Random

    News

    Home News

    SEC Charges Trump Media Auditor With ‘Massive Fraud’

    By
    admin
    -
    1
    Arrest image via Pixabay

    The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged the auditor of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. with “massive fraud.”

    Former President Donald Trump owns the majority of the American media and technology company.

    The accounting firm BF Borgers CPA and its owner, Benjamin Borgers, have been permanently banned from practicing as accountants and have been fined $14 million.

    Trump Media, which owns Truth Social, saw a 9% drop in stock price since trading began Friday, according to CNBC:

    The agency accused BF Borgers and its owner of “deliberate and systemic failures to comply with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) standards in its audits and reviews incorporated in more than 1,500 SEC filings from January 2021 through June 2023,” according to a press release.

    The respondents also were charged with falsely telling clients that the auditor’s work would comply with PCAOB standards, with fabricating audit documents to make it seem that the work did comply with those standards, and “falsely stating in audit reports included in more than 500 public company SEC filings that the firm’s audits complied with PCAOB standards,” the release said.

    “Ben Borgers and his audit firm, BF Borgers, were responsible for one of the largest wholesale failures by gatekeepers in our financial markets,” SEC Enforcement Division Director Gurbir Grewal said in a statement.

    …

    A spokeswoman for Trump Media did not immediately respond to comment on the SEC complaint.

    According to the government agency’s announcement, the fraud has affected over 1,500 SEC filings.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.

    Trump Motions To Dismiss Classified Docs Case

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Marine One lifts-off after returning President Donald J. Trump to Mar-a-Lago Friday, March 29, 2019, following his visit to the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike near Canal Point, Fla., that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. The visit was part of an infrastructure inspection of the dike, which is part of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee Everglades system, and reduces impacts of flooding for areas of south Florida. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian) [Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

    On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the classified documents case.

    Trump’s lawyers asserted that prosecutors in the classified documents case violated his constitutional rights on several occasions, including the “unconstitutional” raid on Mar-a-Lago.

    In their filing on the raid, Trump’s attorneys argued the warrant, which they said was “executed in an egregious fashion and in bad faith,” lacked “the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment.”

    The warrant did not establish a basis for “rummaging through the majority” of the rooms at Mar-a-Lago, including “the private bedrooms of the First Lady and President Trump’s youngest son,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. They asked that evidence gathered from the raid, along with through a “subsequent unlawful violation of President Trump’s attorney-client privilege,” be suppressed.

    “What was unthinkable with respect to President Clinton’s recordings, and deemed unwarranted with respect to Hillary Clinton’s destruction of evidence, was determined to be appropriate by the Biden Administration for President Biden’s chief political rival,” his attorneys wrote. “Personally authorized by Attorney General Garland, and supported over FBI objections by DOJ leadership who did not ‘give a damn about the optics’ of these unprecedented steps, the raid of Mar-a-Lago was unconstitutional.”

    In the other motion to dismiss, Trump’s attorneys argued that “NARA, the Biden Administration, and DOJ ‘collude[d] in bad faith’ to deprive President Trump of his constitutional rights by using civil authorities to collect evidence for use in a criminal prosecution.”

    “Politically biased NARA officials violated the agency’s regulations, and broke custom and practice dating back to the enactment of the [Presidential Records Act], by colluding with the Biden Administration to initiate a criminal investigation of President Trump rather than simply collecting the records that President Trump had designated as Presidential Record,” they wrote.

    “As a result of this misconduct, under the guise of NARA’s civil and administrative authorities, the prosecution team collected evidence—including the 15 Boxes and statements by President Trump’s PRA representatives—that they used to further the criminal investigation in an unfairly prejudicial and unlawful fashion,” Trump’s attorneys continued.

    The government wrote in response to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago filing that it “adopted a measured, graduated approach” since the start of the case. Prosecutors also argued that Trump’s “bad-faith collusion” narrative is “baseless.”

    Poll Shows New Trump Advantage In New Hampshire

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    More good news for Trump…

    A new poll conducted by St. Anselm College in New Hampshire indicates Biden’s poor debate performance is resonating with voters.

    According to the poll, Trump now holds a two-point lead (44%-42%) over Biden. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is mounting an independent bid for the presidency after initially running in the Democratic primary, earned the support of just 4% of voters.

    Neil Levesque, the director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm, declared that the poll shows “that New Hampshire is really a competitive state in the presidential election.”

    “Events like a presidential debate like we saw last week are pivot points in politics, and at this point, with the amount of change we’ve seen with the presidential contest, certainly the debate had an effect,” he added.

    Among voters who were aware of the debate, 54% said Trump won, while just 6% said Biden won and 39% said there was no winner. The poll showed that 81% of those who watched the debate said it won’t affect their vote in November, so the trend might have started before the end of last week.

