the Texas schools shall be that there are only two genders: biological male and biological female which are immutable and cannot be changed.”And they forbid any school discussions or library materials on ‘transgenderism’. Under their official platform, trans kids will be forced to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their ‘biological sex’ in public schools and will be banned from playing on the sports teams of the gender they identify with.The Texas Republican Party platform calls homosexuality ‘an abnormal lifestyle choice.”So God forbid if those preborn fertilized eggs and embyros that the Texas Republicans care so much about get born and grow into kids and teens who are trans, LGBTQ or need health insurance.In that case, Texas Republicans, have zero interest in protecting them.It’s such a shame, after they have gone to the trouble of locking up and even executing women who dared to say that their rights mattered born than those of the preborn.Bonnie Fuller is the former CEO and editor-in-chief of HollywoodLife.com and former editor-in-chief of Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, and USWeekly. Follow her substack, Bonnie Fuller: Your Body Your Choice. from which this is reprinted with permission.Reprinted with permission from The Nevadan.

4 hours ago
Texas GOP Just Voted To Impose Life Sentence Or Death On Women For Abortion

Texas GOP Just Voted To Impose Life Sentence Or Death On Women For Abortion

Texas Republicans don’t care much for children in their state.Almost 14 percent of all Texas kids are uninsured. That’s the highest rate of any state in the country.And the number of uninsured children in Texas has risen by 29 percent in recent years - again, the highest increase of in any state of the country.That adds up to 1.1 million children in Texas without health insurance meaning that almost one quarter of all American children without health insurance live in Texas.But to put it in plain words - Texas Republican lawmakers who control the state , don’t give a sht!What Republican politicians in Texas DO care one hell of a lot about the ‘preborn’ in Texas. Yes, - the ‘preborn’.The fertilized eggs from the moment of conception. The embroys and fetuses. They really, really care about those.And now, just four years after the end of Roe, the Texas Republican party cares sooo much about the ‘preborn’ that they are ready to throw women who get abortions into jail or to potentially execute them for murder.GOP Officially Calls Abortion 'Homicide'The Texas Republican party has officially declared that “abortion is not healthcare, it is homicide.”Texas Republicans have already proved that they care soo much about the preborn that they became the first state to ban abortion in the country, in 2021, a full year before Roe V Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.But that wasn’t enough for this extremist anti abortion party.At the Texas Republican Party’s convention last week - June 11 to 13 - it declared that its 2nd most important principle is “The sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be equally protected from fertilization to natural death.”Then it added a plank into it’s party platform calling for criminal penalties against “any person or entity” involved in conducting an illegal abortion.Do you catch that language - ‘any person or entity’ involved? Yes, that could include pregnant women.In other words, Texas Republican lawmakers are so determined to stamp out abortions in Texas, that just 4 years after the Supreme court did away with Roe, they are prepared to criminally charge women and lock them up if they are involved in any way in an abortion situation that isn’t so dire that it’s deemed medically necessary.Since the penalty in Texas for premeditated or intentional homicide/ murder in Texas is life without parole or the death penalty, a woman convicted of abortion in Texas could face capital punishment as if they had murdered a police officer.And they would deserve it, according to Abolish Abortion president Bradley Pierce who insists that the ‘loophole’ protecting mothers in Texas from being criminally charged with murder for having a abortion, needs to be ‘closed.’“There's still over 30,000 children being aborted on Texas soil every year, in addition to those being taken out of state to be murdered in other states,” he rages.Pierce is an abortion ‘abolitionist”, a leader of an extreme anti abortion movement that calls for the punishment of everyone involved in abortion procurement, including pregnant women.Terrifyingly, abortion abolitionists are winning the day and getting their way. They pushed hard for theTexas Republican platform supporting criminally punishing the state’s women for getting abortions. And they won.Lock Up Women For Life‘Lock them up’ might as well be the party’s new anti woman battle cry.And don’t forget that any doctor or other medical provider in Texas already faces 99 years in prison for performing a ‘medically unnecessary’ abortion.But if Texas Republicans keep their dominant control in the state legislature in this year’s midterms and hold on to the governorship, then doctors could also face the prospect of being charged with murder, just like women.Just in case, Texas Republicans weren’t utterly clear on where their priorities lie - with the preborn versus living women - they adopted Plank 23 in their 20206 party platform which calls for ‘Equal Protection for the Preborn’.Here’s Plank 23: “We urge lawmakers to enact legislation to abolish abortion by immediately securing the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization, because abortion violates the United States Constitution by denying such persons the equal protection of the law.”They are all in on giving rights and protections to preborn fertilized eggs that are equal to the rights of their own mothers.That means that even if their mothers become desperately ill from a pregnancy, the mother must continue the pregnancy, unless her life becomes endangered.The preborn have rights in Texas at least until they are born.Then Texas preborns be warned. They better not be born transgender or ‘homosexual’The new Texas GOP platform also attacks trans and LGBTQ people including trans kids in multiple places.Their 6 principle is that: .”Self-sufficient families are founded on the traditional marriage of a ‘natural man’ and a ‘natural woman’.Got that - ‘natural man and natural woman’ - no trans men or women belong in ‘traditional marriages’ in the Republican party’s Texas. Neither do homosexual people, according to the Texas GOP party platform.In fact, the Texas GOP platform demands that the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges - be nullified.The GOP platform also declares that “the official position of the Texas schools shall be that there are only two genders: biological male and biological female which are immutable and cannot be changed.”And they forbid any school discussions or library materials on ‘transgenderism’. Under their official platform, trans kids will be forced to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their ‘biological sex’ in public schools and will be banned from playing on the sports teams of the gender they identify with.The Texas Republican Party platform calls homosexuality ‘an abnormal lifestyle choice.”So God forbid if those preborn fertilized eggs and embyros that the Texas Republicans care so much about get born and grow into kids and teens who are trans, LGBTQ or need health insurance.In that case, Texas Republicans, have zero interest in protecting them.It’s such a shame, after they have gone to the trouble of locking up and even executing women who dared to say that their rights mattered born than those of the preborn.Bonnie Fuller is the former CEO and editor-in-chief of HollywoodLife.com and former editor-in-chief of Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, and USWeekly. Follow her substack, Bonnie Fuller: Your Body Your Choice. from which this is reprinted with permission.Reprinted with permission from The Nevadan.

