We almost had blatant fireworks

'Laundering tens of millions of dollars'

'Lawsuit filed by a courageous young woman'

'I wasn't racial profiling whatsoever. I'm Puerto Rican'

Former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts when the jury rendered its verdict Thursday, the first time a former president (also the presumptive Republican presidential nominee) has been convicted of a crime. The Rubicon has been crossed, and many people have weighed in with reactions, including The Heritage Foundation.  Trump will appeal, following what he called “a rigged, disgraceful trial.” “We will fight for our Constitution,” the former president said. “This is long from over.” Sentencing before Judge Juan Merchan is scheduled for July 11, just four days before the Republican National Convention opens. The 34 charges in this case all related to invoices that were submitted to—and payments made by—Trump in 2017, after he had been elected president. The invoices were submitted by his then-personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who claimed in testimony that they were designed in part, and with Trump’s knowledge, to reimburse Cohen for payments he had made to Stormy Daniels, a well-known adult film actress.  Cohen claimed that the payments were made again with Trump’s knowledge, to stop Daniels from talking about an alleged sexual liaison she had with Trump in 2006 (which the former president denies) in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.  The invoices and payments were booked on the Trump Organization’s records as legal expenses, which, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged, was false.  Causing a false entry to be made in a company’s records is a misdemeanor offense in New York, subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The statute says, however, that if the false business entry was made for the purpose of concealing the commission of, or intent to commit, “another crime,” then it is a felony offense, which has a longer statute of limitations.  And that is what Bragg, who crowed to voters when he was seeking the Democratic nomination to be DA that he had “sued Trump more than a hundred times.” Although this was a state prosecution, Bragg brought in Matthew Colangelo, a high-ranking official from the Justice Department, to serve as lead prosecutor in the case. Colangelo previously had served as acting associate attorney general, the third-highest position within DOJ. There are myriad issues that Trump’s legal team will raise on appeal. Here are just a few of them: First, Merchan refused to grant a change of venue to conduct the trial outside Manhattan, where Trump is well-known and deeply unpopular. During the 2020 election, for instance, Joe Biden garnered 86.7% of the vote in Manhattan, compared to Trump’s 12.3%. Trump’s legal team will argue that he could not possibly receive a fair trial in Manhattan and that the proceedings were inundated with hostile media coverage and conducted in a “carnival atmosphere,” factors that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated are important in determining whether a change of venue must be granted. Second, Merchan refused to recuse himself from the Trump case. A judge is supposed to recuse himself from any proceeding in which he has an actual conflict of interest or when his impartiality reasonably may be questioned. In addition to the fact that Merchan presided over the tax fraud trial of septuagenarian Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, and sentenced him to prison, Merchan previously donated to the Biden campaign in 2020, as well as to a group called Stop Republicans. Moreover, the judge’s daughter, Lauren, is president of a political consulting group that did extensive work for the Biden-Harris campaign and for other prominent Democratic candidates who fundraised off the criminal trial of Trump that her father presided over. Appellate courts give great leeway to trial judges and recusal motions, but the facts here are hard to ignore.  Third, although the indictment alleged that Trump caused a false business record to be entered on the company’s books for the purpose of concealing the commission of, or intent to commit, “another crime,” the indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And Bragg refused to say what it was when asked about it during a press conference. Trump’s legal team filed a motion for a bill of particulars, asking Merchan to compel the state to disclose what the other crime was so that Trump’s lawyers could prepare his defense adequately. Merchan refused. Indeed, it was not until the charge conference shortly before closing arguments that prosecutors disclosed their speculations about what that other crime might be. And it was not until the prosecutor gave his closing argument—after Trump’s lawyer already had made his and sat down—that he finally said anything to the jury about what the other crime was. This lack of notice was fundamentally unfair and may well have violated Trump‘s right to due process of law under Section 1 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Fifth, Merchan’s pretrial ruling severely limited what Brad Smith—a former member of the Federal Election Commission and one of the nation’s leading authorities on federal campaign finance laws—could say from the witness stand. Smith was prepared to testify that Trump’s $130,000 payment to Cohen to reimburse the lawyer for the payment