    “I think people are very partisan,” Levesque said. “So, they’re in their camps and they say, ‘Well, I watched the debate, but it doesn’t affect how I’m going to vote.’ But certainly, events like a presidential debate like we saw last week are pivot points in politics, and at this point, with the amount of change we’ve seen with the presidential contest, certainly the debate had an effect.”

    Appeals Court Blocks Trump Firings, Setting Stage For Supreme Court Showdown Over Executive Power

    By
    admin
    -
    0
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    In a major reversal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 7–4 to block the Trump administration from removing two Democratic appointees from federal labor boards. The ruling puts Gwynne Wilcox back on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris back on the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

    Both Biden appointees were previously ousted by President Trump, who argued that restructuring federal agencies gave him the authority to fire appointees at will. A three-judge panel with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals initially backed that move. But the full court disagreed.

    In its Monday ruling, the court said the firings broke the law—specifically, legal protections that say members of independent agencies like the NLRB and MSPB can only be removed for cause, such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The majority leaned on long-standing Supreme Court precedent to support their stance.

    The dissenting judges argued that courts shouldn’t have the power to reinstate executive officers.

    AgnosticPreachersKid, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    With Wilcox and Harris back in place, both boards now have quorum and can resume their functions in overseeing employee grievances and labor disputes.

    The highly unusual ruling takes direct aim at one of the Trump administration’s core legal claims: that the president can fire appointees at will, even in independent agencies.

    Politico‘s Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney have additional details on the fallout and what to expect next:

    It’s a whiplash-inducing turn for the two officials, fired by Trump in the first days of his term. Judges on the federal district court bench in Washington reinstated both of them, harshly scolding Trump for ignoring the laws meant to protect the officials from removal without misconduct or other improper behavior.

    But last month, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit blocked those orders from taking effect, ruling 2-1 that the laws improperly restricted the president’s ability to manage the executive branch. Monday’s ruling, in turn, withdraws that order and allows the officials to return to their posts.

    In the unsigned order Monday, the appeals court’s majority pointed to Supreme Court decisions from the 1930s and 1950s in which the justices “unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards.” While more recent rulings from the high court have undermined the rationale of those decisions, the justices have never flatly reversed them.

    Legal analysts expect the case to head to the Supreme Court. If it does, it could become a defining case on the limits of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.

    House Holds Second House Speaker Vote

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    27
    Jim Jordan via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    On Tuesday, the 118th Congress held its second vote to determine who will serve as the next House Speaker.

    The day’s second vote also ended in a stalemate after Kevin McCarthy once again fell short of securing 218 votes to become Speaker.

    19 hardline Republicans voted for Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, and Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries received 213 votes.

    McCarthy received 203 votes during the second round of voting. The California Republican received 203 votes during the first round of voting

    Rep. Jordan has yet to publicly comment on his nomination for Speaker. There is no historical precedent for a nominee to withdraw.

    During the first round of voting Rep. Jordan nominated Rep. McCarthy for Speaker.

    Jordan acknowledged that he and McCarthy “haven’t always agreed on everything,” but he said, “I like his fight. I like his tenacity.”

    “We need to rally around him,” Jordan said as he outlined the priorities for the 118th Congress. Those priorities include passing bills that “fix the problems” related to immigration, energy policy, education policy and inflation; prevent massive spending packages from getting through; and conducting oversight and investigations.

    “That’s what the American people want us to do. They want us to fight for the things they care about, and they elected us to do,” Jordan said. “We should all remember — only about 12,000 people have ever had the opportunity to do what we’re doing today — sit in this body, serve in this Congress.”

    He added: “It is a privilege. It is an opportunity. We owe it to them, the American people, the good people of this great country to step forward, to come together, get a speaker elected so we can address these three things.”

    Moments later Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) nominated Jordan, the expected

    As Great America News Desk previously reported:

    Kevin McCarthy, R- Calif., Andy Biggs D- Ariz., and Hakeen Jeffries D- N.Y. were nominated for the position but ultimately the vote ended in a stalemate as the California Republican failed to reach the 218 vote threshold. No nominee reached the required number of votes meaning House lawmakers now will engage in round after round of voting until a Speaker is elected.

    According to The Hill, in the event of multiple ballots, the House will not necessarily continue late into the night. The last time there were multiple ballots, the House adjourned until the following day after four failed ballots. Adjourning also allows members time to negotiate and strike deals.

    Dire circumstances could lead to unusual procedures. Twice before, in 1849 and 1856, the House agreed to a resolution that allowed a Speaker to be elected by a plurality. That move was something of a last resort, though, and came after 59 and 129 failed ballots. A majority of the whole House would need to agree to that resolution.

    McCarthy’s failure to secure the Speaker’s gavel during Tuesday’s vote marks the first time in a century the U.S. House of Representatives has gone to multiple votes for the office.