4 hours ago•
1
Mamdani's 2028 Bombast Doesn't Bode Well For National Democrats

Mamdani's 2028 Bombast Doesn't Bode Well For National Democrats

Yes, Mayor Zohran Mamdani's socialist picks just knocked off some Democratic incumbents in New York City. They included surprising defeats, especially that of Rep. Adriano Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Espaillat lost to Darializa Avila Chevalier, whose social media swims with past calls to abolish the police, free prisoners and stop deportations for any reason, presumably including murder.It's not like Espaillat's district was dominated by the young professionals who flocked to Mamdani. His electorate is 52 percent Hispanic and includes such non-hipster neighborhoods as Harlem, Washington Heights, and parts of the Bronx.Nonetheless, Mamdani may have seriously misread the national mood when he said right before the primaries: When does the race for 2028 begin? It starts now. That was an awesome display of grandiosity for a guy who didn't get even 50 of the vote even though he was the official Democratic candidate in a very Democratic city.The New York primaries may indeed be kicking off the presidential contest in 2028, but not in a way Democrats would like. Look at recent history. Backlash against Donald Trump's erratic governing style returned control of the House to the Democrats in 2018. Similar forces helped Joe Biden to take the presidency from Trump two years later.The Democratic left sold these results as a thumbs-up for its radical agenda. But those same views — things like defunding police and obsession with transgender issues — turned off the middle America voters who gave Biden his win in 2020.Two years later, Republicans retook the House majority by weaponizing the dumbest things left-wingers had said. Similar dynamics powered Trump's return to the presidency in the 2024 election. It is dangerous to assume that disgust with Trump translates into a desire to stop immigration enforcement.The recently elected Mamdani, meanwhile, is enjoying an overly long honeymoon. The reality is sure to overtake the massive publicity he attaches to the smallest of achievements. New Yorkers are noticing that there are still no free buses, as promised. The rents are not frozen. And universal childcare has not happened. Mamdani has also antagonized the financial business leaders, jeopardizing the prospects of the young grads seeking white-collar jobs, that is, much of his base.Democrats seeking victories in the heartland should fear having the excesses of coastal socialists hanging around their neck. The veteran New York political analyst Errol Louis described the dangers New York's far left pose to the Democrats' future. As an anchor at Spectrum News NY1, he has interviewed them all.They've got some ideas that will not sell in Des Moines or in, you know, Cleveland, Louis said. Their strategists tell him that they're gonna fight, fight, fight ... get themselves arrested, introduce legislation, whether or not it has a chance of getting a hearing or ever becoming law.Barack Obama understands well the radicals' lack of appeal outside choice urban corridors. He's called out affluent progressives who think they earn halos by pushing polices deemed to help the less fortunate but end up costing Democrats at the polls. They can embrace left-liberal politics without personally paying a price, Obama said last year. You could still make a lot of money. You could still hang out in Aspen and Milan and travel and have a house in the Hamptons and still think of yourself as a progressive.Democrats have fine hopes that this year's midterms will deliver at least a House majority. The growing dislike of Trump puts wind in their sails.Come the 2028 presidential contest, however, Trump will presumably not be running. But the Democrats' aggravating radicals will still be at it. If the race for 2028 starts now, Democrats should be concerned.Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.Reprinted with permission from Creators.

5 hours ago

Publishing Activity

Daily article output trend
Abusing 'The Most Dangerous Power' Against Trump Adversary Gavin Newsom

