New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) asked the judge in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case to impose a $370 million fine on the former president on Friday.
In Friday’s court filing ahead of closing remarks James accused Trump, his business, and several top executives — including his adult sons — of using “myriad deceptive schemes” to falsely inflate his net worth by billions.
“The conclusion that defendants intended to defraud when preparing and certifying Trump’s (statements of financial condition) is inescapable,” reads the state’s post-trial brief.
In addition to paying the $370 million penalty, James also asked the judge to issue a lifetime ban on the former president and two top executives from doing real estate business in New York.
In their post-trial brief, Trump’s counsel repeated claims they made at trial — that banks wanted to work with the Trump Organization, did their due diligence and found no fraud.
“Errors or misstatements happen all the time in accounting, if there are no indicia of fraud such as concealment, forgery, or deceit, then there is no basis to determine that these SFCs are fraudulent, and any misstatements are just accidental errors,” the defense brief states.
Trump’s adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, also defendants in the case, urged the judge to dismiss the case against them. They claimed the attorney general failed to show they had “anything more than a peripheral knowledge or involvement in the creation, preparation or use” of their father’s financial statements.
“The record evidence and testimony adduced at trial conclusively establishes that the SFCs were prepared, in their entirety, by others at the company working in conjunction with the company’s long time outside accountants,” their lawyer, Clifford Robert, wrote in their joint post-trial brief.
America’s leading manufacturer of firearms safes has been promised the “Bud Light Treatment” by social media users after the company posted to X – formerly Twitter- admitting that it allowed federal authorities to access a customer’s safe.
Payson, Utah-based gun safe manufacturer Liberty Safe issued a statement Tuesday evening noting that despite their actions, they were “committed to preserving customers’ rights, and remain unwavering in those values.”
Per Newsweek, the “safe belongs to Nathan Hughes, 34, of Arkansas, who has been charged with felony civil disorder and several misdemeanors in the January 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol. The company added that it was unaware of any details surrounding the case and that it has repeatedly denied requests for access codes when a warrant wasn’t present.”
Hughes appears to be friends with the Hodge Twins, a duo of conservative personalities who have a show on the network of conservative commentator Steven Crowder. The Hodge Twins shared a video earlier this week of the FBI raid on Hughes’ house.
This is really overkill by the FBI but you can read the complaint filed by the FBI to make your own determination https://t.co/hqwXzOeFTD
Political commentator Justin Hart called the raid by the FBI “overkill”, and encouraged X users to review the FBI complaint filed against Hughes late last month and draw their own conclusions.
Amid an onslaught of social media backlash, Liberty Safe also turned off comments on the post which acknowledged their actions in complying with federal law enforcement.
Still, that didn’t keep X users from memeing the company using the likes of Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney.
Other firearm safe manufacturers have also chimed in on the controversy, even though they have shied away from mentioning their competitors by name. Syracuse, New York-based manufacturer SecureIt Gun Storage noted in a release issued Wednesday afternoon that their safes are “not built with any override system.”
We firmly believe in our customers' right and freedom to control their personal property. pic.twitter.com/3UfdsvPTxN
Rep. Ilhan Omar may again face scrutiny from the Justice Department after Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday that federal authorities are examining allegations tied to the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration history.
Speaking during a White House press briefing while filling in for Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Vance was asked by Daily Caller White House correspondent Reagan Reese whether Omar could ultimately face an indictment.
“I don’t want to prejudge an investigation,” Vance said. “You read the things about Ilhan Omar, and about who she married, and whether she didn’t marry this person or that person. It certainly seems like something fishy is there. But everyone is entitled to equal justice under the laws.”
Vance added that the administration intends to review the matter and pursue legal action only if investigators determine a crime occurred.
“We’re going to investigate it, we’re going to take a look at it. If we think there’s a crime, we’re going to prosecute that crime, and that’s something that the Department of Justice is looking at right now,” he said.
The comments revive longstanding controversy surrounding Omar and allegations that she participated in an immigration-related scheme involving a former marriage. Omar has repeatedly denied those claims, and no public evidence has proven them.
According to reports cited by Fox News and The New York Times, the Justice Department under former President Joe Biden opened an investigation into Omar in 2024 that examined campaign expenditures, personal finances and alleged contacts with a non-U.S. citizen. However, individuals familiar with internal discussions reportedly said investigators did not uncover evidence warranting additional action, and the probe eventually stalled.
Vance had previously raised the issue publicly. During a March podcast appearance with conservative commentator Benny Johnson, he claimed he had discussed potential legal action involving Omar with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller. (RELATED: Vance Says Administration Reviewing Action Against Rep. Ilhan Omar)
“We think Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America,” Vance said at the time.