to Daniels was a personal expense, not a campaign expense, which didn’t violate campaign finance laws. Indeed, Smith would have testified that if Trump had paid this money out of his campaign coffers rather than out of his own pocket, that would have been a federal campaign finance violation. Merchan wouldn’t allow Smith to say any of this from the witness stand. Sixth, this was a false business records case focused on a payment to Daniels to cover up an alleged sexual liaison in 2006, the details of which were utterly irrelevant to the charges against Trump. Yet Merchan permitted Daniels to testify to all sorts of salacious and highly prejudicial details, including that she “blacked out” during their alleged encounter and that the encounter was nonconsensual because of Trump’s height and the “imbalance of power” between the two. This testimony prompted Trump’s lawyers to move for a mistrial, which was denied. Seventh, the judge’s admission of prejudicial evidence involving aspects of Cohen’s criminal record, as well as a non-prosecution agreement by David Pecker, another key prosecution witness and the former publisher of the National Enquirer.  In most cases, it is defense attorneys who want to introduce the criminal records of witnesses who testify for the prosecution. Not so in this case. Merchan allowed the prosecution to admit Cohen’s plea agreement into evidence. Why? Because among the crimes to which Cohen pleaded guilty was a federal campaign finance offense related to the Daniels payment. Similarly, when Pecker was testifying, Merchan admitted into evidence, at the prosecution’s request, a copy of a non-prosecution cooperation agreement that the former National Enquirer publisher had entered into with authorities that made reference to federal campaign finance violations. Merchan also admitted evidence that the National Enquirer had paid a large fine to the Federal Election Commission for a payment it made, allegedly on Trump’s behalf, to another woman who claimed to have had a sexual liaison with Trump (which he also denies).  The reason the prosecution wanted to introduce this into evidence is because it strongly suggested that Pecker and Cohen in fact did commit federal campaign finance violations and that they did so on Trump’s behalf. There were, of course, alternative ways to introduce evidence of Cohen’s criminal record and Pecker’s non-prosecution agreement without disclosing anything that suggested a campaign finance violation had occurred.  Eighth, there is a strong argument that neither Bragg as the DA nor Merchan as the judge had jurisdiction to put anyone on trial—much less a former president—for alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws. Nothing in the Federal Election Campaign Act gives state court prosecutors and judges jurisdiction over such matters. And, according to a 2023 memorandum of understanding between the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department, the FEC “has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws” and the Justice Department “has exclusive jurisdiction of criminal enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws, including related criminal offenses.” Here, both the FEC and DOJ investigated the matter and declined to pursue it. Ninth, Trump’s lawyers called Robert Costello, an experienced former prosecutor and current defense attorney who gave legal advice to Cohen, had numerous conversations with him in 2018 when the lawyer was under investigation. Costello was called to testify, among other things, that Cohen had told him that Trump knew nothing about the payment to Daniels and to rebut Cohen’s claim that his interactions with Costello were all part of a pressure campaign by Trump to intimidate Cohen.  What else was Costello going to say in testimony? We may never know, because Merchan sustained over a dozen objections made by the prosecution in response to questions asked by Trump’s lawyers. It is likely that Merchan’s limiting the scope of Costello’s testimony will be raised on appeal, especially given how central Cohen was to the prosecution’s case. Finally, tenth, Merchan gave an extremely unusual instruction to the jury. He instructed the jurors that they had to conclude unanimously that Trump caused a false entry to be made on his company’s books and records for the purpose of concealing “another crime.” The judge then told the jurors that the other alleged crime was a violation of New York election law (also a misdemeanor) against conspiring with someone “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Which, of course, begs the question: What unlawful means?  