Abusing 'The Most Dangerous Power' Against Trump Adversary Gavin Newsom

Multiple news outlets reported last week that federal agents have been questioning friends, former employees, and associates of Governor Gavin Newsom of California and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. A person familiar with the matter, speaking anonymously, confirmed to The Times that multiple investigations are underway, including at least one focused on Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s finances.In contrast to others of the administration’s political prosecutions, Jennifer Siebel Newsom presents a fairly checkered financial background. She has been the subject of allegations and at least one prior federal inquiry into potential self-dealing, improper financial arrangements between her nonprofit organizations and private entities, and possible conflicts of interest involving donors with business before the state.Moreover, Governor Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, just pleaded guilty to three felonies, including lying to the FBI about confidential state litigation she leaked to a former business partner, an investigation that was initiated during the Biden administration.So Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice, who have been pilloried in the courts and public opinion for their rank reprisal prosecutions against blameless targets such as James Comey, may be making a sort of calculated wager. Yes, the multiple investigations certainly seem of a piece with the indefensible investigations and indictments of other Trump enemies. But if they can prospect wide and deep enough, they may come up with a charge against Jennifer Siebel Newsom that they can make stick. And at that point, the calculation goes, their improprieties are redeemed. It’s all in the service of a valid prosecution. The fishing expedition has landed something in its net.That reasoning is precisely, fundamentally wrong. And the reason it is wrong was spelled out with devastating clarity eighty-six years ago, in words that ever since have carried canonical status in the Department of Justice.On April 1, 1940, Robert H. Jackson, then Attorney General of the United States and later Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and America’s chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, stood in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice and addressed the country’s assembled U.S. Attorneys. The speech, “The Federal Prosecutor,” came immediately to serve as a sort of Bible for federal prosecutors.For more than eighty years, it has been taught to new prosecutors, quoted by senior ones (as well as countless courts discussing prosecutorial practices), and invoked in training sessions and ethics discussions across generations as the definitive statement of the value and danger of federal prosecutorial power.Jackson began by declaring that the prosecutor “has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.” Notice the important substitution for Jefferson’s “the pursuit of happiness.” Jackson was keenly aware the mere investigation of a citizen can be ruinous. This prospect is a chief reason why prosecutors are not supposed to reveal anything about pending investigations, one of several cardinal principles that Blanche’s DOJ has simply ignored.Jackson went on to explain an alternative way an unscrupulous prosecutor can exact reputational harm: “the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen’s friends interviewed.” No doubt the Newsoms understand too well how that works.Jackson then identified what he called “the most dangerous power” a prosecutor possesses: “that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” It is in this realm, Jackson wrote, where the prosecutor “picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass” and then hunts for a charge to fit—that the abuse of prosecutorial power is most dangerous and consummate.Critically, a prosecutor who has taken that step—chosen the person whom they dislike or desire to embarrass and then hunts for the crime to pin on them—has already committed the cardinal sin.Jackson makes this point with pellucid clarity. “With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,” Jackson wrote, “a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.”The grave danger is not the prosecutor who can’t find a crime. It is the one who picks his target first and then goes looking: not discovering a crime and finding its perpetrator, but “picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”That, Jackson concludes, is when “the abuse of prosecutorial power is most dangerous and most complete.”In truth, Jackson’s stern assessment was designed for a Department of Justice that would never even have considered bringing bogus, meritless charges to harass a president’s political enemies. That abominable practice—now a staple of Trump’s DOJ—was so far beyond the pale that it didn’t even figure in Jackson’s calculation. Jackson was speaking to prosecutors who still operated within the basic constraints of institutional good faith. That this Justice Department has shown us an even more dangerous and complete abuse of prosecutorial power doesn’t diminish the force of Jackson’s words.Jackson’s classic admonition maps directly onto the multiple investigations of the Newsoms. Gavin Newsom is clearly a person whom Trump (and therefore Blanche) “dislikes or desires to embarrass.” In fact, Trump already called for Newsom’s arrest last year. It’s Gavin Newsom’s potential presidential candidacy, not Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s financial peccadillos, that lies at the core of the investigations.The fresh wave of inquiries to Newsom’s friends and former employees hit around the time Trump announced his intent to nominate Blanche for Attorney General. There is no indication of any new factual development or new witness that landed Jennifer Siebel Newsom in the feds’ crosshairs.Gov. Newsom is not simply presidential timber but one of Trump’s and Blanche’s most prominent antagonists. He has called Blanche “the guy covering up the Epstein Files,” and accused Trump of selling the presidency for golf course approvals and cryptocurrency deals and a private jet. In Jackson’s taxonomy, he has made himself “personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”It was Gavin Newsom who revealed the multiple investigations and fanning out of law enforcement to their friends and employees. In his video, Newsom accused Trump of using the Justice Department to punish a political enemy, described the investigation as a fishing expedition sifting through “years and years of random documents,” and was direct about the motive: “Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets. He’s coming after me because I am considering running for president.”This strategy, also adopted by James Comey in the wake of the second set of charges against him, is the complete opposite of conventional wisdom. Except that wisdom was developed in the context of a Department that follows the rules and respects the Constitution.In an honest Justice Department, targets of federal investigations keep their heads down, say nothing, and pray that no charges are filed and no one outside a tight circle ever finds out. That is the standard playbook, and it exists for good reason: federal investigations are strictly confidential, charges are not proof, and public exposure of a federal inquiry is itself a form of punishment. DOJ policy has long prohibited the Department from confirming or denying the existence of investigations precisely for this reason.But the Newsoms had a second, equally compelling reason to get out in front: they cannot trust this Justice Department to stay quiet. This DOJ has a well-documented track record of improperly making investigative activity public for political effect. The Department has repeatedly publicized or permitted disclosure of investigations long before charges were filed—from the criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, to the renewed Russia-investigation inquiries, to public disclosures concerning Comey and Letitia James.Newsom opted to wear the target as a badge of honor and to frame the investigation as evidence of his political prominence and the president’s fear. Newsom said he was proud to join the “hit list” of people standing up to Trump. He excoriated Trump personally: “You can subpoena my records. You can investigate me. You can harass me. Put my name on every and any enemies list you have, but leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta.”In the normal order of things, being investigated by the Justice Department is a mark of potential criminality. In this one, it is a mark of how much Donald Trump loathes and fears you: practically a credential for the 2028 primary. Newsom understands this, and he is playing it accordingly.The Justice Department has already committed the abuse that Robert Jackson identified as the gravest danger and abuse of prosecutorial power. They have “picked the people” they think they should get, “rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”Jackson closed his address by sketching the ideal he urged every federal prosecutor to embody: someone who “seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”It’s as fundamental a statement of DOJ’s defining mission as we have, and generations of prosecutors took it as sacrosanct. Todd Blanche has trashed it, stomped on it, and then shredded it for good measure; and he has done so proudly, invoking the superior and ultimate authority of the president for whom he has publicly proclaimed his love.The Newsoms are the latest victims of a Department of Justice that Jackson could not have begun to recognize. And the transgression is complete already, without regard to whether a phalanx of federal investigators and prosecutors is able to dredge up some tenable federal charge.Harry Litman is a former United States Attorney and the executive producer and host of the Talking Feds podcast. He has taught law at UCLA, Berkeley, and Georgetown and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration. Please consider subscribing to Talking Feds on Substack.Reprinted with permission from Talking Feds.