    Trump Responds to Brittney Griner’s Release

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Former President Donald Trump reacted to news the U.S. has agreed to release Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, commonly known as “the merchant of death.”

    In a message published to TRUTh Social, Trump called the prisoner swap terms “unpatriotic,” noting U.S. Marine Paul Whelan still remains wrongfully detained.

    “What kind of a deal is it to swap Brittney Griner, a basketball player who openly hates our Country, for the man known as “The Merchant of Death,” who is one of the biggest arms dealers anywhere in the World, and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries. Why wasn’t former Marine Paul Whelan included in this totally one-sided transaction? He would have been let out for the asking. What a “stupid” and unpatriotic embarrassment for the USA!!!!” Trump wrote.

    Federal Judge Grants Trump’s Special Master Request, Rejects DOJ’s Demands

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image

    Thursday evening, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon officially appointed a special master to review the thousands of pages of materials seized by the FBI during its August raid of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

    Judge Cannon also rejected the Justice Department’s demand she permits federal investigators continue their own probe into the records marked classified, according to POLITICO. In her ruling, Cannon rejected the DOJ’s claims that records they are trying to review as part of an ongoing criminal investigation remain highly classified or contain extraordinarily sensitive defense information that could damage national security if released.

    “The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” Cannon, a Trump appointee, wrote in her 10-page ruling denying the Justice Department’s request to essentially exclude about 100 documents marked classified from the special master process.

    Judge Cannon selected Raymond Dearie a former federal judge in New York, to lead the independent investigation. Earlier this week, Trump’s legal team named Dearie as one of its proposed judges to oversee the case. In a separate filing, the Justice Department also named Dearie as one of its pre-approved candidates. (Related: DOJ Signals Support for Trump-selected Special Master Candidate)

    Dearie is a former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York who also served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He was also among the FISA judges who signed an order approving electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump aide, as part of the FBI’s investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

    Dearie accepted the role in a signed filing Thursday night.

    gov.uscourts.flsd_.618763.90.0Download

    Judge Cannon pressed him to complete the review by Nov. 30th, over a month after the Oct. 17 deadline the Justice Department had most recently asked Cannon to set. Cannon also requested the special master “prioritize review of the approximately 100 documents marked as classified (and papers physically attached thereto).”

    However, the Justice Department was able to secure two wins over the former president. In Judge Cannon’s ruling, she ordered Trump to shoulder the full cost of Dearie’s review, as well as that for any staff or associates he hires.

    The judge also offered clarification on how the DOJ might continue its criminal investigation while the documents are reviewed by the special master, such as “questioning witnesses and obtaining other information about the movement and storage of seized materials, including documents marked as classified, without discussion of their contents.”

    “The Government’s submissions, read collectively, do not firmly maintain that the described processes are inextricably intertwined, and instead rely heavily on hypothetical scenarios and generalized explanations that do not establish irreparable injury,” she wrote.

    “There has been no actual suggestion by the Government of any identifiable emergency or imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property,” Cannon wrote. “Instead, and unfortunately, the unwarranted disclosures that float in the background have been leaks to the media after the underlying seizure.”

    ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Heads To Supreme Court

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) violated the First Amendment when it refused the registration of a political slogan on T-shirts that criticizes former President Donald Trump without his consent.

    California-based attorney Steve Elster’s bid to make “Trump too small” a registered trademark for use on shirts he sells mocking the former president has become the latest in a series of Supreme Court clashes that pit trademark law against the First Amendment.

    In 2017, Elster wanted to get the phrase “Trump Too Small” printed on T-shirts but when he sought to trademark the slogan, he was denied by the PTO, and the Trademark and Trial Appeal Board upheld the decision because the phrase identified Trump without his consent. 

    The phrase originated from an exchange on the 2016 debate stage between Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) The Florida senator made a crude joke in reference to the size of the former president’s hands. 

    Watch the infamous moment that started it all:

    The decision was reversed by a federal circuit court, noting that Elster’s trademark goes to “the heart of the First Amendment,” and held that the government has no plausible “interest in restricting speech critical of government officials or public figures in the trademark context.”

    The Justice Department arguing on behalf of Katherine Vidal, under secretary of commerce for intellectual property, eventually appealed the case up to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Lanham Act, which is a federal statute aimed at protecting intellectual property in trademark designations, gives the PTO constitutional authority to block Elster’s trademark request, according to Fox News.

    “When registration is refused because a mark ‘[c]onsists of or comprises a name…identifying a particular living individual’ without ‘his written consent,’ ‘[n]o speech is being restricted; no one is being punished,’” the DOJ’s petition to the high court says.


    Fara Sunderji, partner at international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, says, “Despite outward appearances, this case is really not about Trump or the size of his policies or (body parts).”