Here is the unusual and likely erroneous part: All Merchan did was offer the prosecution’s alternative “theories.” Specifically, the judge mentioned potential violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of “other business records,” and “violations of tax laws.” Significantly, however, he told jurors that they didn’t have to be unanimous as to what the “unlawful means” were. In other words, some jurors might believe that Trump intended to violate federal campaign finance laws; others might believe he wanted to conceal other false business records; some might conclude that he intended to violate tax laws; and some might believe he intended to violate some other criminal statute that the judge didn’t mention, just because jurors think Trump is a bad guy who must have intended to do something wrong. As a former prosecutor myself, I’ve never heard of such an instruction, nor have any of the other former prosecutors I’ve spoken to since Merchan gave that instruction. If that is, in fact, a proper instruction under New York law, which is highly questionable, then Trump will be able to lay out a strong case, in my view, that this instruction violated the Sixth Amendment as well as the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. These are serious and substantial arguments that I believe make it likely that this conviction will eventually be overturned on appeal. I am quite sure that there are other potentially appealable issues; these are, however, most of the major issues that are likely to be raised. We will have to wait and see whether Merchan imposes a sentence July 11 that involves imprisonment or home confinement and, if so, whether he grants Trump an appeal bond. It is inconceivable to me—but I have been wrong before—that Merchan will order Trump to be taken into custody or confined to his home immediately and deny him an appeal bond. Trump is, after all, running for president. Moreover, if Merchan were to sentence Trump to a period of incarceration in a state facility, the U.S. Secret Service immediately would object, since they would be unable to protect him under those circumstances. We will have to see whether Trump’s legal team waits until sentencing before filing an appeal and whether the former president’s lawyers will seek relief through the New York court system or, as some have urged, will seek relief directly from the Supreme Court. If Trump’s lawyers do the former, they could argue violations of New York law, the New York Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. If they do the latter, they will be limited to arguing violations of the U.S. Constitution. These are certainly disturbing and bewildering times, and it is hard to know where we go from here. But as I said at the outset, the Rubicon has been crossed and there is no turning back. The post Trump Convicted: So What Happens Now? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Welcome to the wild world of Wall Street, where the elite financial institutions play a game of high-stakes poker with the stock market, confidently knowing the house always wins. It’s a place where “market manipulation” is a dirty word—unless, of course, you’re the one doing the manipulating. When the tables turn, and the little guys start fighting back, those very same titans of finance who rig the game suddenly cry foul. This tale of hypocrisy and greed was never more evident than in the saga of Keith Gill, aka Roaring Kitty, and the army of retail investors who decided to make GameStop their battleground. Entities like E*Trade and its overlord, Morgan Stanley, have reportedly considered shutting Roaring Kitty’s account down. Yes, Morgan Stanley, the same multinational investment bank that’s no stranger to being accused of bending the rules, now positioned itself as the guardian of market integrity. The hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren’t so infuriating. Let’s pause and savor the irony here. E*Trade, along with its corporate master Morgan Stanley, is ostensibly concerned about “stock manipulation.” This is from an industry where the term “pump and dump” isn’t a cautionary tale, but a Tuesday afternoon. When Roaring Kitty orchestrates a rally that leaves hedge funds clutching their pearls, it’s market manipulation. When the suits engineer a short squeeze for profit, it’s just business as usual. Roaring Kitty is the unlikely hero in a financial drama that captivated the world. Known online as Roaring Kitty, Gill isn’t your typical Wall Street player. He’s an independent investor with a knack for picking stocks and a penchant for sharing his insights on YouTube and Reddit. But when Gill set his sights on GameStop, a company teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and under relentless attack by short sellers, he inadvertently lit the fuse on a powder keg of small investor rebellion. The GameStop saga was supposed to be a footnote in the annals of financial history. But Gill’s enthusiasm and the fervor of retail investors turned it into a full-blown insurrection. Thousands of small-time traders, tired of being pushed around by the big boys, rallied behind Gill’s battle cry to “stick it to the man.” And for a brief, shining moment, in 2021, they did just that, driving GameStop’s stock price to dizzying heights and inflicting billions in losses on the hedge funds betting against the company. Predictably, the masters of the financial universe didn’t take kindly to this populist uprising. When the GameStop stock soared, the big players howled in indignation. The very institutions that manipulate markets with impunity—engaging in practices that would make Gordon Gekko blush—suddenly decried the actions of the retail investors as reckless and dangerous. Keith Gill’s rise to prominence didn’t just make him a hero to the masses; it made him a target for the establishment. Reports surfaced that powerful entities were zeroing in on him, ostensibly to protect the sanctity of the financial markets. But let’s be real—this was about preserving their own hegemony. By painting Gill and his fellow GameStop enthusiasts as rogue elements threatening the stability of the market, the financial behemoths hoped to regain control and continue their exploitative practices unchallenged. They