5 hours ago
Trump's DJT Stock Dives Amid Accusations Of Insider Trading And Fraud

Trump's DJT Stock Dives Amid Accusations Of Insider Trading And Fraud

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s DJT stock symbol plummeted to its lowest point ever, plunging to 7.53 per share as of this writing. According to Futurism, the stock — which represents Trump’s Truth Social social media platform — has been “circling the drain for over a year now.”The DJT stock made its public debut in 2022 for just under 10 per share, and it was rapidly hyped up to its all-time high of just under 94.20 before dropping back into the low teens. Then in early 2024, it was relaunched after a merger, briefly shooting up to around 60. Since then it has lost nearly 90 percent of its value, and the decline shows no sign of slowing.According to Futurism, the DJT symbol is “part of Trump’s efforts to build out his ailing conservative social media network and personal megaphone, Truth Social. However, desperate stabs at reinvention, from attempts to break into the prediction and cryptocurrency markets to a bizarre and unexpected merger with a fusion power company called TAE Technologies late last year, have done little to instill confidence.”Futurism suggests that confusion surrounding the company’s future is likely hurting its stock, explaining, “Earlier this month, TMTG announced it was abandoning plans to spin off Truth Social into a separate publicly listed company, with the help of a special purpose acquisition company called Texas Ventures Acquisition III, without ever elaborating why. Instead, the company reaffirmed plans to merge with TAE, cementing its efforts to break into the fusion energy industry — unproven tech that has nothing to do with a far-right microblogging platform.”The company’s numbers have also undoubtedly scared off potential investors. As Futurism notes, Beyond the chaos and a continuously revolving door of executives, TMTG has been burning through cash at an alarming rate. Last month, the company posted a stunning net loss of more than 400 million in the first quarter of this year alone — while netting less than 1 million. That’s in large part due to its steep investments in cryptocurrencies, tying the value of its operations to speculative assets that have also been plummeting this year.”As Futurism reports, the failure of DJT comes amid accusations of wide-ranging insider trading and similar grift within the administration, including allegations that Trump himself has been buying stock then publicly praising the companies to drive up their prices. And the DJT stock has not been spared from suggestions of illegal activity.In June 2024, Bloomberg reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission was hit by a wave of complaints from analysts warning of shady behavior regarding DJT. As one complaint asserted, “The Market Makers in DJT are manipulating the OPTIONS prices. I am a leading expert in OPTION FRAUD and a former member of the CBOE, CBOT and CME [referring to leading exchanges]. I know what is going on.”Reprinted with permission from Alternet

5 hours ago
To Wield Power Effectively, This Is What Democrats Must Learn From Trump

To Wield Power Effectively, This Is What Democrats Must Learn From Trump

Donald Trump is the most effective president in my lifetime. There, I said it.Not because he’s accomplished good things. Quite the opposite. I can’t think of a single thing he’s done to improve the country. But effectiveness isn’t the same thing as benevolence. And by any objective measure, Trump has been extraordinarily effective at using the power of the presidency to get what he wants.The reason is simple: Trump doesn’t believe in constraints. He doesn’t care about norms, traditions, public opinion, elite opinion, or whether anyone thinks he should be doing what he’s doing.Yes, the public hates him. But that’s because he’s used that superpower—the ability to ignore political traditions and constraints—almost entirely in pursuit of self-serving ends. It’s soul-crushing to think we still have 941 days of this left.But there is a silver lining: Trump has shown that all those traditions and conventions were nothing more than artificial constraints on the power of the presidency. All those Democrats before him who claimed they couldn’t do this or that? It’s all been shown to be bullshit. The office has extraordinary power, now with the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval.Agencies can be disappeared. Congressionally mandated spending can be ignored. Regulatory agencies can be instantly reshaped. Immigration policy can be radically transformed by executive action. Inspectors general can be fired en masse. Entire categories of federal employees can be reclassified or removed. Federal law enforcement can be redirected toward presidential priorities. Foreign policy conventions can be rewritten overnight. We’ve learned that there is no virtue in an “independent” Justice Department.The details of what survives court challenges and what doesn’t are almost beside the point. Trump has exposed something that many Americans—and certainly many Democrats—never fully appreciated: The modern presidency is far more powerful than anyone admitted. For decades, Democratic presidents treated many of those powers as off-limits, constrained by norms and a fear of backlash from the wealthy and powerful interests most invested in the status quo. Sometimes public opinion mattered too. But more often, caution was treated as wisdom because the people who benefited from inaction demanded it. Trump has demonstrated that most of those constraints were voluntary.That’s the lesson Democrats should take from this era: Political power exists to be used. (It’s no accident that this is this site’s new tagline. Power does matter.)Republicans understand that. They treat every election as a mandate to reshape the country in their image. Democrats too often treat victory as permission to make small adjustments around the margins while explaining why bigger change isn’t possible.Trump has shattered that excuse.I was thrilled with the Democratic primary results in New York on Tuesday night. Three candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani cruised to victory, two of them ousting Democratic incumbents. The sitting congressmen were perfectly adequate progressive Democrats, always voting the right way. Yet there is a complacency in the Democratic caucus that will be the death of us if it isn’t excised.Two of the three winners last night, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is building a core base in New York City. The third, Brad Lander, left the organization a few years ago. None of that matters, really. Their votes will be little different than their predecessors’, but they also won’t be as complacent about the status quo as the incumbents they are replacing. We need that energy throughout the country. Not progressive vs. moderate vs. conserva-Dem. I have little energy for that battle, not in these times. What we need is the traditionalists swept out, with reformers leading the charge. Yes, a right-leaning Democrat can be a reformist! It’s not about ideology but about doing the work to get stuff done. The Democratic Party today is narrowly more unpopular than the Republican Party. We will win big this November because Trump is truly that awful, but that won’t sustain the party for long. Maybe not in 2028. Definitely not in 2032. And if we want to see real change—not just fixing the mess Trump has made, but also building a truly progressive America—then we need to build trust among voters that Democrats can deliver.That requires more than better messaging. It requires Democrats to use power. Otherwise, we’ll remain stuck in an endless loop: Republicans break the government in service of the wealthy and powerful, voters throw them out, Democrats come in and restore the status quo, voters wonder why their lives haven’t improved, and then voters throw them out and usher in Republicans to break it all over again.Under the old constraints, there was seemingly little a president and Democratic Congress could do to enact quick change. At least that’s what we were told. But thanks to Trump, we now know those constraints were always an illusion.And who did that illusion benefit? The wealthy elite. They built a system that treated caution as wisdom, delay as prudence, and inaction as responsibility. And they even got themselves a trillionaire out of the deal.I’m frequently asked for my preferred 2028 Democratic presidential nominee, and I can’t bother to name names. We’ll have like 40 people running.But I know what I’m looking for.I want someone who will tackle the office with the same disdain for those traditions as Trump—but in service of people instead of himself. Anyone who muses wistfully about the old days when everyone got along and political enemies in Congress would have a beer afterward? Instant disqualification. Anyone who talks about rebalancing commissions to give the other party “a voice”? Instant disqualification. Anyone who accepts this broken and corrupt Supreme Court as just the way things are, even though nothing caps it at nine justices or prohibits term limits? Instant disqualification.The status quo has served a tiny elite. The rest of the country has been left behind. Trump could’ve used this power for the betterment of our country, but he hasn’t helped even his core supporters. They’ve been among the people hurt most by his policies.Now imagine a Democratic president who tells the political, media, and financial establishments to fuck off, then uses the full power of their office to directly improve people’s lives and to reshape the courts to better reflect the interests of the many rather than the powerful elite.Those are the candidates who will grab my attention, whether they are running for president, Congress, or just about anything else.Markos Moulitsas is founder and editor of the blogging website Daily Kos and author of three books.Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