Omar, who was born in Somalia, came to the United States with her family after they were granted asylum in 1995 and became a naturalized citizen in 2000.
The allegations center on Omar’s past relationships and claims from critics that she legally married a man named Ahmed Elmi in 2009 as part of an immigration arrangement. Omar has denied allegations that Elmi was her brother and has repeatedly dismissed the accusations as false and politically motivated.
In December, Omar pushed back against renewed criticism on social media, calling the allegations “bigoted lies” and accusing former President Donald Trump of repeatedly targeting her.
“He needs serious help,” Omar wrote at the time. “Since he has no economic policies to tout, he’s resorting to regurgitating bigoted lies instead.”
Vance reiterated Tuesday that investigators would ultimately follow the evidence.
“If we think that there’s a crime, we’re going to prosecute that crime,” he said.
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.
As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:
On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.
Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.
Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”
The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.
Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:
“No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.
Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.
And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.
My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:
…no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.
Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.
Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
Former President Trump’s debate prep is going “great,” former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard informed Fox News.
“He knows the issues. He is very honed in on her [Kamala Harris’] record in reminding voters… ‘what have you done for the last three and a half years?’ You can paint this rosy picture about what you’re going to do, but we’re paying attention to what you’ve already done and how her policies have destroyed our economy, made us less safe, both here at home and abroad,” she told “FOX & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade.
The former president recruited Gabbard to help sharpen his skills ahead of the highly-anticipated Sept. 10 debate, where he is slated to face off against Vice President Kamala Harris at the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia.
Gabbard infamously tore into Harris during a 2019 Democratic primary debate for jailing hundreds of Californians for marijuana violations despite smoking the drug herself.
“She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” she said during the viral exchange.
So anyways, last time Tulsi Gabbard tried to go against VP Harris…here’s how it went: pic.twitter.com/YH3IST8tEb
High-profile rapper and clothing designer Kanye West has found himself in the spotlight yet again.
During a highly-anticipated interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, West harshly criticized former President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner alleging he only supported and pursued peace deals between Israel and several Arab states for his own personal profit.
“When I think about all of these things that Jared somehow doesn’t get enough credit for with his work — what is it his work? In Israel, what is this, in Palestine, you know where he made his peace treaties? do you know the facts on this right here?”
“I just think it was to make money,” West said.
West then reflected on a recent dinner he attended in Miami with Kushner, his wike Ivanka Trump and his brother Josh.
“After talking to them and really sitting with Jared and sitting with Josh and finding out other pieces of information, I was like, wow, these guys might have really been holding Trump back, being very much a handler,” West said. “They love to look at me or look at Trump like we are so crazy and they are the businessmen.”
“I think that’s what they are about is making money, I don’t think they have the ability to make anything on their own,” he continued. “I think they were born into money.”
West’s criticism of Kushner’s work in the Middle East follows similar allegations levied against the former Trump admin. senior adviser by The Wall Street Journal that he was motivated by “post-employment interests.”
Since leaving office Kushner launched a private equity firm, Affinity Partners, which landed a $2 billion investment from a Saudi Arabian wealth fund. The House Oversight Committee is investigating the investment.
President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
A 22-year-old Pennsylvania man is facing federal charges after allegedly making violent threats against President-elect Donald Trump just days before he was set to take office.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Jacob Buckley of Port Matilda posted several alarming threats on TikTok under the username “Jacob_buckley” on January 16. His posts included, “I’m going to kill Trump” and other comments targeting MAGA supporters.
He also wrote on the TikTok account, “I’m going to kill Trump,” and, “Bro we going into a literal oligarchy in 4 days and im going to kill Trump,” according to prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors confirmed that Buckley was charged by criminal information for threatening Trump as the incoming President. The investigation was led by the U.S. Secret Service.
“The maximum penalty upon conviction on the Information is 5 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, a fine, and the imposition of a special assessment,” the office added.
If convicted, Buckley could face up to five years in prison, along with fines and supervised release.
This case comes just weeks after another man—37-year-old Carl Montague of Rhode Island—was charged for allegedly threatening to kill Trump and members of his incoming administration on Truth Social. Montague’s posts included violent threats aimed at Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
From the session "The War at Home: Trump and the Mainstream Media". [Photo Credit: nrkbeta, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons]
What is Brian Stelter’s next move? That question has been circulating since the ex-“Reliable Sources” host got the axe from CNN’s new president.
On Twitter, Stelter announced he’s moving his talents to academia. Stelter will join Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy as a Walter Shorenstein media and democracy fellow and “convene a series of discussions about threats to democracy and the range of potential responses from the news media.”