couldn’t afford to let the precedent stand: that ordinary people, armed with information and a bit of courage, could outplay them at their own game. According to insider gossip (courtesy of The Wall Street Journal), E*Trade is seriously mulling over whether to banish Roaring Kitty from its platform. The reason? Fears of stock manipulation, a crime so heinous it’s typically reserved for hedge fund titans and Wall Street wizards—not, God forbid, a retail trader who decided to fight fire with fire. Gill’s latest sin? Acquiring a boatload of GameStop options through E*Trade just in time to light another meme-stock bonfire this May. Over the past weekend, our fearless feline flaunted an E*Trade account screenshot, boldly displaying his $115.7 million in stock and freshly-minted options, with a tidy $6.86 million gain. Naturally, this sent the financial overlords into a tizzy. For those not in the loop, Roaring Kitty is no ordinary market dabbler. His rise to meme-stock messiah began back in 2019, when he started dropping YouTube videos extolling the virtues of a beleaguered retailer called GameStop. His enthusiasm wasn’t just infectious; it was revolutionary. Gill’s deep dives and straightforward charm won him a legion of followers, transforming him into the Pied Piper of retail investors. Gill’s journey from obscure YouTuber to market influencer isn’t just a personal triumph; it’s a seismic event in the financial world. With over a million followers on the social media platform X, his reach and impact are undeniable. He’s turned the tables on the financial elites, using their own tools against them, and in doing so, he’s exposed the deeply entrenched double standards of Wall Street. Gill’s influence is indisputable. After his recent posts, GameStop shares closed up 21% on Monday. To put it mildly, when Roaring Kitty talks, the market listens—much to the chagrin of those who’ve grown accustomed to rigging the game without any pesky interference from the plebeians. In the world of hedge funds, it’s common practice to broadcast stock picks, market forecasts, and trading strategies far and wide. Financial analysts and short sellers regularly release reports designed to move markets, their influence as tangible as the millions they stand to gain or lose. These reports, often framed as dispassionate analysis, are anything but. They are strategic weapons, crafted to benefit the positions of those who wield them. Consider this: when a hedge fund titan announces a significant stake in a company, it’s seen as a masterstroke, a signal for others to follow. The resulting influx of investment can send stock prices soaring, further enriching the initial investor. Conversely, when these moguls publicly declare their short positions, it triggers sell-offs, driving prices down and padding their pockets with the ensuing profits. The Double Standard Exposed The hypocrisy becomes glaring when comparing these maneuvers to the actions of someone like Keith Gill. Hedge funds using their influence to sway markets is accepted as savvy business; an individual investor doing the same is labeled as disruptive. Gill’s deep dives into GameStop and his subsequent promotion of the stock weren’t fundamentally different from what hedge funds do—except for one crucial difference: he was a lone wolf, a retail investor armed with knowledge and a platform. Gill’s rise to prominence wasn’t just about making money; it was a direct challenge to the established order. When GameStop shares surged due to his advocacy, it was a wake-up call to the financial elites. Here was someone outside their club, using their playbook, and winning. Naturally, the reaction was swift and fierce. E*Trade and its corporate overlord Morgan Stanley, champions of free market principles until they aren’t, began deliberating Gill’s fate on their platform, casting him as a potential manipulator. According to the WSJ, about three weeks ago, the bank initiated a review of Gill’s activities, suspicious of his influence over the meme-stock frenzy. On May 12, Gill posted a picture on his X account, reigniting interest in meme stocks. The next day, when many people were trying to get in on it, E*Trade’s system interestingly crashed. The WSJ report said the hours-long outage was caused by “internal issues.” Morgan Stanley’s scrutiny of Gill’s trades, particularly his purchase of call options before his influential tweet, is a classic example of the regulatory double standard. Gill’s options, set to expire this month, became lucrative as GameStop’s stock price surged post-tweet. This prompted E*Trade to investigate the legality of his actions and consider closing his E*Trade account. The irony? Hedge funds engage in similar, if not more egregious, market-swaying tactics regularly, yet face far less oversight. This disparity isn’t confined to finance. It mirrors the broader inequities in the digital world, where tech monopolies stifle smaller developers, social media giants decide who gets a platform, and legacy media, despite waning trust, reap the benefits of Big Tech partnerships. Examples of Institutional Influence Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman are names that resonate with power and influence. When Ackman publicly declared a short position against Herbalife, labeling it a pyramid scheme, the stock price didn’t just dip—it experienced a rollercoaster of volatility. Ackman’s high-profile bet and relentless campaign