6 hours ago
Mamdani's Big Night In New York Primary Stokes Conservative Political Fantasies

Mamdani's Big Night In New York Primary Stokes Conservative Political Fantasies

With his endorsement driving three insurgent challengers to victory in New York’s Democratic congressional primaries on June 23, Mayor Zohran Mamdani proved again that his combination of social media and community organizing wields big power – especially in a primary contest. But conservatives who fantasize that the socialist cohort will now seize control of the Democratic Party are likely to be disappointed by the full primary results.Two of Mamdani’s victorious choices are indeed members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): Darializa Avila Chevalier, an activist and graduate student who defeated Rep. Adriano Espaillat in northern Manhattan, and Claire Valdez, a state assembly member who won the nomination to succeed retiring Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez in Brooklyn.Former City Comptroller Brad Lander, Mamdani’s third pick, is not affiliated with DSA. but was supported by many of its members in his landslide victory over Rep. Dan Goldman, whose district straddles parts of both Brooklyn and Manhattan.Neither Mamdani nor DSA endorsed any candidate to succeed retiring Rep. Jerrold Nadler in Manhattan, where state assembly member Micah Lasher, a longtime Nadler aide, triumphed over a crowded field that included Jack Schlossberg, grandson of President John F. Kennedy, and Trump critic George Conway.All of the Democratic nominees in the city are viewed as certain to win election in November.Despite gleeful Republican claims that gleefully warned that the DSA’s big night in New York will slap a “socialist” label on the national Democratic Party, results in other districts showed no such leftward lurch. Just north of the city in Westchester County, Cait Conley, a military veteran and former national security official, easily defeated a pair of rivals who ran to her left and sought to portray her as the “establishment” choice. Conley will now face incumbent Republican Mike Lawler, a top Democratic target who attempted to manipulate Democrats into nominating one of the “more progressive” alternatives.In Maryland, Democrats chose Adrian Boafo, a Prince Georges County legislator, from among nearly two dozen candidates seeking to succeed retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer, a longtime party leader in the House. Boafo benefited from heavy spending by cryptocurrency interests and the American Israel Political Action Committee, whose machinations have drawn criticism from many Democrats in the wake of Israel’s war in Gaza.Popular Maryland Gov. Wes Moore crushed a primary bid by a more liberal challenger, and Rep. April McClain Delaney beat back a comeback bid by former Rep. David Trone, with the support of most of the state’s Democratic officeholders.And in Utah, former Rep. Ben McAdams had little trouble fending off a challenge from a state senator backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s famed socialist Independent. McAdams won the primary to represent a redrawn Salt Lake City district that looks certain to elect a Democrat in November.The socialist victories in the New York primary provoked some excited comparisons to the House Freedom Caucus, where once-fringe elements in the Republican Party bedevil thir Congressional leadership. But assuming that all of the socialist Democrats nominated on Primary Night join a Democratic majority next January, their ranks will increase to three or four in a caucus of 218-plus members. (They probably cannot count on the increasingly pragmatic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, despite her DSA branding, to support their more exotic ideological excursions.) The Freedom Caucus currently counts more than 30 members, an order of magnitude larger. Socialism, whatever that may now mean, isn't yet taking over the Democratic Party. let alone America.