    “Will this decision restrict speech — namely political criticism in a time where the country is so divided as the 2024 candidates are starting up their engines? The trademark applicant, Mr. Elster, would have us believe that, yes, that is what is at stake,” says Sunderji.

    “So, what is the potential outcome? If the Court upholds the Federal Circuit’s opinion, will the USPTO be inundated with trademark applications for every political phrase containing a candidate’s name in the 2024 election? Probably not. Will daily life be flooded with t-shirts containing slogans with all the 2024 candidates’ names by unrelated third parties? I hope not,” concludes Sunderji.

    Trump-selected Special Master Candidate Gets Unexpected Response From DOJ

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    In a late Monday court filing, the Department of Justice said it would accept one of former President Trump’s proposed judges to be appointed special master to review the records seized during the FBI’s August raid of Mar-a-Lago.

    The DOJ wrote in its court filing that it believes Raymond J. Dearie, a former federal judge in New York is well qualified for the position. The DOJ also made two recommendations for the high-profile appointment, retired federal judges Barbara S. Jones and Thomas B. Griffith.

    The Wall Street Journal reports:

    “Judges Jones, Griffith, and Dearie each have substantial judicial experience, during which they have presided over federal criminal and civil cases, including federal cases involving national security and privilege concerns,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.

    Despite there being a rare agreement between Trump’s team and the DOJ it’s unclear if Judge Cannon will listen to the two parties’ request.

    Dearie is a former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York who also served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He was also among the FISA judges who signed an order approving electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump aide, as part of the FBI’s investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

    Trump’s team also recommended Paul Huck Jr., who served as general counsel to former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. However, the Justice Department opposed Mr. Huck because he doesn’t have similar experience to the other candidates.

    The DOJ also proposed Barbara Jones, who is a retired federal judge from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. She served as the special master who reviewed materials seized from Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen. The retired judge once again served as special master when then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s New York office and home were raided.

    The Justice Department’s other candidate, Thomas Griffith, is a retired judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed by former President George W. Bush. He most recently served on President Biden’s commission to study changes to the Supreme Court bench.

    In a Monday court filing, Trump’s legal team noted it does not trust the DOJ to accurately represent what was recovered in the classified documents.

    “The Government has not proven these records remain classified. That issue is to be determined later,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote in a Monday morning filing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

    “In opposing any neutral review of the seized materials, the Government seeks to block a reasonable first step toward restoring order from chaos and increasing public confidence in the integrity of the process,” the Trump legal team said, adding that the issue “at its core is a document storage dispute.’’

    In a separate filing Monday afternoon, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said they oppose the two Justice Department candidates for the special master role, and asked to explain their reasoning privately before the court to be “more respectful to the candidates.” The filing said only that they believe “there are specific reasons why those nominees are not preferred for service as Special Master in this case.”

    Judge Cannon granted Trump’s request for a special master last Monday, issuing a stay on the DOJ’s investigation of the seized materials. In response, the DOJ filed a motion for an appeal to continue its review of Trump’s handling of presidential documents and classified materials.

    Trump’s legal team responded and accused the DOJ of seeking to “limit the scope of any review of its investigative conduct and presuppose the outcome, at least in regard to what it deems are ‘classified records.’”

    “This investigation of the 45th President of the United States is both unprecedented and misguided,” Trump’s lawyers said in the filing. “In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control, the Government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th President of his own Presidential and personal records.”

    “The Government should therefore not be permitted to skip the process and proceed straight to a preordained conclusion,” they wrote.

    Judge Cannon has not revealed when a final decision will be announced in regard to the special master appointment or if she will seriously consider any of the candidates proposed by Trump or the Justice Department.

    Fani Willis’ Fmr. Assistant Drops Courtroom Bombshell

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ longtime assistant and “good friend” testified today that she has “no doubt” the besieged Democrat began her extramarital affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade in 2019. The testimony contradicts Willis’ sworn statements to the court.

    The testimony from Robin Yeartie came at a hearing concerning accusations that Willis hired her lover to secure a grand jury indictment against Donald Trump and misused taxpayer money to fund her affair with Wade. The testimony came before the judge overseeing the Georgia election subversion case.

    From Fox News:

    Robin Yeartie, a former Fulton County DA employee and self-described “good friend” of Willis, said Thursday she has “no doubt” Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship starting in 2019 to when her and Willis last spoke in 2022. 

    This contradicts Wills’ claims in court that she and Wade “have been professional associates and friends since 2019,” and “there was no personal relationship” between her and Wade in November 2021 at the time of Wade’s appointment.

    “You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her?” attorney Ashleigh Merchant questioned. 

    “No doubt,” Yeartie said.

    The accusations against Willis were first made by Michael Roman, a co-defendant and 2020 Trump campaign official, in a court motion to dismiss the case.

    This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

    123...117Page 1 of 117
    © Great America News Desk 2022