against Herbalife sent shockwaves through the market, illustrating the immense sway a single individual can have. Similarly, Carl Icahn’s investment moves are watched with bated breath. His decision to invest in companies like Apple and Netflix isn’t just a vote of confidence; it’s a clarion call to other investors. When Icahn makes a move, the market follows, often leading to swift and substantial increases in stock prices. His public recommendations can turn a struggling company’s fortunes around, at least temporarily, as investors rush to follow his lead. It’s not just the activists who hold sway. Analysts from major financial institutions possess a quieter, yet equally potent power. A single upgrade or downgrade from these analysts can lead to rapid buying or selling frenzies. These ratings are market-moving pronouncements that can lead to billions in market value shifts. When an analyst at a leading bank downgrades a stock, the resulting sell-off can be brutal and immediate. Conversely, an upgrade can spark a buying spree, driving stock prices up. These analysts and their institutions operate with a level of influence that dwarfs the impact of any single retail investor. Their assessments and ratings are treated as gospel by many market participants, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy as the masses react accordingly. Politics, Power, and Gain When news broke that E*Trade was contemplating banning Roaring Kitty, the hypocrisy was so thick you could cut it with a knife. It wasn’t long before observers pointed out the glaring double standard: while retail investors like Roaring Kitty face scrutiny and potential bans, politicians—who wield insider knowledge and influence over market-shifting legislation—continue trading unimpeded. The cozy relationship between politics and finance is yet another layer of the rigged game that everyday investors must navigate. Unlike typical investors, politicians sit at the intersection of legislative power and insider knowledge. This privileged position allows them to make trading decisions based on non-public information about upcoming regulations, legislative actions, and policy changes. It’s an advantage that skews the playing field, enabling them to execute trades that ordinary investors could only dream of. Take, for instance, the portfolio of Nancy Pelosi, which has been under the microscope for the timing of its trades in relation to legislative actions. Yet, these activities continue without the same level of scrutiny or regulatory backlash faced by someone like Roaring Kitty. The Rules The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulates market activities under several key regulations, notably the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which governs the trading of securities to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices. Yet, in the Wild West of Wall Street, these rules often seem like mere guidelines, especially for the institutional behemoths who play the game on their terms. Rule 10b-5: A Tale of Selective Enforcement Rule 10b-5 is supposed to be the market’s equalizer, banning any act or omission that results in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. It’s the cornerstone of legal actions against market manipulation, but its application is as consistent as a coin flip. For retail investors and smaller players, a misstep can mean severe penalties and legal repercussions. But for the institutional giants? It’s more like a friendly warning. Institutional investors have become adept at dancing on the line of Rule 10b-5. Practices like “short and distort” — where an investor shorts a stock and then spreads negative information to drive the price down — often skirt the boundaries of legality without clear consequences. Similarly, aggressive promotion of stocks they own, while borderline manipulative, rarely leads to significant repercussions. These maneuvers, while technically falling under the purview of Rule 10b-5, frequently escape the SEC’s hammer, illustrating a selective enforcement that disproportionately impacts the smaller, less powerful players. Regulation Fair Disclosure: Leveling the Field, In Theory Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) was introduced to bridge the information gap between institutional investors and individual investors, ensuring that all material information is disclosed to the public simultaneously. It was a noble effort to level the playing field, but in practice, it often tilts in favor of those with deeper pockets and better legal teams. Large investors and hedge funds, with their armies of lawyers and compliance officers, navigate Reg FD with the finesse of seasoned tightrope walkers. They exploit every nuance and loophole, maintaining their informational edge. Meanwhile, individual investors, without access to the same legal expertise and resources, are left to interpret these complex regulations on their own, often at their peril. Roaring Kitty saying that he likes GameStop and that he’s going to buy it doesn’t appear to breach any of these rules. Kitty would have to be lying or being deceitful – like saying he was supporting a public company by buying shares while secretly selling them – for it to reach into the category of Rule 10b-5. Traditional financial institutions and analysts reacted to the rise of influencer-driven investing with a mixture of skepticism and outright hostility. After all, these are