1 day ago
Iran Hawks Confidently Predict Trump Will Resume War After Midterm Elections

Iran Hawks Confidently Predict Trump Will Resume War After Midterm Elections

The right-wing hawks who applauded Donald Trump for launching the war with Iran earlier this year are adopting a new argument to avoid criticizing the president as he fumbles toward enacting a weaker, piecemeal version of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal he once decried. According to their theory, the current negotiations are a sham: Trump is merely laying off the Iranian regime temporarily to forestall Republican defeat in the midterms and will resume hostilities after the November elections.Iran’s obvious and expected counterstroke of closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. and Israeli military strikes succeeded in hamstringing the global energy and fertilizer trade, sending prices soaring. Now Iran’s regime is intact and in control of its nuclear materials and ballistic missile stockpile, and the U.S., having failed to achieve the administration’s stated war goals, is negotiating surrender terms that will leave it in a weaker geostrategic position than before the war began.“You go back to January, shipping was moving, Iran's nuclear program had been bombed six months before and was largely destroyed,” former NATO Ambassador Kurt Volker said on Fox News last week. “We launched this war, the global economy took a big hit. Oil prices skyrocketed. Now we're winding this down but we have Iran now emboldened to exercise some kind of control over the Strait of Hormuz.”While MAGA’s hacks are eager to praise any deal as an historic victory for Trump and downplay the implications of the memorandum of understanding he signed with Iran, the movement’s hawks recognize that these negotiations are, as The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro put it, “a disaster.” Over the last week, the hawk faction has scrambled for a response that doesn’t risk their own MAGA audiences by directly attacking Trump. Many have turned their vitriol on Vice President JD Vance for his role in the negotiations, absolving the president of responsibility for the document that he signed and publicly describes as “a very strong deal.” But another argument recently adopted by right-wing hawks posits that the MOU is effectively meaningless because Trump is negotiating in bad faith. In this telling, the president only agreed to the MOU in order to bring down the cost of gas and thus boost the GOP’s standing in the midterm elections — and after they pass, he will order the U.S. military to resume its attack on Iran.This argument has some benefits for the hawks:It doesn’t require them to admit they made a mistake in supporting the war with Iran.It doesn’t require them to criticize Trump.It lets them wave away whatever emerges from the U.S.-Iran negotiations.It buys them time to once again talk the president into military action through his TV.Fox host Mark Levin, the shrill-voiced megahawk, and network contributor Hugh Hewitt, a higher-brow Sean Hannity, got this argument going on Thursday, as The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last noted. “Time for a change in strategy,” Levin, who previously described himself as “very skeptical about any deal,” posted on social media. “We should consider slow walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out. Instead of rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry, transferring billions to them, etc.”Hewitt responded affirmatively to Levin’s post and added that he believed this was actually the president’s strategy.“Assume that many inside the Administration, including President Trump, settled on this course weeks ago,” he wrote. “Keeping the Senate and (against all odds) the House in GOP hands isn’t just a political goal for Republicans, it’s critical to the national security,” he continued, adding, “President Trump factoring in the realities of domestic politics and their consequences is a right and proper calculation.”Hewitt’s theory contradicts Trump’s own prior statements — for which the pundit had praised the president — insisting that he would not take domestic politics into account in negotiating with the Iranians.“They thought they were gonna outwait me. You know, ‘We'll outwait him. He's got the midterms,’” Trump said during a May 27 Cabinet meeting . “I don't care about the midterms.”Responding to those remarks on Fox later that day, Hewitt said: “What I appreciate is the president said he's not caring about the midterms. What that means, and I think everyone understands, is he's putting the national security ahead of gas prices.”Hewitt brought his revised views on Trump factoring domestic politics into Iran negotiations to Fox during last Friday’s edition of Special Report.Hewitt described the MOU as “halftime, probably the longest halftime in the history of modern war since the phony war after Germany overran Poland in the fall of 1939. There was seven months when there was no war, and then Germany invaded France.”(Note that in Hewitt’s historical analogy, Trump is Adolf Hitler.) “We're going to go back on the battle damage assessment and figure out how to finish the job, unless Iran actually capitulates,” he predicted. “The MOU's language is bad. I think everyone is reading into it what they want but the reality is talk to me in five months, after the election, and I think we'll be back in the battle with Iran.”Fox Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade, who has described the deal as “not acceptable” and repeatedly blamed it on Vance, added his voice on Tuesday morning.“The closer it gets to the midterms, I think the less likely the president [is] to act,” he explained. “But after the midterms, the gloves come off.”The upshot, however, is that the hawks’ escalation plans are unlikely to succeed and have huge potential downsides — while Iranian officials now know they can easily close the Strait of Hormuz, shut down a huge chunk of the global energy trade, and punish American consumers.Their idea to attack Iran was foolhardy, the president’s belief he could pull off a strategic victory was ill-conceived, and now we are all dealing with the consequences.Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

1 day ago
Linked To Epstein's Trafficking In Emails, Billionaire Black Will Soon Testify