Personal news: I'm joining the @ShorensteinCtr at Harvard Kennedy School. This fall I'll be the Walter Shorenstein Media and Democracy Fellow, convening discussions, some of which will be live-streamed. Grateful to @nancygibbs and her team for the home! https://t.co/cOD0SyeuwE
The 37-year-old former CNN host seemingly fell victim to a major shake-up at the network following parent company WarnerMedia’s recent merger with Discovery. Since taking the reins as CEO to replace Stelter ally Jeff Zucker, Chris Licht has reportedly embarked on a crusade to reorient the company in a less partisan direction.
Star anchors and reporters have seemingly been ousted amid the internal shuffling, including former chief legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin and White House correspondent John Harwood. As Licht tries to steer the company in a new direction, CNN has been dogged by sagging profit projections amid a ratings slump.
“Brian Stelter is a nationally recognized media reporter and expert on the state of journalism and its wide-reaching implications for society and governance,” the institution said in a press release.
Is FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino circling the drain? His former Fox News colleague says so.
On Sunday, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson essentially hosted a funeral for Bongino’s career and credibility after the former Fox contributor reportedly threatened to resign over Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
On Culture Apothecary, host Alex Clark asked Carlson to weigh in on the feud.
“Well, as we’re recording this, Dan Bongino is threatening to resign if Pam Bondi does not resign as AG. What does that tell us, in your opinion?” she inquired.
“Well, it tells us that Dan Bongino got shafted, completely shafted. And I’m saying this as a friend of his, and someone who respects and likes him, but also just as an observer, I’m an informed observer of it,” replied Carlson. “So Pam Bondi, who’s, by the way, I don’t hate Pam Bondi, she’s a totally nice person. If he was here, you would enjoy-, I don’t know if you know her, but she’s a very nice person. I’m not against Pam Bondi in the slightest. But the fact is she got on television on Fox News and started saying stuff like, ‘I’ve got the client list on my desk!’ And actually, no, you don’t. And, ‘I’ve got thousands of videos of Epstein having sex with kids.’ Well, actually, no, you don’t. Most of the material was commercial porn taken off his computer. Like, that’s just not true. Why did she say that? Probably because she’s insecure and she’s trying to please the audience, I would expect.”
“Do you think Dan is upset because his integrity is being questioned now over her mistake?” followed up Clark.
“Of course! Oh my gosh! So you’re Dan, and you’re a media figure, and you’ve got one of the biggest podcasts in the country, and you’re making tons of money, and you’re having a great time — which he was. You just built this brand new studio in Florida, you work with your wife who you really like, which he does, and you get the call saying, ‘You be deputy FBI director,’ and you’re like, ‘I love Donald Trump, I love this country. I will cut my pay into a 10th of what it was, and I will leave my house and move to D.C.,’ which is a kind of prison sentence itself,” answered Carlson. “‘And I will do this because I love the president, I love the country,’ and you’re there a few months, and all of a sudden everybody thinks you’re covering up Epstein’s crimes, and it kind of wrecks Dan’s career. Like he can’t go back-, it’s gonna be very hard at this point, I mean, things may change, but as of today, pretty hard for Dan to go back to his podcast audience and be like, ‘I’m telling you the truth,’ when they all think that he’s covering up for Epstein.”
“Who did that? Pam Bondi did that,” he added, before going on to say he “feel[s]” for Bongino.
The Justice Department last week released a memo concluding there was no evidence suggesting the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender kept a “client list” to blackmail high-profile individuals. The memo also found no evidence to suggest foul play in Epstein’s death, which had previously been ruled a suicide.
The memo spurred fierce backlash from many Trump supporters, who had long called on the government to release material on Epstein that they argue would expose wrongdoing at the highest level of elite circles.
Dan Bongino, the Deputy Director of the FBI, reportedly threatened to leave the bureau if Attorney General Pam Bondi remains on the job due to her handling of the Epstein files, a source close to Bongino told The Daily Wire.
One source close to Bongino predicted to Axios, “He ain’t coming back.”
CNN reports that Trump — who has been desperate to move past the Epstein story — was furious at Bongino, as well as FBI Director Kash Patel. Vice President JD Vance reportedly tried to hammer out a peace between the administration’s top Justice Department officials. But CNN reports that Bongino is still very much hanging by a thread.
“It remains to be seen if Bongino ultimately resigns, which he told others he was considering,” the CNN report stated. “But sources say his relationship with the White House has become basically untenable. Even if he does not quit now, some inside the administration believe he will not stay in the job long-term.”
However, President Donald Trump said on Sunday he believes FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is “in good shape” following a reported clash with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“I spoke to him today,” Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews. “Dan Bongino, very good guy. I’ve known him a long time. I’ve done his show many, many times. And he sounded terrific actually. No, I think he’s in good shape.”
Watch: Discussion of the Epstein files begins around 14:14 in the video.