the folks who gambled away billions in 2008 and were subsequently bailed out by taxpayers. Yet, they had the gall to claim that influencers like Gill lacked the necessary expertise and rigor. Their argument? Influencers could mislead gullible investors, inflate market bubbles, and encourage risky financial behaviors. This pearl-clutching is nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve their role as the gatekeepers of “responsible” investing. It’s a self-serving narrative that positions the old guard as the ultimate arbiters of financial wisdom, even as they repeatedly stumble over their own failures. Disparaging influencers serves to maintain the illusion that only Wall Street insiders are equipped to navigate the treacherous waters of finance, conveniently ignoring their own history of recklessness. Enter the mainstream media, the dutiful lapdogs of the financial establishment. While influencers can bypass traditional channels and communicate directly with the public, the media still wields considerable power in shaping public perception. And, unsurprisingly, the media has been all too willing to cast influencers like Gill as reckless dilettantes, undermining their credibility at every turn. This portrayal isn’t just about safeguarding the status quo; it reflects a broader societal discomfort with the democratization of influence. The internet has torn down many gates, allowing individuals to amass followings and wield power in unprecedented ways. But this shift threatens the centralized powers that have long controlled the narrative. Negative media portrayals of financial influencers are just the latest manifestation of this unease. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Hypocritical Move: E*Trade Reportedly Considers Shutting Down Roaring Kitty appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

South Dakota Counties Move Toward Counting Ballots by Hand

Dr. Alina Chan Makes the Case for a Lab Leak

In its Trump coverage Monday on ABC’s Good Morning America, the crew — led by co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos – was both annoyed with the very basic reality of politics being a team sport and also enthused at two polls suggesting a possible sea change in the election thanks to a jury in far-left Manhattan finding former President Trump guilty on all 34 counts brought by Soros-funded D.A. Alvin Bragg. Instead of reporting who said what over the weekend ABC had, political director Rick Klein explained a supposed change in polls for Biden. Yeah, good morning George. Like so much else in politics, this – this is deeply dividing the American people. 50 percent of Americans in our poll with Ipsos say that they think this is the right verdict. Only 27 percent saying they don't think it's the correct verdict, the right outcome. And almost half of the country thinks that Trump should actually end his campaign, based on just this. And it’s more striking if you just look at those who dislike President Biden and former President Trump. The so-called “double haters" who could be so critical in this election. Among those voters 65 percent think is the right verdict. And 67 percent, two-thirds, think that he should actually end his campaign. Of course, that's not going to happen. But those are big, big numbers among this very critical constituency.     Unlike CBS & NBC in covering the story, Stephanopoulos seemed baffled at those who were still in support of the former President, especially, “despite his status as a convicted felon.” It was no surprise that Donald Trump spoke out about Thursday’s verdict, yet the unification of many Republicans seemed to shock them. Politics, after all, is a team sport, and sticking with your side regardless of political scandal is something the left knows well. No amount of cheating scandals, sexual assault allegations, or an impeachment made the media leave the side of poor Bill Clinton. Why is it so upsetting then for Trump to be backed by his fellow Republicans? After the hundreds of minutes of the Trump Trial Coverage, having any number of Republicans remain with Trump seems unacceptable to the liberal press. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America 06/03/2023 08:05:31 AM ET [NEWS HEADLINE: New Fallout From Trump Conviction: Republicans Rally Around Defiant Former President After Historic Guilty Verdict] GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to turn to the political fallout from the historic guilty verdict in Donald Trump's criminal trial. Top Republicans lined up to back the former President despite his status as a convicted felon, as Trump continued to lash out at the judge and key witness Michael Cohen. Rachel Scott is tracking Trump. Good morning, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Hey George, good morning to you too. Yes, former President Trump is spending his time between now and his sentencing attacking the key witness in the case, going after the judge that will ultimately decide his punishment. And now demanding that the U.S. Supreme Court intervene. [Cuts to Video] SCOTT: This morning, the Republican Party is rallying around Donald Trump after the former President was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. DONALD TRUMP: We're gonna show them that -- oh, we're gonna fight. SCOTT: Trump defiant as he awaits sentencing saying he's okay with potentially being sentenced to house arrest or jail time. TRUMP [on FNC's Fox & Friends