Linked To Epstein's Trafficking In Emails, Billionaire Black Will Soon Testify

Leon Black paid an international sex trafficker with no known accounting skills 170 million between 2012 and 2017. Why – and for what – may never be definitively answered. Black’s billionaire pockets have afforded him enough top-shelf lawyers to protect his privacy as long as he lives. But the public dump of millions of pages of Epstein files has opened a window into at least some of the answers.In a March 2026 letter sent to Black, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said: “According to federal government records reviewed by my investigators, you have made at least 8 million in payments between 2015 and 2018 to women of Eastern European origin that were potentially involved in prostitution and possible victims of Epstein’s trafficking scheme.” Wyden also suggested that Black may have used “gifts” as a way to evade taxes and that he was “surveilling and paying off” women.We looked into some of the women who discussed Black with Epstein, who seem to have been significantly familiar with the billionaire, and who appear to have had financial dealings with and/or received gifts from him. As Black is due to testify before the House Oversight Committee later this week, we offer up the following discoveries for potential lines of questioning.Two of the women openly emailed Epstein about recruiting for him. Both were young Russians and both received significant sums of money from – and spent considerable time with – Leon Black between 2009 and 2019, when Epstein was arrested. The women often refer to “Leon” or “L,” a designation that Sen. Wyden believes refers to Black, as do we.The first woman we identify as Irina Chernova. She is in the DOJ files, and Wyden has stated that Black made payments directly to her between 2009-12. That allowed us to confirm that emails to Epstein during this period referencing “Leon” from “Irina” were sent by Chernova.Chernova was born in 1984 in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, and worked in television journalism. Based on the files, she appears to have recruited dozens of women for Epstein, and in 2011, introduced him to Karyna Shuliak, the Russian model and eventual dental student to whom Epstein later bequeathed his estate.In one January 2011 email exchange, he pressures Chernova to bring him new girls.Chernova was also one of the largest recipients of Leon Black’s money. According to Sen. Wyden, she received “hundreds of thousands of dollars” directly from Black’s Bank of America accounts between 2009 and 2012.It seems Chernova was already close enough with Black in 2009 to accompany him to visit Epstein while Epstein was still under house arrest for his Palm Beach conviction. In the email arranging the trip, Irina says she plans to bring at least one [redacted] girl; Epstein replies that he will talk to Leon about the visit and says [redacted] “can bring her sister or friend” (apparently some new girls Epstein had not yet met).In January 2010, Chernova emailed Epstein about a trip she planned to Paris and London, writing,” Leon is going to China on Feb 1 for a week.”Two months later, she reported to Epstein that she was going to Paris, London, and then Russia for Easter, adding “It’s between us, I didn’t tell Leon about Paris, only about Russia.”That August, after losing her phone, she asked Epstein for Leon’s number. Epstein in return asked for the number of a redacted woman. Two days later, she followed up to say he had given her Leon’s number in the Hamptons, but she wanted his cell phone number as well. In that same email, she also confirmed two appointments for Epstein with individuals whose names are redacted.The following month, Epstein sent Chernova birthday greetings, to which she responded, “Leon just left, can you please call when you have a minute.”In February 2012, Chernova asked Epstein to intervene and secure her “a good-bye present” from Black. Epstein assured her it would be “generous.”Apparently, however, it was not much of a goodbye.Five years later, Chernova wrote to Epstein that “thanks to L’s good bye gift I’ve enjoyed being a full time mom for most of this time. [We’ve been exchanging texts and planning to meet for lunch with L since I left, but we haven’t met. Yet :) Hope he’s doing good.]”A month after that email, Epstein’s calendar showed back-to-back meetings with both Black and Chernova. Shortly afterward, Chernova emailed that she and Black were “back together” and later asked about a 100,000 payment Black had promised her. Epstein indicated that he himself had already sent her 28,000.Another Russian recruiter appears to have also benefitted from Black’s largesse over the years that she “scouted” and introduced Epstein to women.The second woman, Victoria Housez (now Victoria Ginzburg), hailed from the Russian hinterlands and attended South Ural State University before popping up in Paris on the fringes of the fashion world. Records in the DOJ files suggest Black may have gifted Housez more than 50,000 in 2011 and 2012, while she appears to have been actively recruiting girls for Epstein and looking to potentially establish some kind of larger-scale trafficking operation. After personally reading 1200 emails in the files from that time period and studying the email signatures as well as the instances in which Housez’s name is left unredacted, our analysis suggests the following exchanges can be connected to her.Housez frequently discussed Black in emails with Epstein. At one point, she asked if Leon’s secretary could wire money to her account because she “does transfer all the time.” In the same email, she asked Epstein to share her Russian bank account information with Black because “french ask too many questions.” Epstein replied: “cannot”.She also wrote that Black wanted to give her money to start a company – one that, based on the surrounding context, seemed to mean a modeling agency or another similar entity that could operate as a trafficking front. Epstein spent a considerable amount of time coaching her on how to deal with Black and present her case.“Do not bother with business plans for agency,,, concentrate on deomstrating [sic] that you have an eye and can get the job done . we will have fun” Epstein wrote in one email. Housez replied: “As we agreed model business does not bring money. i can do scouting for something else Lets have some Fun ;) as you say”.While she tried to talk money, Epstein focused on rating the women in photos she sent him, chiding her for providing him with girls he rated at about a five out of ten, and berating her for not providing enough new girls.A typical interaction between them involved questions of money and female flesh like this one from 2011:VH: all the girls i just sent you till 21YO and much much more ))JE: try to get real mnumbers 2.5 million is not realisticVH: do you mean the number of users in 1,5 year?JE: no dollars wanted for start upVH: for scouting big network we need almost nothing,its already working, we could control all Russian model network and place models need numbers? but if you dont like the whole idea i will think about another one ;))) how are you today?JE: send photos of youThese exchanges occurred while Black was publicly expanding his involvement with Russia during a period of relative economic détente, as Vladimir Putin sought greater investment from the West.Epstein paid close attention.In July 2011, he emailed his scheduler, Lesley Groff, with the dates of the Russian Direct Investment Fund board meeting with Putin in Sochi that Leon Black planned to attend. Epstein apparently intended to go himself.In September 2011, Black was announced as a founding member of the Advisory Board of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a 10 billion state fund set up to attract foreign investment in Russia. That month, Reuters reported that he attended its launch event at the International Investment Forum in Sochi and had a private, one-on-one meeting with Putin.In July 2011, Epstein told Ghislaine Maxwell he was thinking of making Housez his “Europe asst.” In August, Housez emailed Epstein about firming up her September plans: “You said better if i contact him [Black] directly about it. will you give him my number and to me his?” As Black was being named RDIF advisor, Housez wrote to Epstein: “I wanted to ask you, its normal that L. asked me bank account and nothing?”Throughout the fall of 2011, Housez and Epstein frequently discussed Black, his whereabouts, her need for his money, and her hopes that he would set her up in a Paris apartment. She planned to ask Black “where he thinks i have to work.”Some emails suggest a more intimate relationship between Housez and Black. For example: “I am at home all the time, Leon is very happy that i am not going out (like you said).” And then a few months later: “ready to go to ny next weekend, he is not answering, hope he still likes me :)” She also reported that she’d been going to the gym to be “in perfect shape for beginning [sic] of November,” when Black was due to be in Paris. She wondered at one point why he hadn’t been in touch: “still strangethat he doesn’t want to see me, i was good.”It is not clear exactly what kind of work Housez thought she was doing for Black.One March 2013 exchange is especially revealing. Housez thanked Epstein for Black (“for leon thank you, but i worked for it as well”) and defended her work record, while Epstein excoriated her, “after two years and thousands of euros. you can do better than thsi (sic).”The files also contain multiple FBI raw interviews with redacted victims, called 302s, in which women (not minors) said Epstein introduced them to Black after telling them they would be asked to give massages. According to those interviews, Black instead became sexual.One woman who met Black was later introduced to former Barclays CEO Jes Staley, another Epstein pal. She told investigators Staley “forcefully put her hands on his crotch area,” and the encounter ended in “rough sex” that she told Staley she did not want. (Staley has previously denied, as reported by The Guardian, any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.) There is also a second-hand account of a woman giving Black a blowjob she didn’t want to give and being “grossed out” by it.What does appear clear, however, is that Housez understood the work she was doing for Epstein.On April 4, 2012, Epstein berated her in another familiar exchange: “you have produced photo s after photos. , nothing more” to which she replied, “not just photos:)) but its true didnt have conditions for this.. help me in real to have conditions and budget and i can produce more not worse then [redacted];).”By September of that year, things were looking up. “i found super scout for you ) .. the guy serbian 25yo, doing just this, placed in ny, london,paris ),” Housez wrote to Epstein, “you will love what he has, i spoke with him for possible collaboration.” Epstein responded: “give me your bank details.”Housez replied, “here is my bank acc !!!! THANK YOU !!! “Asked about the relationships with Chernova and Housez, Susan Estrich, an attorney for Black, responded with this statement:As we have said repeatedly, Mr. Black called for an independent investigation of his relationship with Epstein. The Dechert Report reviewed more than 60,000 documents and interviewed more than 20 people —including Mr. Black— without any restrictions on business and personal matters. The investigation, which was led by a former prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, found that Mr. Black paid Epstein for tax and estate planning advice for his family office and found no evidence that those payments were for anything other than those services. The investigation further found that Epstein’s work had been vetted and approved by best-in-class law and accounting firms. It also found that he had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019.Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow

1 day ago
Did Ailing Trump Secretly Obtain Powerful Obesity Drug Under 'Compassionate Use'?

Did Ailing Trump Secretly Obtain Powerful Obesity Drug Under 'Compassionate Use'?

The health-focused news outlet STAT on Tuesday published a bombshell report that suggests President Donald Trump may have used his position of power to obtain a powerful new obesity drug not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration.According to the report, the FDA in April allowed one 79-year-old man to obtain Eli Lilly’s retatrutide, an experimental weight-loss drug, through a “compassionate use” waiver. That kind of waiver, according to the FDA, allows for a “patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition to gain access to an investigational medical product (drug, biologic, or medical device) for treatment outside of clinical trials when no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy options are available.”Given the age of the applicant matches Trump’s in April, as well as the fact that he sought a compassionate use waiver before for an experimental treatment when he was diagnosed with COVID-19 at the height of the pandemic, STAT reached out to the White House to ask if the man who got retatrutide is Trump.Initially, the White House did not deny that Trump was the applicant. A spokesperson instead directed STAT to the Department of Health and Human Services, which also didn’t deny that Trump was the recipient of the waiver.Only after STAT’s article was published did White House spokesperson Kush Desai take to X to say that “this application was not for the President.” But for a White House that relishes denying reports, why didn’t it speak up when the reporter says she asked Desai, HHS, and the FDA “multiple times” and that “[n]o one answered my question directly”?If the person who got the compassionate use waiver for retatrutide were indeed Trump, it would mean the administration is lying to the public about his serious health conditions.According to the application, the 79-year-old man who sought the waiver had “refractory obesity with obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension,” per STAT. The outlet also reports that the man took tirzepatide—an FDA-approved weight-loss drug—for a year but did not see much weight loss.None of those conditions, nor the tirzepatide, are listed on Trump’s latest public medical report. According to that report, Trump is 238 pounds—one pound below being classified as obese for his claimed 6’3 height. Trump’s medical report also does not list sleep apnea, nor does it list pulmonary hypertension—a serious form of high blood pressure that, according to the Mayo Clinic, can be “life-threatening.”The Mayo Clinic says the condition makes the heart “work harder to pump blood through the lungs. The extra effort eventually causes the heart muscle to become weak and fail.”Among the symptoms of pulmonary hypertension are “fatigue” and “swelling in the ankles, legs and belly area.” And we’ll just point out that Trump is on camera falling asleep at events and has swollen ankles.Of course, there is one sign that the person who received the compassionate use waiver is not Trump: He does not appear to have lost weight. Trump, for his part, has spoken about weight-loss drugs before. In May, he talked about a friend of his who was on the “fat drug.”“He’s a very highly neurotic, very fat—sort of a fat slob, I would call him,” Trump said at a news conference. “But he’s a brilliant man. We know many of those people.”Trump didn’t stop there.“He’s begging me not to release his name, because he’s a well-known person. And I just destroyed his reputation in terms of his physicality,” Trump continued. “And he just doesn’t want—and I said, ‘You know, you had a big impact on medicine because you got to me better than any normal person could have,’ you know?”Might that “fat slob” of a friend be John Barron?Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

1 day ago
The National Memo — News Tracking & Analysis | Real Narrative News