Saturday, 06/01/24]: I'm okay with it. I saw one of my lawyers the other day on television saying, “Oh no you don't want to do that to the Pre-”, I said no, you don't beg for anything. It's the way it is. SCOTT: The former President slamming the verdict as rigged, and going after the judge who will decide his fate, calling Judge Merchan a devil, even attacking the former fixer Michael Cohen, calling him a sleaze bag, a possible violation of the gag order still in place. The former President also struggled to say whether he would pursue revenge against his political enemies if re-elected, claiming “it's a tough question.” TRUMP [on FNC's Fox & Friends Saturday, 06/01/24]: My revenge will be success. And I mean that. But it's awfully hard when you see what they've done. SCOTT: President Biden slamming his rival and his GOP allies for attacking the justice system. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN [on 05/31/24]: It's reckless, it's dangerous, and it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.   SCOTT:  But Republicans are quickly coming to Trump's defense -- SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC) [on Fox News Sunday, 06/02/25]: This verdict has actually brought  – unifying our party. SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR) [on NBC's Meet the Press, 06/02/24]: Donald Trump has said his so-called retribution will be a success. SCOTT:  -- as his lawyers now prepare to appeal. WILL SCHARF [on ABC's This Week, 06/02/24]: We plan to vigorously defend President Trump's rights in the appellate courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. [Cuts to Live] SCOTT: Trump also suggested there could be a “breaking point” for the public, depending on the outcome of his sentencing. This morning, Democrats are calling that “a dangerous appeal to political violence and a reminder sentencing is set for July 11th”. That’s just four days befores the Republican National Convention, where the former President will officially accept the nomination. George.. STEPHANOPOULOS: And it’s not the first time he’s had that kind of appeal to violence. Okay Rachel, thanks very much. Let's bring in our political director Rick Klein. We have some initial indications in a new poll. [NEWS HEADLINE: Trump Conviction & the Presidential Race: New Polls Show What Voters Think of Historic Guilty Verdict] RICK KLEIN: Yeah, good morning George. Like so much else in politics, this – this is deeply dividing the American people. 50% of Americans in our poll with Ipos say that they think this is the right verdict. Only 27% saying they don't think it's the correct verdict, the right outcome. And almost half of the country thinks that Trump should actually end his campaign, based on just this. And it’s more striking if you just look at those who dislike President Biden and former President Trump. The so-called “double haters" who could be so critical in this election. Among those voters 65% think is the right verdict. And 67%, two-thirds, think that he should actually end his campaign. Of course, that's not going to happen. But those are big, big numbers among this very critical constituency. STEPHANOPOULOS: And those double haters are critical. So are independents. KLAIN: Yeah and there's another poll out, just over the weekend, from Reuters, that looked at this – the actual political fallout. And get this. This is a big number. Among the independents, 26% say they are now less likely to vote for Trump. That is a big, big chunk of the critical voters and among Republicans it's a smaller number, 11% but still, if you think about it one in ten Republicans saying they are less likely to vote for Donald Trump. That is a big chunk of voters. And the kind of losses you really can't afford in an election that's likely going to be this close going to be this close, George STEPHANOPOULOS: It's going be close. This is all going to happen in the margins. KLEIN: Exactly STEPHANOPOULOS: Rick Klein, thanks very much.  

Former President Donald Trump has joined TikTok, and the only video posted to his account has already amassed more than 72 million views.In the video, UFC president Dana White says, "The president is now on TikTok."Trump responds by saying that it is his "honor."'The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways.'The video, which features footage of Trump at a UFC event, has earned millions of likes and thousands of comments.Trump's TikTok account has already amassed 4.5 million followers, a figure that dwarfs the Biden-Harris HQ TikTok account, which has a bit more than 350,000 followers.Last week, Trump — the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee who is aiming to beat incumbent Democratic President Joe Biden during the election later this year — was found guilty on all counts in a New York criminal trial.A group of GOP senators has signed onto a pledge that says, "The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways. As a Senate Republican conference, we are unwilling to aid and abet this White House in its project to tear this country apart. To that end, we will not 1) allow any increase to non-security related funding for this administration, or any appropriations bill which funds partisan lawfare; 2) vote to confirm this administration's political and judicial appointees; and 3) allow expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people." — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!